Canadian Political Viewpoints

Much Over Due

2012-01-27T03:00:00.000-06:00

Source: CBC News: Layoffs at Sask. Human Rights Commission

I know, there's been some things to talk about...and I've been dark on the blog. Some life changes at the moment, which have kept me pretty busy; but I shall try to keep the blog as updated as possible.

Firstly, let's talk about the layoffs at the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC). Six people from the staff were given their walking papers today, although two were confirmed to have been retiring soon, I'm sure the other layoffs came as a surprise.

Now, the nature of the positions lost have yet to be released. Furthermore, the information on who made the decision as also yet to be released, and the reason for the layoffs have also been withheld for now. As such, we do not know whether the six were let go for misconduct or for 'good reason' or rather this was simply the SHRC clearing house.

What we do know is this: Years ago, back in the first term of the Wall Government, an announcement came out that the government was contemplating moving some of the cases away from the SHRC and moving them into the regular justice system. For example, you can read up on that from a blog post which can be found here: LINK.

At the time, Wall wanted to dismantle SHRC tribunals and move the cases and complaints into the public justice system. At the time, I countered this idea with the reminder that our current justice system is bogged down and brings justice to a crawl. Moving a human rights complaint into the public justice system is going to do two things:

1.) It will ensure that human rights complaints take years to be seen by a judge
2.) It will ensure that claimants are forced to spend more money on legal fees to keep the case alive while waiting for it to be heard before the bench.

Essentially, as I argued before, a move to the public justice system will destroy these human right cases. These tribunals may take time as well, but as they are set up to hear only these types of cases, they can at least move the cases more quickly than the justice system could.

So, we must ask ourselves...Are these layoffs the first salvo of the Wall Government dismantling the SHRC completely? It is entirely possible...Until we hear otherwise, we must assume that these layoffs come from the government benches.

And then we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of dismantling the SHRC?

Well, the marriage commission argument comes back to mind. The Wall Government was quick to defend marriage commissioners who wanted to deny their services to same-sex couples, and even asked the courts to make a ruling on some of their solutions. When those were turned down, Wall's government mused different ideas (such as establishing a tiered commissioner list, one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals.)

Surely, the SHRC would be kept busy by same-sex couples arguing their human rights were being violated by such a system...

And we all know the standard conservative, or 'right of centre', practice is to destroy opposition rather than deal with it reasonably. So, is this the opening of the government getting ready to silence any voices of dissent that will come from future legislative policy?

Possibly, but for now, it's still a cloudy issue. I'd suggest that it is certainly possible, but until we know more about the situation, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that we need to keep our eyes open and make sure that human rights are being respected in this province; otherwise, we all may wake up one day and find ourselves missing some liberties we had the night before.

Now, let's talk a bit about some federal issues. In the recent weeks, news has come out about some questionable bureaucratic choices in Ottawa. A department that was created to oversee Employment Insurance spent millions of dollars without achieving anything (though, the news also suggests that the Harper Government tied the hands of the department so much that they couldn't do anything).

And today, news of another department or rather a secretariat spending millions of dollars also came to light. Now, the one thing these have in common (other than wasting taxpayer dollars and achieving no results) was that they were both set up directly by the Harper Government. They did not exist prior to Harper coming to power.

As such, these are questionable spending choices that are clearly the decisions of the Harper Government. There's no attempting to pass the blame to former governments; this is a decision that comes completely from the Conservatives.

Now, if this news broke under a Liberal Government...Well, there would be a rally cry throughout the country to throw the bums out. As the Sponsorship Scandal proved, we don't like when governments misuse the public purse.

So, why is the rage absent?

Is it because, as far as we can see, the people benefiting from the spending are not directly Conservative party lackies?

Or is the rage absent because the government can pass the blame onto the bureaucracy? Despite Harper setting up these departments, and in the EI department case basically tying their hands and preventing them from doing their job, can the government really succeed in ducking from the fire on this one because people will perceive it as a waste in the bureaucracy rather than the government?

Unfortunately, that might very well be the case.

However, there is one item in the federal sphere that could cause a scandal to finally stick against the Conservatives. And that's the slowly building case that Tony Clement was personally involved in deciding what projects in his own riding would receive $50 million worth of federal funding during the G-8 summit. Clement has denied his involvement; then backtracked and denied being involved in the selection process.

So, keeping in mind the Sponsorship Scandal and the misdirected funds that were spent there...Clement is accused of being involved in an appropriation of funds that completely overshadows the Sponsorship Scandal in spending and level.

But of course, the government still refuses to take any action against Clement. And Clement continues to suggest his innocence and denies his involvement. However this turns out, it will be interesting to see the impact this has on both Clement and the Conservatives as time marches on.

Wait, I've Changed My Mind...

2012-01-10T17:30:00.001-06:00

Source: CTV News: Floor-Crossing MP Slammed for 'Blatant Lack of Respect'
Source: CTV News: Sask. Premier Wants Federal Cash for Health Innovation

One Federal, One Provincial story to talk about today. Let's start with the one that is garnering more news buzz, though.

I woke up today to discover that Quebec NDP MP Lise St-Denis had decided to cross the floor and join the Liberal Party of Canada. Now, since then I've seen various thoughts and musing on the subject. The traditional "She should step down and run as a Liberal in a by-election" comments have been thrown about. Surprisingly, another argument about the legitimacy of floor crossing has branched into the legitimacy of coalitions too.

Oh, internet.

So, let's first talk about why St-Denis crossed the floor...And it seems the punchline was indeed to get to the other side. Despite a press conference, no one seems to really know the reasons for the defection. She mentioned how Quebecois voted for Jack Layton, and with him no longer leading the party, she felt the need to left. I cleaned that up a little, since her version was what I'd call a bit blunt and disrespectful.

She also went on to talk about how she's watched the Liberal caucus work and admired the way they did so. So, a few blanket clauses and statements. What was truly confusing was her need to ensure people that her 'politics haven't changed'. Essentially, that rules out the idea that she was unhappy with a policy the NDP was working towards...Or something that the party stood for.

If it wasn't policy related, why did she leave?

In most cases, you would look to the leader for that question. But Nycole Turmel's tenure in the post is quickly coming to a close; and no front-runner in the leadership race has garnered enough support to be declared the 'heir apparent'...So, it is unlikely that leadership played a role in her decision.

The general consensus is this: St-Denis made the decision to cross the floor for personal, not political reasons. Furthermore, there is the argument that she never expected to be elected as a NDP candidate in Quebec. And that when she did a certain level of cognitive dissonance caused her to re-examine her positions and found her membership in the NDP lacking.

People are also suggesting that this could be something as a flashpoint for the NDP. St-Denis' crossing is raising the question as to whether fellow Quebec MPs, who found themselves surprisingly elected, might re-examine their own positions and find crossing the floor appealing. Some are saying that this is just the first of many floor crossings from the NDP Quebec caucus...While others are reassuring that this will be the only one we see.

I can't speak to that point; but I can speak to another, if compelling reason, for the floor crossing.

Over New Years, a friend and I were discussing the future of the NDP in Quebec. Essentially, we came to this conclusion: A number of the elected Quebec NDP MPs are not going to win their nomination contests before the next election.

NDP MPs in Quebec took a lot of flack for being inexperienced, and in some cases not visiting their riding prior to the election. This is a due to a strategy a lot of parties use in ridings they don't expect to win: They simply take whoever steps forward and use them as a name on the ballot. So, it was rather surprisingly when a lot of those 'names' became MPs.

But this also sets an interesting precedence. The NDP is now in play in Quebec, and that means there's going to be a lot more interest in running as a candidate for the NDP in the next election within the province. As such, a lot of these 'name' MPs are going to find themselves in nomination battles against potentially stronger candidates and many of them are going to lose out.

Whether or not these stronger candidates will be elected remains to be seen, but I think it's a safe bet to assume that after this sitting of Parliament we will not see some of these Quebec MPs again after the next election.

So, was this something that St-Denis concluded as well?

The Liberals are known for their top-down control over nomination contests, and despite some talk about changing it, it remains to be seen whether or not the Liberals will remove such controls before the next election. So, perhaps St-Denis saw a switch to the Liberals as the only chance to secure her nomination as a candidate in the next federal election?

The problem with this theory, however, is that it suggests that we will see quite a few defections from the NDP to other parties in the years before the next election. After all, if all the 'name' candidates come to the realization that they will not win a nomination contest, they're either going to jump ship to parties that can guarantee their nomination OR take one for the team and quietly bow out of public life for the time being.

As for St-Denis, this was a way to generate buzz about an MP who didn't expect to get elected, managed to win, and is likely on the way out (either due to a nomination battle or a change in electorate support) in the next election. So, perhaps the reason for her floor crossing was as simple as vanity. Who knows, only she does for sure.

Which brings me to the next part I want to talk about, now that we've gotten my theory for the crossing out of the way. Since people have crossed the floor, there has been a demand to make them accountable to the riding which elected them. Simply put, people are demanding that St-Denis step down as a MP and run in a by-election as a Liberal.

We've seen this before; perhaps most famously when David Emerson jumped from the Liberals to the Conservatives in BC (Emerson, of course, was tossed out in the next federal election). And that brings us to an interesting question, should MPs who cross the floor have to face the electorate in a by-election to maintain their seat?

There are a lot of supporters for this argument, there's also some detractors. I happen to be in favour of it and I will attempt to explain why. Let's look at some of the arguments and counter-arguments for having flor-crossing MPs face a by-election.

1.) Argument: Making MPs face a by-election gives too much power to party leaders and restricts an MPs ability to represent their riding.

Counter-Argument: MPs were elected under a certain party banner to represent their riding. Furthermore, the fact that they were nominated as their party's candidate suggests that that person was considered the strongest candidate for that party. Party leaders already have too much power, as they can lure MPs over to their side through the promise of cabinet positions, shadow cabinet positions, and other perks that they are not currently receiving.

Having a by-election is tantamount to a referendum on the MPs decision to cross the floor; and thus, more representative of what the people of the riding want. In Canada, some ridings are dominated by PARTIES over CANDIDATES. As such, people for a PARTY not a CANDIDATE. It wouldn't matter if the candidate was a cardboard cut out, so long as they identified with the correct party they would win the election.

As such, when a candidate changes their party (to one they were not elected to represent) it is a clear rejection of what the electorate voted for. As such, the electorate should have a chance to voice whether they want the CANDIDATE or the PARTY.

2.) Argument: The riding voted the person in, not the party, and asking them to step down and run again is against what the people of the riding want.

Counter-Argument: *See the last two paragraphs above, or the small summary here: People sometimes vote for PARTY over CANDIDATE; as such, the riding deserves to express, through a by-election, whether they voted for the PARTY or the CANDIDATE.

And this is an argument I saw online that I feel the need to address:

"If floor crossing is bad and must be stopped, do we also need a bill to ban coalitions? People vote for a party, not a coalition."

Now, this is tricky, as it includes my argument for why a by-election is necessary...The fact that people sometimes vote for a party specifically. As I've said before on this blog, living under a Parliamentary System can produce some interesting results in an election.

From a Parliamentary perspective, the largest group represented in the House of Commons is given the task of forming government. Whether that group is one single party, or two parties or more who have reached an agreement doesn't matter. What does matter is that the largest group in Parliament is reflecting its position and asking to form government.

Furthermore, in some cases (as we've seen in the last several elections) the opposition parties have garnered more national support combined than the Conservatives who have formed government. As such, it's pretty clear that the 60% of Canadians who didn't vote Conservative, would favour a government that wasn't made up of Conservative members.

Voter intent alone shows that the majority of Canadians wanted a government not formed by Stephen Harper and his party. Yet, because of our antiquated voting system, that's what we ended up getting.

It is true, we may not vote for a coalition...Unless two parties explicitly run on the agreement to form one after the election results come in. But, if they represent the largest voting block in Parliament, then they do indeed have the right to try and form a government.

As such, the idea that banning floor-crossing means we need to address coalitions as well is kind of a ridiculous argument. In a coalition, people still retain their MP and the MP maintains the status for the party they were elected under; the only thing that changes is that they likely go from an opposition MP to a potential cabinet minister or government member.

And of course, come the next election cycle...The parties involved will either be helped or hindered by their coalition government and either a similar situation will occur...Or one party will be able to form government on their own.

Anyways, now that we've strayed far off topic, let's switch gears to our provincial topic for the day.

Premier Brad Wall has spoken out, sort of, about Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's plan to fund the provinces with health care dollars over the next ten years.Until 2016 - 2017, the provinces will continue to receive a 6% (under a deal which was struck by the Martin Government in 2004) and then payments to the provinces will be tied to reflect nominal GDP.

Naturally, Flaherty presented this plan to the provinces without any negotiation or notice. Of course, this caused some chagrin among certain provincial representatives who were quick to denounce the plan and come out swinging against Ottawa.

Saskatchewan, however, was one of the voices that didn't step forward. And now, Wall has come out and said that the plan is 'not unreasonable', but he would like to see money for health innovation come from Ottawa as well.

On the face of it, Wall is making a valid point. The provinces do need help with spurring on new methods of delivery and decreasing wait times in hospitals. However, once you scrape away the veneer and look underneath, Wall's proposal becomes considerably darker.

Living in Saskatchewan, you learn to speak Conservative...Even if you don't consider it your natural language. But when Wall speaks to 'health innovation', we all know that he is speaking to the introduction of more private clinics and health professionals who exist outside of the public system.

Essentially, Wall is asking the federal government to pony up money for the provinces to increase privatization of aspects of the medical system.

The fact of the matter is this: There are problems with our health care system as it stands, no one will deny that. And there are different approaches to fixing it.

What I can tell you for sure is that the current system of blinding throwing money into the system isn't working. Yes, we need to ensure that provinces are receiving enough funding to keep medicare going, but at the same time we need to ensure that that money is being spent wisely. Furthermore, we need to address fundamental problems that exist outside of cost.

We need to diversify our health care system; but that does not mean privatization. Rather, it means addressing the problems in a practical way. Expanding the role of nurse practitioners, for example. Expanding pathways into medical school, and providing financial assistance with conditions to these students. Expanding palliative care and home care systems to keep senior citizens out of hospitals. And of course, expanding national health in general with a focus on preventative care rather than reactive care.

All of this can be achieved with out setting up private clinics and is worth trying before we start gutting our public system and saying it is completely broken. And yes, this will require some financial help from Ottawa to work properly. And if Flaherty has his way, the money to set these kinds of programs up will disappear and we will lose services...

And then it's only a matter of time until privatization is the only option left...And those on the right are doing everything possible to make that day come just a little bit faster.

Pot, Meet Kettle

2012-01-09T16:59:00.002-06:00

Source: CBC News: 'Radical' Groups Working Against Oilsands

I figure now that we're approaching the middle of January, the blog has been dark long enough and it is time to illuminate 2012 with that special brand of insight that I bring to the blog...Whether or not it is truly special is unimportant, what is important is that there are a few things worth talking about today.

Some house cleaning, first though: I probably will not be posting on the selection of Toronto-Danforth's new NDP representative; if only because being in Saskatchewan, I know little about the candidates vying for the role left open the wake of Jack Layton's passing.

Furthermore, there is the discussion of several new Senators being appointed...I've talked about senate reform en masse before on the blog, and the appointment of Harper cronies to the Upper Chamber, so you all know my opinion on that matter...However, I may have something to say about reforming the Senate at the end of this post.

So, let's begin with the quote I saw today that spurred me to get back to writing the blog.

Radicals, are: "a group of people who don’t take into account the facts but are driven by an ideological imperative." - Conservative MP, and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

Excuse me, did you honestly just say that? If so, you might want to tell Justice Minister Rob Nicholson that he's a radical. After all, in his defense of Bill C-10 (the Omnibus Crime Bill) Nicholson rejected statistics that crime was dropping and that they were pushing the bill forward due to their mandate over facts.

Hence the title of this post; Conservatives yet again show their hypocrisy by denouncing those who speak out against their plans and aspirations as radicals and ideological blowhards...Yet, these are methods that they themselves use. As noted, Bill C-10 was introduced as a bill that was driven by ideological ideals and election promise over fact.

Harper's continued push to buy F-35 fighter jets, despite mounting costs and daily reports of new problems (anyone else see the report of them being unable to land on aircraft carriers due to an engineering fault with the hook designed to catch cords on the deck of the carrier? No, read about it here: LINK) shows another ideological tactic taking precedence over fact.

Even in the backbenches of the Conservative caucus you see this ideological drive. Kitchener Centre MP Steven Woodworth is said Canadian law treats the unborn as 'sub-human' and wants to see debate on the issue in the House of Commons. Despite the fact that most Canadians are content to leave the abortion debate alone, and Harper even campaigned on the fact of letting it be if re-elected, there are ideological drives to push for these arguments and to create laws around them...Despite the facts.

Essentially, what we're getting at is that any Conservative who proclaims to be a champion for facts and reasons over ideological drive and motivation needs to give their head a good long shake. Since coming to power, we've seen nothing but ideological drive from this government and this political party. Every action they make and every bill they bring forward is just another means to achieving a part of their political ideology.

In Harper's Canada, facts are irrelevant and relying on them makes you some kind of enemy of the state...Especially when those facts directly contradict what the government is trying to achieve with their agenda.

To change gears a little, I want to talk about Senate Reform briefly.

I had a chance to meet Brian Topp over the weekend, and found the discussion fairly enlightening. I've still yet to decide who I will support in the Leadership Race, but Topp got onto the topic of the Senate during the discussion.

Topp supports abolishing the Senate outright, as a number of NDPers do. I must be one of the few who still sees a use for the Upper Chamber, as I favour reform over abolishing it. Now, I came up with a plan for Senate Reform on this blog, however, I've decided to make a few changes to that formula. So, here's my newly minted Senate Reform plan:

1.) Tie Senate seats proportionally to the amount of votes each party receives in the province they are to represent. For example, Saskatchewan has 6 Senate seats. If the NDP receives 25% of the total vote in Saskatchewan during a federal election, the NDP becomes entitled to 25% of the Senate seats for Saskatchewan. There would be an electable threshold of 10% that a party would need in order to qualify for a seat in the first place. So, any party garnishing less than 10% of the provincial vote would not receive a Senate seat.

2.) Remove the appointment process from the Prime Minister's hands. For awhile, I thought that Opposition leaders should nominate the Senators to represent their parties. I've since decided that this system is ineffective, and propose that we use the following method instead.

Federal Party leaders would discuss potential Senators with the Premiers of the Provinces that their Senators are to represent. As such, the leader of the Liberals would have to propose candidates for Saskatchewan Liberal Senators to the Premier of Saskatchewan. The Premier would then either confirm or deny the choices made, but work with the party leader to ensure representation.

Let me clarify that last bit: The Premier is not given carte blanche over the appointment of Senators for their province. They must appoint individuals who reflect the proportional vote share and they reach an agreement with the Party Leaders over appointments, it cannot be a unilateral decision.

3.) Once in agreement, the nominees are made Senators and will serve a term that is tied to the House of Commons. During an election, all Senators lose their status and must be re-nominated to serve in the Senate.

I think that about sums it up. I know some of you are probably asking why the Premiers should be involved at all...Well, the Senate was originally meant to be an arm of the provinces in the Federal Government. I don't think it ever successfully filled that role thanks to partisan politics in Ottawa; but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be given the chance.

There's also a few smaller details to consider with this reform...But, I did say I was going to be brief on this topic; so, I shall let it alone for now.

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here!

2011-12-21T03:29:00.000-06:00

So, a very short post today.

I've followed through on my idea to create a Canadian Political Philosophy blog. The first post is up and ready, and is admittedly more philosophy than politics; but it is an instrumental topic to cover as it will be an underlying current that plays a role in future posts to come on the blog.

So, without further ado (and for those strong in heart) you can find a link to the new blog here: Canadian Political Philosophy

The first topic, for discussion: Is Humanity Evil?

Where is Our Anger?

2011-12-18T03:27:00.000-06:00

I was trying to embed a video, even though the subject matter isn't what this post is about, but it seems to be having trouble. As such, just click the link below:

Video

As we approach the end of the year, we find ourselves in a time of reflection. In the political world, there is a lot that we need to reflect on. As time marches forward, we find ourselves in what I would argue is a state of continued apathy. For the first time in Canadian history, we have a government who has proven their vagrant disrespect for the laws of the land and the collective response is less than an audible yawn.

We have a government who, even while in opposition, lowered the discourse level of debate in the House of Commons. Furthermore, they've completely shut down the discourse altogether. Conservatives have been attacking the media and 'leftists' who say that time allotment and closure are the same thing. Well, if it walks like and duck and talks like a duck...

The Conservatives have us arguing over semantics and the national lexicon, rather than focusing on the heart of the issue: Which is whether or not it is appropriate to limit the debate in the House of Commons. Yes, there will come a time when debate has run its course and the time to vote has arisen...But the Conservatives haven't allowed this point to be reached on more bills then I can name.

For a government that was first elected on transparency they are doing everything possible to keep us in the dark.

As such, it is imperative to the nature of good government to allow debate and discussion. Using time allotment or closure, really flip sides of the same coin, prevents this from occurring and denies the due process that we should expect of those creating laws that we must follow.

Despite Canadians being denied due process and good governance, we continue to say nothing. Some of us are vocal and condemn these events, but it would seem that the vast majority of Canadians cannot be bothered to care about what is going on in Ottawa. The Harper Government sets fire to our institutions, and not a damned soul can be bothered to even yell 'Fire!' with any sort of conviction.

That brings us to the Wheat Board. Despite a federal judge saying that the Conservatives were violating the act that regulated the board by not having a farmer vote; the Conservatives were hellbent on passing through their bill that would scrap the board. Despite pleas from the opposition to halt the bill and have due process, the Conservatives refused. They rushed the bill through the House of Commons, and invoked closure in the Senate as well.

Hopefully, though doubtfully, Governor General David Johnston will have enough common sense to refuse to provide royal assent; or at least make it conditional on the outcome of the courts.Though, Canada hasn't had a GG rock the boat since Byng-King, so this scenario seems highly unlikely.

Add this to their contempt charge, and we have a government who clearly does not give two shakes about the rule of law.

And yet, despite this, Canadians remain silent. The bulk of us seem to have our fingers in our ears, our eyes clenched firmly shut, and the hamsterdance blocking out all other sounds in our minds. We have a government who is committed to keeping us in the dark and denying our elected officials the ability to do the jobs that we have elected them for...Who also seems more than willing to break the law and have the audacity to claim that they aren't.

And then there's the Irwin Cotler affair...I'll make this one brief: The Conservatives have been running a phone campaign saying that Cotler is going to resign and there is going to be a by-election in his riding. The Conservatives, surprisingly, admitted to being behind the phone calls...But suggest that they're protected by free speech and other flimsy excuses.

The Speaker has called the practice 'reprehensible'; but, it turns out that the company making the calls was hired by his campaign in the last election. Awkward.

So, not only are they completely undermining our political system...They also seem to be completely morally bankrupt. Did anyone vote for that?

All of this created a situation that was eventually going to come to ahead...And in some ways, it did. Now, I've made a habit of making sure that the content of this blog confirmed to a certain sense of decorum...Especially when it comes to curse words. But, for the purpose of this post, I would feel hypocritical talking about this subject yet curbing the words.

So, for those faint of heart, some mildly strong language follows below.

Given all the things the Conservatives have done since their re-election, its understandable that a Member of Parliament would stand up and lose their temper. Enter Justin Trudeau. Perhaps it should have been clear that he would be the one, given his father's short temper as well, but it was still surprising.

When Environment Minister Peter Kent came back from an international conference where Canada announced it was pulling out of Kyoto (though, let's face facts, we'd pulled out of Kyoto long before this official announcement) and was basically not open to further international agreements...Mr. Trudeau promptly called 'Bullshit' and called Kent himself 'a piece of shit'.

Strong words indeed.

Trudeau was quick to apologize for his overzealous and unparliamentary behaviour...But, why is he the one apologizing?

I've said before that sometimes we expect too much from our politicians, after all they are human, and I'm sure all of us have reached a point where we lost our temper at a time when we shouldn't have. Yes, Trudeau probably shouldn't have sworn in the House of Commons; BUT we can understand how he reached the point of frustration that caused him to have this outburst in the first place.

Which brings me to the point of this post: Trudeau has clearly shown his anger, as has NDP MP Pat Martin (via twitter and with even STONGER language), so why haven't the rest of us?

This is behaviour that affects us all.

And I'm not speaking about the opposition MPs...This is a government that is hellbent on changing Canada and they have already succeeded in many ways. They're destroyed our international reputation, from peacemaker to 'warmonger'. From elder statesman at the UN, to unprincipled amateur prone to temper tantrums. From reasoned thinkers who spur on global change, to the loudest voice of denial in the room.

And with words today that the government could cut more than expected (especially in regards to health care transfers to the provinces), they will now focus on destroying our internal reputation now that our international one is promptly destroyed.

I love this country, but I worry deeply about what it will look like in a few years time. We are not powerless. To borrow a phrase, 'people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.'

The Arab Spring that occurred this year, shows that that phrase is indeed true. People are fighting for democracy and choice across the world, and we're allowing it to die a slow and lingering death. Our MPs are becoming increasingly useless, nothing more than arm candy, under this government...While real power is siphoned into the PMO and PCO.

This is not what we voted for.

So, I ask...Where is our anger? I'm not calling for revolution or anarchy or anything like that...But we still have power in this country and we can keep a government to task for the things they do in our name. A government will abuse its power when it thinks that the people are not willing to stand up and fight for the things they believe in.

I know that perhaps Canadians aren't known for their anger, but this is an instance where we need to be ready to stand up for our country and ourselves. We need to find our anger and we need to direct it to the right places.

We can prevent this government from running roughshod over us, and our beliefs as a nation, but we need to be willing to fight for the things that we know in our hearts are right.

To borrow another phrase, from the video I've linked to earlier: "Better to find your anger now, than wake up after the next election cycle and ask yourself where are my rights?"

On a random side note, I am toying with the idea of starting a second blog revolving around more abstract and philosophical questions. Should this idea stick with me, I shall be sure to let you all know.

What Is Wall Doing?

2011-12-07T00:40:00.001-06:00

Source: CBC News: Brad Wall Defends Pay from Saskatchewan Party
Source: CBC News: Party for Government Politicians Raises Concerns
Source: Leader Post: Sask. Party Provides Pay Top-Up to Premier
Source: Leader Post: Wine and Cheese Receptions Not an Avenue for Lobbying, Premier Says

So, let's all take a deep breath and get used to issue responding posts before moving on.

There, now that we're all acclimated to the old format we can begin. Scanning the headlines today, these were the two most significant news topics I could see today (in regards to Saskatchewan politics, at least.) Let's start first with Wall's salary top up and then talk a bit about whether or not a wine and cheese party is a place where lobbying can occur.

News came out today that Brad Wall, who in a recent request for information didn't release his salary, that the Premier was receiving not only his public paycheque but a top up from the Saskatchewan Party itself. Wall, whose salary is $154,247 a year, is receiving an extra $37,000 from the party that he represents. Wall is defending the payment by saying that its an extra bit that acknowledges the extra duties that the party leader has and reflects this.

So, let's examine that for a moment.

Wall is suggesting that he needs an extra $37,000 to perform his duties as Leader of the Saskatchewan Party. Do you know what is wrong with that sentence? The problem rests in the idea that despite being Premier, Wall is still restricting his view to being Leader of the Saskatchewan Party.

I get the sense some of you might not see why this alone is a problem, allow me to try and explain. By suggesting that there are duties as Leader of a Party that fall outside his current pay scheme; Wall is essentially saying that there are times when he CEASES to be Premier of Saskatchewan and is simply the Leader of the Saskatchewan Party.

Or to break that down into simpler terms: There are times when Wall is only acting as Leader of his PARTY, not Leader of the PROVINCE.

Now, I'm struggling to find out where such an occurrence would exist. If he's talking to the business community, is he acting as Premier or as Party Leader? If he's talking to Federal Counterparts, is it as Premier or Party Leader? If he's outside of Saskatchewan for a conference, is it as Premier or Party Leader?

The only thing I could think of would perhaps be internal party work, such as attending Sask Party conventions...But, a convention is hardly something that a person should be paid for. I mean, we don't pay the general people who have taken time off their schedule to attend; why would we pay the current leader of the party to attend?

If anyone can clearly think of a legitimate reason, please pass it along as I'd be happy to know what it is.

That brings me back to where we were. This top-up payment seems to be a problem in two ways: Firstly, as mentioned, the payment suggests that there are times when Wall ceases to be Premier and acts only as a representative of the Saskatchewan Party.

The second problem comes from the money itself. Wall has been quick to point out that the payment is not from taxpayers, but comes from the party itself. The problem with this is that money is likely coming from donations made to the party. And these donations can, and in most cases do, create a tax return for the person making the donation.

If I can remember my tax scheme correctly, a $100 donation equals a $75 tax return to the person making the donation. That means a person making a $100 donation to the Sask Party receives $75 back, while there $100 could be put towards Wall's $37,000 top-up.

So, while taxpayers are not directly paying for this top-up, we are indirectly paying for it due to the nature of tax returns on political donations.

Furthermore, this raises a problem in terms of conflict of interest. In a system where the Premier is receiving a top-up from his party, that opens the door for impropriety. Allow me to explain.

Saskatchewan legislation, according to Elections Saskatchewan, has no limit on how much a person can donate to a political party. (Source) Furthermore, companies can contribute freely to the political party.

So, let's say Company A makes a $2,500 donation to the Saskatchewan Party. Now, that donation is money that the Sask Party can do anything with. They could print flyers, they could run advertisements...Or, they could use a percentage (or all of it) to put towards the pay top-up.

Indirectly, that Company is now responsible for part of the $37,000 that Wall receives from the party. You can see how this is a touchy subject. If you don't, allow me to try and explain a bit better.

Wall is essentially receiving money from those donating to his party. So, if Company A donates money to the party, there's a chance part of their donation goes towards Wall's top-up payment. Now, the problem with this lies in the fact that a Company A could be 'inclined' to provide more to the party, knowing that their donation will go towards paying the Leader.

So, should a bill come up where the Company would benefit (or even perhaps a public tender), the leader of the party might remember the Company who helped provide an extra $37,000 to their pocket. Now, you should see the problem.

To clarify, I'm not saying that Wall is currently taking direct payments from corporate or private donators in exchange for political favours. There's no proof of that. However, this kind of top-up opens the door for such financial influence to exist.

What else is telling is Wall's language regarding the pay. He said that he received these payments during his time in opposition, and that former Sask Party Leader Elwin Hermanson also received these payments. What's telling is that Wall has admitted that it was $37,000 for the last two years. He only vaguely mentioned that the amount, while in opposition, was 'similar' to what he is being paid now.

As such, Wall needs to actually release the figures of what the party was topping his pay with since he took over the helm of the party. If he was paid more, or less, is a valid question we should be asking. If the pay has substantially increased since he became Premier, it would seem to argue that the top-up may indeed be tied to some donations being made to sway the Premier.

If the payment has decreased, or stayed the same, then at least no one can claim that Wall is indeed being privately courted by donations to his party...But we can all agree that the process needs to stop because it is opening the door that would allow that situation to exist.

Public officials are paid from the public purse for a number of reasons. The main reason being that it keeps those in power beholden to the public, and reminds them that they make a living off of serving the community at large. When a private group contributes, or controls, the pay of a public official then it changes who that official is beholden to.

If Wall wants to show leadership, for a change, he can stand up and stop this practice in his own party.

And that brings us to lobbying, though we have touched on the subject with Wall's top-up payments. After the Legislature opened, a party was thrown in a Regina establishment by four different companies (a law firm, an oil company, an office supplies business, and an accounting firm) for members of the government caucus.

Now, obviously, this party has raised the ire of a lot of people and put Wall on the defensive. Wall is saying that this type of get together is not a place where lobbying of government officials occur, and that it is just a simple get together.

But, let's look at the problems with that statement.

Both articles allude to the event being invitational. The CBC article talks of how the event was for government MLAs and their staff; as does the Leader Post. Yet, they both fail to mention for who the invitations were sent out.

The invitations promised food, drink and great conversation...Yet, they don't mention who these invitations were sent out to. Were they sent to the Sask Party MLAs and staffers? Were they sent to local business owners? Were they sent to local citizens? Were they sent to Sask Party donors? Or all of the above?

I can't say, simply because I do not know. Though, the invitations existence would seem to suggest that the event was for people outside of the caucus and staff. The wording, especially the part about great conversation, would seem to suggest that the four businesses throwing the event were focusing on the caucus and staffers as 'guests of honour' rather than just the targeted guests.

As such, it would seem that this event was thrown to get the right people into the room with Sask Party caucus members and key staffers. That's just speculation on my part, but it's certainly how it reads to me.

Now, Wall says that these types of events are not the venue for lobbying...But these are the exact kind of events his party used to throw for members of the Enterprise Club; food, drink, and good conversation with Ministers and the Premier himself. The Sask Party abandoned the practice when it became public knowledge, but now they seem to have outsourced the event to the private sector. (Is there anything they're not trying to privatize?)

Wall deflected by saying that events that promote lobbying are usually thrown by associations and groups who are actively seeing the influence policy, and that events like that are attended by MLAs from both parties...

But what Wall is neglecting is the simplest fact of politics: ANY event is an event where lobbying will occur.

It doesn't matter who is throwing the event, or the reason why, but any sitting member of government or opposition will be approached with issues. Those issues range from personal initiatives to policy ideas, but politicians are always going to be approached by the public at ANY EVENT and asked their opinion on an issue and be told by those gathered the best way to deal with the issue.

As such, a wine-and-cheese party is a place where lobbying would occur. The nature and the complexity of the lobbying may be different, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

And if there was no lobbying occurring and it was just another 'new legislative session, boo-yah!' party; then surely staffers and MLAs from the other side of the house would have been invited to par take as well. As far as I know, none were.

So, here we seem to have a PARTY LEADER who is confused about what lobbying is and just who exactly he works for...It's going to be a long four years.

Scott Muses: Would I Lie To You?...Yes, Apparently You Would.

2011-12-04T14:50:00.001-06:00

A warning, today is an expansion on the Peter MacKay helicopter debacle. For the most part, it is going to be a 'philosophical and historical' look at just how the hell we've gotten to the point where a politician could stand up in the House of Commons and WILLFULLY lie to the House...Especially lie without any repercussion.

In the 1970s, a scandal unlike anything else the political world had seen at the time was starting to break inside the United States. I refer, of course, to the Watergate Scandal. In 1972, several Republican 'White-House backed' gentlemen broke into the Watergate Hotel (which was being used as the Democratic HQ at the time) and proceeded to wiretap phones, in an attempt to give Republicans an edge in the upcoming election. The men were caught, and the following investigation into their actions led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon only two years later.

Perhaps most the shocking thing of all from this scandal, was Richard Nixon's consistent denial of any involvement or knowledge of the Watergate break in. History has shown at Nixon's involvement was far greater than what he had uttered or claimed, and that the President had lied about the extent of his knowledge. As that became more known, Nixon's defence changed to the idea that the President cannot do anything illegal. And yet, Nixon remains the only person to have resigned the Presidency.

As Nixon became more and more wrapped up in the details of the Watergate Scandal, the Congress of the United States began to take quick action. The move to impeach the President for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress was starting to gain steam. Furthermore, Republicans were joining the process and the Congress would have enough numbers to impeach Nixon. In view of his coming impeachment, Nixon resigned.

This background is incredibly important. Here we have a politician who lied to not only the nation, but to its legislative body, and he found himself punished by the system that he had attempted to manipulate. Nixon would not have remained in office, even if he hadn't resigned, as the impeachment process would have moved next to his removal from office. As such, in the 1970s, lying to the people you were representing was still an offense in which you could, and did, lose the job you were elected to do.

Then, twenty some years later, America found itself in the position of considering the impeachment of a president again. Bill Clinton found himself in a similar position as Nixon, what with Congress considering his impeachment. As everyone should be aware, Bill found himself in a position where he too had actively lied to Congress.

In what is now known as the Whitewater Scandal, Mr. Clinton denied that he engaged in oral sex with a White House intern. This was not the first time that Clinton had been accused to extra-marital affairs, but it was the most significant, given that one of the intern's friends had recorded phone conversations which seemed to conflict with Clinton's denials.

As such, Clinton was impeached under perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice. Despite being impeached by the Congress, the legislative body fell short of getting the votes needed to remove Clinton from office. As such, Clinton was impeached but not removed from the presidency.

The reason I mention this is because this is, as far as I can see, a major turning point in regards to what people will tolerate from their politicians.

To take a Canadian perspective, before getting to the bulk of the argument, let's look at Brian Mulroney.

In 1995, the RCMP launched an investigation into the Airbus Affair; in which it was accused that Mulroney and others of taking 'kickback' payments from Karlheinz Schreiber for the purpose of securing the purchase of Airbus airplanes for Air Canada. Mulroney's response was to not only unequivocally deny these charges, but to launch a libel lawsuit against the Canadian Government.

The government settled outside of court in 1997, paying Mulroney $2.1 million dollars in legal fees and public relations costs.

Fast forward to just a few years ago, when Schreiber (facing deportation to Germany) acknowledged that he did indeed provide payment to Mulroney. Schreiber suggests he paid Mulroney, who was no longer Prime Minister but still a Member of Parliament, $300,000 over the course of three meetings. Mulroney denied the number, arguing instead that he received $225,000 for lobbying work done regarding the purchase of armoured vehicles.

Mulroney continues to admit no wrongdoing; even though his admissions and the admissions of Schreiber contradict Mulroney's libel lawsuit and effectively make a strong case of the former Prime Minister committing perjury and perhaps even obstruction of justice in the 1995 RCMP investigation.

Yet, Mulroney has never been asked to pay back the $2.1 million that he received from taxpayers; nor has he faced any other legal recourse. Granted, Mulroney's reputation was in tatters when he left office and he is generally reviewed as one of the least popular Prime Ministers in Canadian History...But, there was never any official punishment for his actions.

Now, the list goes on. I could cite Jean Chretien's pledge to remove the GST if elected, only to never bring that promise forward. I could cite Stephen Harper's pledge of transparency and open government, only to become one of the most secretive and controlling governments in Canadian History...But, let's not spend too much time focusing on 'campaign promises'.

After all, if every politician who ever turned away from a campaign promise was convicted of a crime, we'd see a lot of our current politicians sitting in a jail cell. But, what is worth discussing, is whether the idea of reversing a campaign promise is a symptom of the system or part of the problem?

So, let's focus on that for a moment. Broken campaign promises seem to exist since the dawn of the social contract. It's easy to look back in history and find examples of the political system being manipulated and deceived. One could look at the French Revolution and the 'Terror' that came from Robespierre under the guise of government. Promises made in a time of change seem to be part of the system, rather than a symptom that has arisen due to corruption of that system. As such, we're not going to hoist every politician who has made a misleading promise during a time of election.

Which brings us to the heart of this discussion. When Nixon breached the law and lied about his involvement, he suffered the penalty of the loss of his office. Indeed, Nixon also lost what little credibility he had left and all good will towards him. But twenty years later, Clinton held onto the office of the presidency. And when he left office, he left with a high approval rating despite Congress passing the measures to impeach him.

How did this happen?

Sadly, as much as I'd like to have a magic bullet answer, none exists. At a time when we demand so much from our politicians, the requirement that they tell the truth seems to have fallen to the wayside.

Look at Anthony Weiner or John Edwards.

Weiner was a vocal democrat, one of the few in Congress who regularly challenged Republicans and their morals and was a damned fine representative. However, his penchant for explicit photographs of himself proved to be his undoing. After tweeting inappropriate photos of himself, Weiner lost the support of many of his constituents and the support of his party, and eventually resigned his seat.

John Edwards was also a good example of the higher standard towards sexual deviance. Edwards committed a mortal sin in the court of public opinion when he cheated on his wife, who at the time was deathly ill with cancer. That revelation alone was enough to get Edwards booted from the race for the presidency.

Matters only got worse when it turned out he had fathered a child with his mistress, and used campaign funds to keep her quiet. He even had a young staffer pose as the woman's boyfriend on campaign trips to prevent people from asking too many questions.

Even before these allegations, Edwards' political career was sunk. And while adultery is a serious charge, the misappropriation of campaign funds is a more serious one in the political realm.

Then we have a slew of Republican politicians, from Herman Cain to Larry Craig, who have stepped out of the sexual norm and paid a serious penalty for their philandering. There is one other thing that many of these people have in common: Most of them, when the scandals broke, denied the charges being leveled against them.

In many cases, they lied.

But it was not the lying that put them into the hot political soup, it was the actions they committed outside of that.

Let's look at George W. Bush.

Bush has done a lot of things, and gotten away with most of them. He suspended habeous corpus for 'terror suspects', he authorized torture, and he mislead a nation and their politicians into a war over (as Michael Moore would say) fictitious reasons.

Bush lied to a nation, and a world, and no consequences have be fallen him over it. I mention this because it warrants a major point: In the political world, lying no longer has any consequences affixed to it. Edwards, Weiner, and others fell from their positions for inappropriate behaviour. Which suggests by its very nature that we hold politicians to a higher regard and expect a certain level of maturity and decorum from them.

But when we fail to punish those who lie to us, we are giving the system carte blanche to keep us from the truth.

Let's look again at Canada.

Stephen Harper's Government was found in contempt of Parliament; AKA they misled Parliament about spending. AKA they lied to Parliament. A slap on the wrist was more or less the only punishment that the government received. Instead of Harper and select cabinet ministers being removed from their offices and being barred from seeking re-election, Harper and many of his cabinet ministers were reinstated in the ensuing election which also gave them a majority.

Despite lying to Canadians, Harper won a majority government.

With that simple act, Canadians cemented the idea that we do not care about the truth. And it's a message which has reverberated throughout the government ranks.

Peter MacKay misuses a government helicopter, and lies to Parliament about it being a SAR demonstration. Yet, the Prime Minister excuses MacKay and says the use of the helicopter was 'appropriate'. Charlie Angus drops an F-Bomb on twitter, and suddenly the government is calling for his resignation.

Somewhere we lost of ideal of political morality. There was a time when the most egregious sin a person in government could commit was that of misleading the nation. Lying to the legislative body was essentially lying to the people of the nation, and it was a practice that no one would tolerate. People who committed this act were punished by the system and removed from it.

But now, lying seems to be permissible by omission of consequence. Now, we only care about how our politicians appear. God forbid they swear on twitter, or use the service to send inappropriate photographs of themselves. Granted, those are not things our politicians should be doing either, but they are no where near as bad as our politicians lying to our faces.

Ask ourselves, if twenty years ago a cabinet minister was caught lying to the public, would they still be in cabinet? Those old of you to answer that question probably answered with a resounding no. So, where did we lose our moral fiber?

Is our sense of morality so misguided that we only condemn those who commit the greatest flaw of being human? Allow me to explain that one. Edwards did a horrible thing by cheating on his dying wife, there is no doubt about that. But to play Devil's Advocate, think of the position he was in. A dying wife, the stress of a public life, and numerous other factors probably made the companionship of another woman a port in the storm for him.

It doesn't excuse his behaviour, but one can see how someone in his position would look for any comfort he could find in such a time. It is human nature to make mistakes and poor decisions; some would also suggest that its human nature to lie.

The difference is mistakes are something that are made in the passion of the moment. An opportunity that arises that seems too difficult to pass up; or a decision made purely in the now. Whereas lying always seems to suggest forethought and self-interest.

A cheating man knows that some day what he is doing is going to catch up with him, and that he will have to answer for his actions. Whereas a lying man is lying for the sake of not having to answer for his decisions. Both of these are serious, but we are only treating one as if it is.

Bev Oda, Peter MacKay, Peter Van Loan, Tony Clement, and numerous others have stood in the House of Commons and openly told untruths. They have denied involvement, they have denied courses of action, and they have done so knowing full well that documentation exists which proves them wrong.

And while some Canadians have stood up and demanded punishment for this behaviour, the punishment doesn't seem to be coming. Rather, these people are allowed to keep their cabinet positions (and the pay increase that comes with it).

I wish I knew how we had reached this point. Our very morality tells us that lying is wrong, and yet we are living in a world where those who do lie are rewarded rather than punished.

I could get into the debate of whether humanity is naturally inclined to evil or not, but that's not really the type of subject to discuss on this blog. What I will suggest, however, is that our system is quickly be defined by this lack of response. Harper's Government has been playing fast and loose with moral questions since being elected in 2006.

Each time they've been caught, the Canadian public's response has been 'So what? Who cares?' And with each muttering of that sentiment, the Harper Government has become more and more deceitful and ambitious.

We need to return to the days when a politician who misled their nation was punished for their actions. If we punish infidelity in the bedroom, we must punish infidelity in the legislature.

There is an idea that we as a people elect the government that we deserve. If we do nothing, then we deserve to have a government that lies to us and does god only knows what behind closed doors. In many ways, that's what we've already done. By electing the Conservatives with a majority, in spite of them being found in contempt, we have sanctioned state dishonesty.

And in a system like that, we will only see more dishonesty.

In four years time, we will have a clearer picture of what the Harper Government has done. We shall see the true extent of their dishonesty, and all of us who did nothing to prevent it will have to live with the fact that we allowed it to happen. Silence is deafening, but so is response to wrongs.

Something is WRONG in Ottawa, and many of us can see it. Perhaps those who don't are happy to be spoon fed the pablum that the Conservatives dish out; to close their eyes and believe that all is well despite evidence to the contrary.

Politics is not a competition of winners and losers. Lying is a tactic that the Conservatives are using to save themselves embarrassment, and they believe that that in turn will help them win the next election. Well, when politicians use methods like that they may indeed win...But it is the nation who will lose when we elect a self-serving government that cares more about public opinion and four-year election plans, then serving the people they are supposed to represent.

I sense I've strayed off topic a bit, so let's close with this final thought:

Honesty is a virtue, it's a phrase we've all heard. For those of us with children, we raise them with the idea that honesty is the best policy. We expect our children to tell us the truth and we equate the notion of truth with the idea of being a good and noble person. If we can expect so much of our children, why can't we expect the same of our politicians?

Surely, if a child has the capacity for honesty a politician must. Either we must hold our politicians to account, for all of their missteps; or we must admit that we simply don't care and abandon the social contract that we have created.

We expect police officers to be truthful in their reports, should we ever be accused of a crime or need them to vouch for us as victims. We expect doctors to tell us the truth about our medical state and not prescribe drugs that we don't need. We expect our teachers to impart the truth about history and our world to our children, not indoctrinate them into a misshapen world view that is inaccurate.

If we expect truth from so many others in the public service, why don't we demand the same of politicians?

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: In the Parliamentary System, we bestow the title of honourable upon those who serve. It's high time we demand that they live up to the title.

Lies, Tell Us Lies, Tell Us Sweet Little Lies...

2011-12-02T02:37:00.001-06:00

Source: CTV News: Emails Contradict MacKay on N.L. Chopper Flight

Does anyone else remember when we talked about the issue of Challenger jet flights?

Good, that will bring us all up to speed then. After Canada's Top General got caught using a challenger jet to fly down to the Caribbean for a vacation. Then days later word came out that Defence Minister Peter MacKay had used both a Newfoundland Search-and-Rescue chopper to leave a vacation at a fishing lodge; as well as using a challenger to fly to a lobster festival days later.

MacKay defended the use of the chopper by saying that he was taking part in a search-and-rescue training exercise that was in the area.

And now, e-mails obtained by access to information requests directly contradict the answer that MacKay provided in the House of Commons.

In fact, the e-mails suggest that the military was more or less pushed into picking MacKay up from his fishing trip. On top of this, there appears that a SAR helicopter was not MacKay's only option for leaving his fishing trip a day early. In fact, MacKay was only a 90 minute boat ride and then a 30 minute drive from the nearest airport. 120 minutes, altogether. Furthermore, MacKay or his staff have yet to provide a reason as to why this alternative was unacceptable.

So, what's the real issue here?

Well, we've got MacKay lying to Parliament, for one. Then there's misappropriation of military aircraft/resources...

The lying to Parliament thing is probably the biggie though, given that this government is quickly establishing a sterling record for saying one thing while doing another. After all, we've got Tony Clement saying that he wasn't involved in deciding what projects in his riding would receive funding from the G-8 Heritage Fund (though information that has been released directly contradicts his statement)...Then there's the entire Harper Government team saying that the PMO/PCO did not issue orders to refer to the Government of Canada in news releases as the Harper Government...(Even Harper's former press secretary denied this claim, though memos have now come out showing that the order did indeed come down the bureaucratic chain.)

If anything, this is just a further list on the things this government has done that shows they have zero credibility or reliability to tell the truth. This is like the kid who gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, then has the gaul to suggest that it's actually their older brother taking all the cookies.

Now, I sourced this yesterday, so I didn't re-source it today.

In response to SaskTel's cellular problems, the Wall Government as dismissed ten managers from the Crown Corporation. In Wall's style (which we saw when they first came to power and cleaned out the civil service) cause for the terminations were not provided to the employees and they will instead be paid out full severance packages and other benefits.

Which brings us to Wall's talking point for SaskTel. Wall has, for the second time, suggested that SaskTel does not have the capacity to meet service expectations. This is conservative speak for a private company would not have these problems.

Now, it is indeed possible that this is the first opening salvo from the Wall Government with regards to destroying SaskTel. After all, the government as already robbed them of their profits from the past few years and increased the Crown's debt level due to the need for private loans.

We'll see when the government and the crown rehire the positions that have just been opened. If the government is overhanded in selecting people for those positions, it's a bad sign. If any of the positions are 'consolidated' to save money, it's a bad sign. If any of them are left vacant, it's a bad sign.

SaskTel is being put into a precarious position by this government, and if the government continues to raid SaskTel's profits, then we could very well see this crown corporation fall apart in the years ahead.

What Can You Say?

2011-11-30T15:18:00.001-06:00

CTV News: Feds to put Attawapiskat Under Third-Party Management
CBC News: Attawapiskat Ordered into 3rd-Party Control
CBC News: Managers Axed at Sasktel

So, there's a few things that we need to talk about. The primary purpose of this post is going to focus on Aboriginal issues, both federally and provincially, with a small smattering of SaskTel news at the end of the post. There's also something we're going to talk about in the main body of the post that isn't covered by the sources above, and that revolves around the Sask NDP announcement that they will be back tracking on the resource revenue sharing idea that was put forward in the last election.

I want you to imagine for a moment. I'd tell you to close your eyes, but then you wouldn't know what you were reading and just what you were supposed to be imagining. I want you to picture yourself in a house. Now, most of us likely envisioned the house we live in now, or the house we grew up in, or maybe the house we'd like to live in if we had the money to...

Very few, if any of us, imagined a house full of imperfections. A house where every step on the floor results in a loud creak that makes you worry you're going to fall through on the next step. A house where the cold wind outside cuts through the walls in a way that makes you feel as though the walls don't even exist. A house where turning on a tap does not produce running water. A house where the walls are filled with noxious and health hazardous substances, like mold, which are threatening your health and your family's.

This is not some nightmare scenario. Rather, it is the accurate problems found with housing on Aboriginal Reserves across Canada. And it's the case with housing on the Attawapiskat Reserve in Northern Ontario; a case which is receiving a lot of media attention.

For the most part, many residents of the reserve are abandoning the houses that are too dangerous to live in in favour of makeshift shacks or tents that can barely stand the cold; if they can stand it at all. The reserve's leaders have even taken the step of declaring a state of emergency on the reserve, and the Red Cross has begun to help out the beleaguered community.

And the Harper Government drags their feet.

Despite intense opposition pressure, the Harper Government has done little to address the problems within the community. Harper himself as argued that the government has spent $90 million on the reserve since 2006. However, Liberal Interim Leader Bob Rae has suggested that this number is skewed. The reasoning being that the figure is including transfers to the reserve for the purpose of education spending, water and sewers, and other general expenses.

So, the Harper Government's response has been to order someone else to take control of the situation. The government has placed a third-party in control over the reserve and is also asking for a full audit of the reserve's finances to find out how the money received was spent over the past few years.

Now, an audit is not out of the question. It is important to make sure that money being put towards improving life on reserves is actually being used to improve life on reserves. It's much the same that money raised by the government and passed through Parliament is being spent properly; granted, that's a thing this government has a bad track record with, so it's a bit like the pot and the kettle...

So, while it is important to make sure money being received was well spent, it is also important to move quickly to address the current problems. The Red Cross has reported that temperatures are routinely around -15 to -20 in the area, and as we get deeper into winter those numbers are only going to get lower. As such, we have a responsibility to make sure that we minimize harm in the coming months.

The situation right now is bad, and it is a tragedy that is has reached this point in the first place. But it will be a source of national shame if we fail to act and the people living in these conditions are exposed to additional hardships over the coming months. As temperatures drop, the odds of people starting to die because of inaction by the government increases. These people have suffered enough without adding death of loved ones to the equation. And for that reason alone, if not all the problems mentioned before, is why we must act quickly.

Now, as I mentioned, these conditions are not unique to the Attawapiskat reserve. There are Aboriginal communities throughout Canada that are facing substandard housing, sewer and water system problems. Not to mention problems with education and health care access. Since many people probably failed to hear this point during the last provincial election, I'll say it here: In a municipality, education spending per child is around $1000 - 1200, depending on the size of the municipality. On reserve, that spending drops to about $600 - 800 per child.

These fundamental problems are what fosters situations like the ones we're seeing now. We are failing Aboriginals as children, and we continue to fail them as adults.

That said though, it is not only our responsibility to address these problems. Canada's problems with Aboriginal groups were a founding problem with this country. And the problem started by the newcomers attempting to dominate and control the every day lives of Aboriginal groups. And, sadly, that is the mentality that many people in Canada have held on to.

The idea that Aboriginals are still a 'lost child' that are the responsibility of the Federal Government and non-Aboriginal groups. That we have a responsibility to guide their lives and influence their day to day life. This is the same approach that created these problems in the first place.

Aboriginals are not a 'lost child' that need to be controlled and parented; they are (to belabour the metaphor) another parent with a different parenting style. That is to say, that Aboriginals are human beings like the rest of us. Just as deserving, and entitled, to the respect that the rest of us receive. And that also means allowing them to make their own decisions.

That means we need to have the Federal Government step back in the day to day life of Aboriginal Groups, and allow Aboriginals to take control of their own destiny. Yes, we do have an obligation to help Aboriginal groups in times of need and to help them lay the foundations of their own self-determinism; but we have to first raise them up to our level.

We have to accept that we are not the 'we know best' people we assume we are; the way our ancestors thought when they first came to this country. Rather, we must accept that we are both rational adult groups that MUST work TOGETHER, rather than have one side dictate at the other.

And that seems to be the best place to take us towards resource revenue sharing. I was at the Red Phesant Reserve when former NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter announced the NDP plan to begin negotiations with First Nation groups over resource revenue sharing.

And then the firestorm started.

The Saskatchewan Party was quick to condemn the plan, with Brad Wall mastering the art of the soundbite by arguing that 'Saskatchewan's resources belong to ALL people of Saskatchewan'. The spin began heavily from the Sask Party, and the true intentions of the resource revenue sharing plan were mostly lost to the masses and replaced with base rage and a tiny bit of blind racism.

So, the resource revenue sharing plan, let's break it down to what it truly meant.

As it works now, mining companies that want to develop mines or mills or what have you on reserve land have to work out deals with the respective band of that land. Which means, as it stands now, that bands already benefit from resource development on their land as they are paid a percentage already in exchange for the creation of that development.

What the resource sharing agreement would have accomplished was a unified percentage, which would have stopped negotiations between companies and Aboriginal groups and instead would have created a standard percentage rate.

So, let's say one Aboriginal group gets a 4% deal from a potash company for development on their land. Whereas a different group only received a 2% deal from the same company on a year or two earlier. The resource sharing plan would have eliminated these types of unfair deals and ensured that all Aboriginal groups with the same resource received the same amount of money for the same resource.

But that's not what the Sask Party told Saskatchewan residents. They told us that the deal would result in a percentage of the province's resource revenues being dolled out to Aboriginal groups. So, if the government made $25 million in potash, Aboriginal groups would be dolled out 5% of that $25 million.

It was a noble goal. But it was poorly defined by the NDP leadership during the campaign, and instead the issue was defined by the Sask Party who were able to use the program as an economic boogeyman that would give yet another (to borrow a term from Yorkton MLA Greg Ottenbreit) 'hand out' to the Aboriginals in Saskatchewan.

The Sask Party ran with the issue and was able to define it, while the NDP left defending the program to the local candidates and volunteers. The Sask Party even targeted NDP voters (through a massive phone campaign) by asking if they agreed with the program.

The issue became a nail in the NDP coffin, and was likely a factor in defeating several incumbent NDP MLAs and quite a few hopefuls who were almost shoe-ins for their constituency.

So, considering the impact that the program had on the election, it's not surprising that the NDP came out today and announced that they would not be including the program in future policy developments. Now, this announcement has received some condemnation from former candidates and long time NDPers.

Defeated Saskatoon Candidate Nicole White, used a quote from a friend on her Facebook to sum up her thoughts: 'There are times when it's important to do what's right rather than what is popular. This is one of those times.' Now, while it is a powerful sentiment; and there is much truth to the phrase...The NDP has to see the writing on the wall.

This program is a noble goal and something that we should work towards in the future...But, the issue itself was a political hand grenade in this election. As much as we'd like to deny it, there was a basis of racism that caused many to turn their backs on the NDP in this election.

Without naming names, I saw this first hand on the campaign. I traveled through Saskatchewan and knocked on many doors through the election, with various campaigns and candidates. And we had people who had been supporters in the past; or people who were identified as 'soft supporters' in this election cycle, who admitted that they could not vote for the NDP because of the revenue sharing plan.

It was always prefaced with the phrase, 'I'm not racist, but...'; and to borrow a phrase from Bill Maher, 'If you have to preface a phrase with the term, I'm not racist but...You're racist.'

We like to think we're above such things, but the sad truth is many people are not. There are stereotypes that all of us buy into. Yes, I have my own stereotypes about people, as I'm sure many people reading this blog do as well. Anyone who says they don't, is lying. We all have some little thing that we just instinctively believe about a certain group or people.

Granted, some of us (like myself) try very hard to overcome these stereotypes and views that many of us grew up with or have experienced in our lives; but some of us are content to keep the status quo.

Racism played a factor in the NDP record defeat; and it is embarrassing to admit but it is true. As such, the NDP really has no choice but to back away from this program for now. Maybe in a few years time, perceptions will have improved. But, there's no promise in that.

However, there is one way to defuse the situation. The NDP can recommit to this program, but there needs to be some changes to occur ahead of time.

Firstly, the NDP must define the program before the Saskatchewan Party has a chance to. They need to make it simple, explain what it does and what it doesn't do, and how it will impact non-Aboriginal Saskatchewan residents.

Secondly, the NDP needs a price tag. Lingenfelter was unable to commit to a price tag, as it would require years of negotiation with Aboriginal groups to determine how much the program would cost. The NDP has four years right now to being negotiations with Aboriginal groups and start getting numbers and costing details. While it may not create an agreement within four years time, it would be the first step in getting a cost for the program.

By having a cost, the NDP can counter any Sask Party claims about how much the program will cost. As such, the NDP should look into negotiating such a program with Aboriginals during their time in opposition in order to revive the program without some of the criticisms as before.

Of course, overcoming the racist part is going to be trickier. I'd like to think human beings could enlighten themselves over the course of four years...But, we've existed as a species for thousands of years. And during that time, we've always had trouble with people who are different than us. Look at the battle for civil rights for African Americans. Look at the battle for equal rights for women. Look at the on-going battle for civil/equal rights for the LGBT community...

I'm hopeful, but I'm not blindly optimistic. Humans have come far in our short time on this planet, but we haven't come far enough. And four years just doesn't seem like enough time to change that. I would love to be proven wrong on this point, but sadly, I think this point will still stand in four years time.

I think that more or less covers Aboriginal issues for now. I was planning on talking a bit about SaskTel's managers getting the axe today, but I will save that instead for tomorrow or later this week...As this post seems complete as it is.

I'd like to close on this thought: There are many of us out there to subscribe to the idea of a higher power. In the bulk of the teachings of these groups, human dignity and respect is often a cornerstone of these beliefs. We want to respect each other, we want to help each other, and we want to care for one another. Those are tenants that people claim to live their lives by. But when the going gets tough and we are called upon to care for our fellow man, many of us turn our backs on those tenants.

Some of us use excuses to justify our hypocrisy with our faith; while others simply remain blind to the problem.

Which brings me to a closing quote from Stephen Colbert:

"...either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

Blanket Posting

2011-11-24T23:09:00.001-06:00

CTVNewsSaskatoon: City Admins Defend Tax Hike in 2012 Budget
CTVNewsRegina: Wall Fed up with SaskTel's Cellular Service Problems

So, despite the slim two topics sourced above, we'll see where this blog post goes. We'll start with the Saskatoon plan to increase property tax by 4.7% for next year. City officials have defended the plan by stating the new income into the city will be used to hire six more city police officers; while also boasting that other departments will not be increasing staff.

Here's the problem with this plan...As any long term resident of Saskatoon will know, there's some problems with the way the city is currently run. Let's take a seasonally relevant issue, such as snow removal, for example. A person I respect once referred to Saskatoon's snow removal service as 'snow moval' service, given the city's penchant for scrapping snow from the streets into piles which remain in the middle of the roadway until the near end of winter.

This process has already begun, as many streets (such as Central Ave, for example) have started to have snow moved from the sides of the street into piles in the middle. Now, one can surely understand the problem with this. It's hard enough making left hand turns in the summer, now imagine making one with a giant snowbank obscuring your view of traffic.

I've basically given up left hand turns for the past four winters, since the snow banks make each turn a game of 'Turn or No Turn' with my life as a prize. And yet, the city has never once talked about fixing this issue. Saskatoonians already pay a good share of property tax, and we've yet to see just what it is we are actually paying for.

I have no problem paying property taxes, provided that the services rendered for those taxes are worth what we are being charged. The snow removal is just one example of a service which is currently failing in in its present incarnation, yet one that the council is not talking about in terms of improving. Then we come to the issue of road repairs in the city as well...

A friend of mine lives on 106th St, and at the end of the road where it becomes Egbert Ave there is a massive patch of gravel that has been sitting there for the better part of half a year. The gravel was a stop gap measure to repair broken pavement in that area, and it has been a bane for any who dare to cross it. For almost three weeks, the gravel pit was a sinkhole that drivers had to avoid by basically driving on the right hand sidewalk. And the answer to this problem was not to repave the section, but add more gravel.

No one likes tax increases, I think we can agree on that much. But when we are subject to them, we expect that we're going to get a fair shake. Given the roads and other infrastructure services in this city, I can tell you pretty confidently that we aren't getting a fair shake right now. As such, should the city really be talking about raising property taxes?

Let's look at the other ideas, shall we?

Saskatoon's population has exploded and we've seen increases to our city. As such, this brings in new taxpayers to the system. Granted, it also brings some added costs. However, if you factor in the idea of new taxpayers to the system, plus a comprehensive review of current expenditures, I'm sure you could skip the idea of a tax increase altogether.

Our tax dollars currently are being questionably spent; (questionably as in 'how are they spending', not questionably as in 'illegally' spent.) and we deserve to examine how they are being dolled out before we commit to raising more money.

Any simple budgeting process will tell you that if you're having a spending problem, you don't fix it by spending more without addressing the problems in the system. Yes, we could raise more tax dollars, but if we don't address problems within the system it is a stop-gap measure at best. So, the city should be looking at ways to enhance its current spending and find more effective ways to spending current tax dollars, before committing to a tax increase.

The two problems with road infrastructure should be proof enough that our current tax dollars are not being spent in the best possible way; and as such, we should make an effort to ensure that the city will do more to examine current spending measures to enhance review, before they simply raise taxes as the knee jerk reaction.

In the long haul, a tax increase may be necessary. If that turns out to be the case, then that is what we need to do. But, it should not happen until the city has proven that there are no means of maximizing current spending to the best possible way.

And that brings us to Brad Wall.

Wall tweeted today that he is committed to addressing problems with SaskTel's cellular service. Now, I'm a SaskTel customer (surprise surprise) and must be one of the fortunate ones, because I've had no issues with my cell phone.

But apparently, there's been some issue with congestion and dropped calls. This prompted Wall to suggest that SaskTel doesn't have the capacity to handle the volume of calls that its customers are trying to make...

Now, the doomsayer in me says that that sounds like the first volley in excuses to privatize the crown. After all, saying that SaskTel can't handle the capacity sounds alot like saying 'Other cell phone companies don't have this problem, let's open the market for them'...But we'll leave conspiracy theories alone...At least for now.

Wall has committed to the Minister responsible sitting down with the SaskTel President in the weeks ahead to discuss the problems and challenges ahead. So, how did SaskTel get in this mess?

Well, let's examine some issues around capacity.

For example, did you know that Rogers and Telus rent SaskTel's cellular towers? That means Rogers and Telus customers are using SaskTel's infrastructure to provide cellular service to their customers. Now, I'm not the biggest cellphone tech person...But I'm sure that having three different companies relying on the same cell phones towers is going to have an impact.

So, Wall doesn't mention the fact that SaskTel's infrastructure is being 'piggy-backed' by two of the other major providers in the province.

Then we come to my favourite part of this problem: This problem is Brad Wall's own.

Remember when the Saskatchewan Party took all of SaskTel's profits? In 2009, they took 80% of a $129 million dollar profit. In 2010, SaskTel posted a $155.2 million profit (source), and 2010 was the first year of the Saskatchewan Party government taking 100% of SaskTel's profits.

Now, that's a lot of money that was earmarked for improvement to SaskTel's infrastructure throughout the province. So, instead of having the money on hand to pay for these improvements SaskTel was required to get loans instead. Loans which likely did not cover the full cost of plans to fix up the infrastructure, and which will push the crown into debt. After all, it's hard to pay back loans when the government keeps taking all of your money.

So, the Wall Government made this mess (or at least made it worse) by robbing SaskTel of the funds necessary to pay for infrastructure development, upkeep, and expansion. So, if Wall wants to start talking about finding solutions to SaskTel's cellular problems, why doesn't he start with letting the corporation actually keep some of the profit they've been making?

Cash-Back and Occupy This

2011-11-16T13:06:00.001-06:00

This post is going to be split in to two subjects; though one will be longer than the other.

First, let's talk about election financing. Stop groaning and moaning, it's an important subject and it's the shorter of the two topics today. A long time ago, in a Parliament not too far away, it was revealed that the Conservatives had broken electoral financial laws by using a so called in-and-out scheme to transfer money from the federal party to riding associations for the purpose of having those ridings pay for national advertising BUT claim them as a local expense.

The Conservatives defended the practice, but Elections Canada refused to allow it to disappear into the background and took the Conservatives to court. Some high ranking Conservatives, including a few sitting senators, were named in breach of the Elections Act and were looking at some fines and even some jail time for their role in the plan.

However, the Conservatives (perhaps knowing that after losing the last couple of court fights they were going to lose this one) made a plea deal agreement where the party would admit wrongdoing in exchange for dropping the charges against the individuals. The court accepted the deal, and fined the party about $52,000 for breaching the Elections Act.

Now; it's been reported that the Conservatives used this practice to transfer $1.3 million dollars to local ridings. I'm going to repeat that with the connection you all should have made: They overspent in the election by $1.3 million dollars and were given a fine of $52,000. For a party that talks about making punishment fit the crime, it really doesn't apply to them or their lackies when they're the ones caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Let's highlight a similar problem that was faced by the NDP. It recently came out that the NDP improperly used resources to fundraise for the Broadbent Institute, a left-wing think tank founded by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. The party had reached out to members and encouraged them to contribute to the institute as a means of remembering Jack Layton.

And what happened when this came out? Believe it or not, the NDP was quick to admit that they were in the wrong and worked with parliamentary officials to see every dollar of those donations returned to the people who made them. In fact, parliamentary officials noted that there would be no further action against the NDP due to the level of cooperation they provided and their quick admission of wrongdoing.

Let's contrast that again with the Conservatives. Elections Canada says they overspent by $1.3 million dollars; the Conservatives will only admit to $668,000. Elections Canada had to use the RCMP to storm Conservative Party HQ back in the day in order to seize files that were relevant to the charges being laid. Elections Canada insisted that the in-and-out method violated the Elections Act; the Conservatives denied that this was true and had the audacity to suggest every party used in-and-out financing...

The list goes on and on. Some right-wing commentators have seized on the NDP using Layton's memory to illegally raise funds for the Broadbent Institute, insinuating that there is a darker side to the NDP and that they cannot be trusted in power. Yet, when they were caught/or made aware of the conflict, they admitted their mistake and worked with parliamentary officials to correct it. Whereas the Conservatives are hell-bent on avoiding admitting mistakes and even more hell-bent on not working with parliamentary officials.

So, out of those two parties, which one really sounds like the one we can't trust with the reigns of power?

That brings us out of campaign financing, and now we're going to talk a little about the Occupy Movement that has been sweeping the globe. Perhaps I'm a little late to join the party on this one, but I felt for awhile that it was best to stay silent about this movement.

Let's talk for a moment about why this movement exists. The movement was spawned out of the Occupy Wall Street event, wherein people in New York took to the streets and began camping in New York parks as a means of protest against corporate greed. Furthermore, the movement was to show (and remind people) that many Wall Street traders and companies were the recipient of bailout money from the federal government; and that that money was used improperly (Who else remembers Goldman Saks upper-uppers receiving bonuses for 'good work' with bailout money?) and only continued to contribute to the idea of corporate greed.

Well, despite many main stream media organizations basically ignoring the movement; it caught on and soon Occupy Movements were popping up all over North America. We've even got one here in my city of Saskatoon.

And it gained coverage, and support from celebrities and other left-wing supporters, but now the cities are starting to crack down on the movement. Saskatoon, Regina, and Toronto are the latest Canadian cities to issue orders of eviction from the parks these protestors are occupying.

American cities, such as Seattle and Atlanta, have already started to call in riot police armed with stun grenades, pepper spray, and other 'fun' riot gear to get the protestors out of the parks. And this is only getting worse.

While Canadian cities have yet to call in the troops, American cities are using this as a the first option. This is despite both countries having an enshrined right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Conservatives and right-winger like to talk about rights. They have a RIGHT to their guns. They have a RIGHT to privatize their property. They have a RIGHT to say whatever hateful, ignorant, and bigoted comment they want. They have a RIGHT to defend their faith as blindly as they like.

Yet when the other side exercises their RIGHTS, they immediately call for the police to come in and stomp that 'hippie scum' out.

Rights aren't rights unless everyone has them. And to borrow a phrase from George Carlin, 'You don't have any rights, you have privileges.' I say that, because our dear Mr. Carlin may have been closer to the truth than a lot of us want to admit.

A right isn't a right when it can be taken away. And right now, that is what municipal governments are doing. There is a difference between interceding when a peaceful protest turns violent; and attacking a peaceful protest claiming violence.

Yes, some protestors are going to do some stupid things. I'll again refer to the wonderful movie 'Battle for Seattle' (which dealt with the WTO protests.) An organized group of protestors called for peaceful protest; while a smaller bunch of protestors called for all out anarchy. Despite some protestors potentially being trouble makers, the larger group is sane and rational and do not deserve to be pepper sprayed for the actions of a few.

It's much the same that we don't expect to punish all police members when one of their members makes a mistake. Let's say that a cop is seen speeding, outside of duty. We may demand that that officer be punished for their actions, but we don't demand the whole force be punished. So, why do we have a double standard for individuals and groups?

There are going to be bad eggs in the group; that's true of any massive organization of people. But to punish all, even the peaceful protestors, is to create the greater evil by denying a group of citizens a fundamental right.

The Occupy Movements serve as a reminder that our current economic uncertainty is man-made. Sure, markets go through flux, but they are also manipulated by traders and bankers who are looking for a fast score regardless of the cost.

No one should have that much control over an economic system; especially when that control is for the expressed purpose of singular financial gain. These traders and bankers are responsible for the economic slow down; which in turn has led to people losing their jobs, homes, health insurance, and numerous other necessities of life through no fault of their own.

Yet, no one on Wall Street has been punished for their role. Instead, federal money was thrown at them to keep them afloat while the average citizen continues to struggle to hold their head above water.

The Occupy Movement exists to remind us that this situation is unfair and wrong. Many have attacked the group for lacking coherency, but how more coherent could that simple message be?

In short, the Occupy Movement is a necessary movement and deserves to be allowed to continue their occupation of city parks across North America. People need to be reminded that there are those in power and in the media, who are not telling us the truth and who are not interested in seeing the status quo change. Garth Turner once referred to some Canadian people as 'sheeple'; and in many ways he was right.

People don't like to be told that times are tough. That we have challenges ahead of us and that there are going to be sacrifices that we all will have to make. We like to be told that things are good; that there's a 'chicken in every pot' and a 'car in every driveway'. We'd rather buy the illusion of security, than the reality of uncertainty.

The Occupy Movement serves as a reminder of our reality, and for that reason alone it is important to let them continue. Otherwise, who knows what dream-state we may find ourselves in some time down the line.

There's Got to be a Morning After

2011-11-08T16:41:00.002-06:00

Well, election day has come and gone in Saskatchewan. All of you should be aware of the numbers, and the fact that the NDP has been reduced to historical lows, while the Saskatchewan Party has risen to new heights in terms of their own electoral success.

Going into the campaign, the NDP knew we were entering into an uphill battle. Wall's popularity, however unfounded it may be, was high. The same could not be said for Dwain Lingenfelter, who had suffered attacks against himself from day one at the hands of the SK Party. And now, as a new day rises after election day, the Sask NDP finds itself without a leader and with a reduced caucus. Before we talk about what that means for the party, and what the future holds, we should talk a bit about how we reached this point in the first place.

Now, I've decried the historical argument before on this blog; yet many news casters were quick to point it out. Saskatchewan has never been a province to toss out a government after only one term. Personally, I don't think historical precedent had much to do with the result of this election. Yes, it furthers that idea, but I don't know how much water it actually holds.

With that hogwash out of the way, we can focus on some of the more reasonable ideas as to why the NDP was unable to gain traction during this campaign.

1.) The personal popularity factor: As mentioned above, Brad Wall has been riding on levels of popularity not seen for other politicians throughout the nation. While I personally disagree with the reasons for his popularity, no one can argue that like it or not he is a well liked man. The same could not be said for Dwain Lingenfelter; for both founded and unfounded reasons.

Like any of us, Lingenfelter had a history and a record in government that he had to defend. The SK Party was quick to point out problems and missteps in Lingenfelter's record, though often left out the reasons why those decisions were made, and it was the first nail in the coffin of Lingenfelter's leadership. Lingenfelter did come off as an old school politician, and to a degree arrogant and brash; but he fought against this image in the campaign by promoting positive change.

The Lingefelter of old was very much as the SK Party portrayed him, but the one we saw in the campaign was indeed a different and changed man.

2.) The party popularity factor: For reasons I cannot fathom, the SK Party also shares in some levels of popularity. Perhaps it is the afterglow of having Brad Wall leading them, but the party itself has a degree of popularity that the NDP wasn't able to match during this campaign. Now, I could cite all the reasons why the SK Party doesn't deserve the laurels that it has been resting on; but we're only going to focus on the major one and that rests with the economy.

During 2005 - 2006, Saskatchewan became a have province and the boom of Saskatchewan began. It was a slow start, given that we'd spent 16 years working off debt and making difficult choices to right our economic house. But the boom began under the NDP, and we need to acknowledge that.

In four years, the only major success of the SK Party is that it hasn't completely destroyed the economy...yet. I am trying to focus on the election, so I don't want to get into topics about how our Crowns are in jeopardy, how local contractors are going to be losing bids left and right to those from Alberta and British Columbia, and how we will run deficits that are covered up by redirecting funds from other parts of the government's purview.

But for the most part, Saskatchewan's economy was touted as being in good shape. When the rest of the world continues to talk uncertainty, the SK Party was able to successfully suggest that our economy was in good shape. Granted, it depends on who you ask. We still have a high number of unemployed people in the province. We still have a record number of food bank usage. We still have people struggling to pay for the rising cost of rental units and permanent housing.

So, whether or not the economy is in good shape is fairly debatable. But, the SK Party was able to sell the idea that it was and that they were the ones responsible for the economy being in good shape. As such, this enhanced their own popularity in a fairly meaningful way.

3.) Collapse of the Liberal Vote: Saskatchewan has become more or less a two-party province, thanks to the collapse of the Liberal vote. And much like in the last federal election, small-C Liberals found themselves drawn to the nearest conservative leaning party.

Provincial Liberals flocked to the SK Party in this election, and it was their involvement that pushed the NDP to the edge and the SK Party over the top in this election; much like those Liberals in Ontario who pushed Harper's conservatives into a majority government.

However, that's only a fraction of the story. Given that there are going to be Liberals who couldn't 'hold their nose' and vote for one of the parties that was fielding candidates in their constituency. Now, I haven't seen any information on voter turnout as of yet. But, I'm going to guess that we were probably on the lower end. I could be wrong, but I imagine that a lot of those lost Liberal votes from 2007 (that didn't turn out to be SK Party supporters) include those who simply did not go out and vote.

4.) Uncertainty: Let's face it, all of the provinces and territories that have had elections have shown one thing that is the current trend in Canadian politics: Despite disliking the government in office, voters are unwilling to toss them from power when there is a lot riding on it.

Look at Ontario. No one expected McGuinty's Liberals to form another government, let alone a minority one. Doomsayers also suggested that the Manitoba NDP were going to be turfed from power as well. In both cases, the pollsters were proven wrong and both governments were kept in power, despite the suggestion that people were ready for change in the province.

As such, while one can toss out historical precedence, there's no denying the current trend of supporting the incumbent during uncertain times. That was one of the things the NDP was fighting against during the campaign, in addition to the popularity of Brad Wall and his party. In uncertain times, people are unwilling to change the route and would rather stay the course.

5.) Dwain Lingenfelter: I've talked a bit about personality, but now I need to be a little bit harsher. I have to admit, I didn't support Lingenfelter during the leadership race. I was skeptical about electing an 'old guard' leader, especially given the contrast it would have against Brad Wall. Despite my resistance, Lingenfelter won me over after the first time I saw him address a room full of NDP members.

Sadly, that Lingenfelter was absent from the election campaign. Despite a better debate performance than Wall, Lingenfelter never really seemed to capture the imagination or inspire those outside of the NDP already. Yes, he was able to win over members who were uncertain about his leadership. But he was not able to win over those who did not have the chance to meet him and get to know him.

Rather, he was defined to the public by the attack ads that were taken out against him by the SK Party. The public never got the chance to actually see Lingenfelter as he was; but only as the boogeyman the SK Party wanted people to see.

And yes, he had a history and some things he had to answer for from his past. I've written about that before on this blog, and I think we don't need to cover the same old ground again. Lingenfelter was never fully able to address the concerns the SK Party levelled against him, and that (in the court of public opinion) made all the accusations true.

There is an idea in politics that you can't address the claims of an attack ad, because when you do you let your opponent's message define the campaign. But in Lingenfelter's case, one can't help but wonder how things would have been different if he had addressed the charges against him in those ads. Yes, it would have involved going after Wall and his party's record (contrary to the campaign of positive change) but it may have also improved public opinion of Mr. Lingenfelter.

6.) Positive Campaigning: I've said it before, I don't like attack ads. I think it is the cheapest, basest form of politiking and any politician worth their salt should never have to run an attack ad to win a campaign. That said though, there is a difference between negative campaigning and focusing on a record.

The SK Party campaigned on their record and their attacks on Lingenfelter. The NDP meanwhile let pretty much everything slide and focused solely on their platform. If electors in a democratic society didn't live the age of the soundbyte, then perhaps the NDP approach would have produced a better result. But, since we do live in the information age; and have a mentality of wanting to cram complex subjects down into 3 sentences or less, this was an approach that couldn't work on its own.

I'm not saying attack ads should have been taken out against Wall. But I am saying ads should have been taken out about the SK Party record. Allow me to illustrate:

-SK Party literature loved to mention that Saskatchewan was a have province now. Yet, the NDP never publicly reminded voters that it was the Calvert Government who made Saskatchewan a have province.

-SK Party literature loved to mention that more people were working in Saskatchewan, and not in part time jobs but in full time jobs. Yet, the NDP didn't condemn the SK Party when reports came out that proved this wasn't true. In October, Saskatchewan lost thousands of full-time jobs and replaced only a handful of those losses with lower paying part time jobs.

-SK Party literature loved to talk about paying down the debt by 40%. Yet the NDP never mentioned how the debt was just shifted to the Crown Corporations; or how the surpluses the SK Party were running were generated not by prudent financial management but by taking money from the Crowns and the 'rainy day fund' to cover budgetary shortfalls.

-SK Party literature loved to talk about how more young people are staying in this province. Yet the NDP never addressed the key reason why younger people are staying in Saskatchewan. (I'm a young man myself, so allow me to explain) After the tuition freeze ended in Saskatchewan, students were paying more for schooling. Many of those students are now unable to find work or careers in their chosen fields, while many more are unable to find any work at all.

It's not that the SK Party is making things better for young people to stay, it's that their making it worse and impossible for young people to leave. I'm in a fair amount of debt after 4 years of school; as is any other student. Compound that with the inability to get a job which can cover living expenses, debt payments, and other expenses and you have a generation who have stagnated and are unable to leave the province if they wanted to.

Sure, I could pack up and move to Manitoba or Ontario and find a job with a political studies degree there easily...BUT, like many other students, I simply don't have the financial means to do so. I don't have the down payment on a house. I don't have the financial ability to pay rent in a new place. Young people are staying in Saskatchewan, but only because they can't afford to leave.

(On a side note, I happen to like it here in Saskatchewan. So even if I was in a different financial situation, I doubt I'd want to leave.)

The SK Party campaigned on their record, but it was not a complete picture. But the NDP was too focused on positive campaigning that even mentioning that the record was flawed was considered 'negative' and not worth mentioning during a campaign. The problem, of course, is that a record is always open to scrutiny. There is a difference between calling a government's record into question and personally attacking another leader.

Those are some of the major reasons that brought about the colossal NDP defeat that we saw the other night. The party will lick it wounds over these next four years, and eventually will be ready to fight again and hopefully win.

Which brings me to the part of the post where we will focus on the future of the NDP in Saskatchewan. I'm not a fortune teller, but I'll tell you what I think. With regards to the leadership race, I think we're not going to see any outsiders. By which I mean, I don't think we're going to see any of the 9 step aside for a by-election to be held for a new leader. Furthermore, a party is not going to elect a leader and have them sit outside the legislature for two - three years.

As such, one of the current 9 MLAs is likely going to step into the leadership position. The question is a matter of who is going to step forward and who is ultimately going to win. There are 3 big names that I think most people would agree on: Danielle Chartier, Trent Wotherspoon, and Cam Broten. Of the current caucus, those three stand out as the most likely leadership contenders.

That isn't to say that any of the others are unsuited for the job; rather, it is just an assessment of who seems most likely (in my mind) to pursue the leadership. Of course, there's always going to be a chance of outsiders running anyways. Former second-place leadership contender Ryan Meili could always make another go of it, but as mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the anyone would step aside for a by-election or that the party/caucus would support someone who isn't currently in the legislature.

Of course, I could be wrong, I am not a psychic.

Of the three mentioned, it's possible that one may end serving an interim leader instead of making a full leadership bid. Or it's possible that one of the other six will serve in this post to allow these three candidates to make a full run at leading the party into the future.

Only time will tell whether or not any, or all, of them get involved in a leadership race. What I do know is this: Many will say that last night was the night that the NDP were destroyed in Saskatchewan. Many will say that we must abandon our ideals and our consciences and embrace populism politics in order to ever have a chance of forming government.

It is true that our party is broken and beaten at the moment; but wounds heal and bones set over time. With time, we shall recover from this and we shall recover in a way that only makes us stronger. From destruction can come two things: We can either accept the defeat and convince ourselves that nothing can be done. Or, we can stand up, brush ourselves off, and acknowledge that from destruction comes the chance for creation.

And it is this new incarnation of our party that will become a strong voice for the people of Saskatchewan. Ours is a party that seeks to include, not exclude. To unite, not divide. And by doing this, we shall rise from this defeat with the knowledge that ours is a party that seeks to do the right thing. We may not always choose the most popular course of action, but we will choose to do what is right.

And by embracing our principles, and championing our causes, we shall regroup and we shall rebuild. And most importantly, in four years time, we shall be ready.

Mountains and Molehills

2011-10-27T23:53:00.001-06:00

Since the election campaign began in Saskatchewan, the election has been framed mostly around the NDP's commitment to review potash royalties to increase the return for the people of Saskatchewan. The SK Party has condemned this idea, and gone as far as to suggest that Saskatchewan's potash companies would jump ship if such a review took place.

Lingenfelter countered this argument with the idea that no company would walk away from a $2 billion dollar arrangement simply because they weren't making $3 billion. Which, is a pretty good argument. But, allow me to add a few more arguments.

Let's start with an exploration of other potash options.

It's a well known fact that Saskatchewan has an incredible amount of potash; and some would argue that Saskatchewan's potash is among the finest (if not the finest) in the world. As such, a company turning their back on mining a higher quality potash because of a five-cent increase in royalties is a bad argument. That would be like an oil company closing down derricks that produce regular crude in favour of only harvesting 'sour crude' deposits.

Then we come to the longevity argument. As mentioned above, Saskatchewan has a ridiculous amount of potash. For example, the K-1 and K-2 mines in Esterhazy have been in operation for almost 50 years. Now, that is a remarkable amount of time for a mining operation to be open. Obviously, it is in a mining company's best interest to open a mine where there is a great supply to be mined.

If potash companies were to leave Saskatchewan, there are other options and places for them to go...But will those areas grant the same kind of longevity to the mines found in Saskatchewan? If a mining company has an option between opening a mine that would last 50 years (but where the government takes a higher royalty rate) VS opening a mine that would last 10 years with a lower royalty rate; it's a no-brainer.

Cost effectiveness says that it is cheaper in the long run to establish the longer running mine, than it would be to open a mine for a few years, tap local resources, and then be forced to develop ANOTHER mine. As such, the issue of longevity seems to favour Saskatchewan heavily. As a world supplier of potash, and a major supplier at that, Saskatchewan is the best option for potash investment; regardless of the royalty rate.

As such, it is doubtful that any mining company would turn their back on Saskatchewan simply because royalty rates went up to a ten cents on a dollar. I'm sure there's more reasons than the ones I've listed above, but those are the two major ones that I can think of.

And that brings us to a bit of fortuitous timing.

Today, PotashCorp's third-quarter earnings were released for all of Saskatchewan to hear. The company posted an incredible $826 million dollars in profits. Now, if my math is correct (it probably isn't, since math isn't one of my strong suits) that means Saskatchewan received $41,300,000 in potash royalties from the company.

That means PotashCorp made $784,700,000 in profit. Brad Wall suggests that PotashCorp reinvested $590,000,000 in infrastructure and expansions. If that's true, PotashCorp still cleared $194,000,000.

(Simplified process:
Total PotashCorp profit [826,000,000] MULTIPLIED by Government Royalty Rate [.05] = government profit

Total PotashCorp profit [826,000,000] MINUS Government Profit [41,300,000] = PotashCorp Profit

PotashCorp profit [784,700,000] MINUS expansion cost [590,000,000] = final PotashCorp profits)

That's a fair chunk of change. So, let's see what would have happened if the royalty review had been in effect.

Under this increased royalty, the Saskatchewan Government would have made $82,600,000. That means PotashCorp would have made $743,400,000. Take away the expansion cost of $590,000,000 and PotashCorp has a final profit of $153,400,000.

(Simplified process:
Total PotashCorp profit [826,000,000] MULTIPLIED by Government Royalty Rate [.10] = government profit

Total PotashCorp profit [826,000,000] MINUS Government profit [82,600,000] = PotashCorp profit

PotashCorp profit [743,400,000] MINUS expansion cost [590,000,000] = PotashCorp final profit)

That makes a total difference of profit of $41,300,000 under the potash review. Let's face it, $41,300,000 is a drop in the bucket when your company is making $826,000,000 a year. And even if they did spend $590,000,000 in expansions, then a profit of $153,400,00 FOR ONE QUARTER of operating is a damned fine impressive profit.

As such, from a mathematical standpoint the overall loss to PotashCorp is not as bad as Brad Wall is making it sound. And if a company is going to leave because they're making $41,300,000 less than they were before, but still made $743,400,000 (after the government's cut) then they need to readjust their priorities...

Now, with all that headache inducing math out of the way, we can move on to the molehill part of this post.

I mentioned when we talked about the leader's debate that Brad Wall brought no real substance forward when compared to Lingenfelter and the NDP Platform. Well, Wall made his own major announcement today and it fizzled almost immediately after he spoke it.

I am talking of course about Wall's idea to move the school calendar forward to make K - 12 start after Labour Day, as opposed to the way it current works in which there is a small break a week after the school season starts.

While some have said it's a good idea; many others have come out to condemn the idea. Namely, school boards and teachers have condemned the move since Wall has proposed the idea without any consultation with them. Furthermore, the idea of what happens with those lost days begins to rear its head. Some have suggested that in order to make up for the lost week, the government will be forced to rob students (and therefore teachers, and parents) of another break somewhere down the line; with many suggesting that the week long February Break could be on the chopping board as a means of balancing the times table.

Now, why do I mention this in the same post as potash figures?

I mention it because it is the perfect contrast between the SK Party and the NDP in this campaign. The NDP is proposing bold new ideas that will have a major impact on the lives of people in Saskatchewan. While the SK Party is proposing ideas that barely register on the political radar...I mean, seriously, did anyone suspect that moving the school calendar by a week would become an election issue?

Yet another example of how the NDP is planning a long term strategy to move our province forward, while the SK Party meanders and hems and haws at actual ideas and strategies that will REALLY move Saskatchewan forward.

Debatable Debate

2011-10-25T23:26:00.000-06:00

Like many people in Saskatchewan, I sat down tonight to watch the Leader's Debate.

For the most part, the debate was rather reserved. Both leaders took a few small swipes at each other, but no real 'attacks' came out during the length of the debate...Which was a nice change of pace, and unexpected. So, let's spend a minute exploring the tone and nature of the debate and then we'll talk about some of the things that came out during the debate.

When the campaign started, the NDP was determined to run a positive campaign without attacking the SK Party or Brad Wall. For the most part, the NDP has succeeded on this front. Lingenfelter's tone and interaction with Wall was quite reserved and focused mostly on NDP platform issues over personal attacks.

Brad Wall was also fairly reserved during the debate, though he did use the opportunity to attack Lingenfelter on a few occasions. Wall mostly quoted the SK Party attack ad against Lingenfelter, referring to Lingenfelter's past and suspect allegations against him from actions taken from previous NDP governments. But, for the most part, Wall didn't personally attack Lingenfelter directly.

That said though, Wall seemed underprepared for the debate. Lingefelter kept his head up, eyes at the camera or the moderators or Wall; while Wall often looked down at his podium. In fact, Wall clearly was being coached through electronic methods. Look to his quote from former NDP Minister Andrew Thompson; Wall quoted it verbatim and looked down at the podium the entire time...

And given the nature of the quote and the question, Wall couldn't have prepared this statement ahead of time. So, Wall clearly was underprepared and perhaps a little worried about this debate; and it clearly comes across through his mannerisms.

That isn't to say that Lingenfelter didn't have his own stumbles in the debate. In fact, within the first ten minutes, I was concerned about the performance we were about to see from Lingenfelter. However, after a rocky start, Lingenfelter found his stride and was really able to get the NDP message across and promote the positive change that the NDP is working towards in our province.

So, in the long run (if only based on who came across as prepared) Lingenfelter clearly walked away with this debate in his corner.

That brings us to the substance of the debate.

Lingenfelter wins this category too; but before you call me biased allow me to explain. Throughout the debate, Lingenfelter constantly presented planks from the NDP platform; specifically hammering home messages of potash reviews, rent controls, and the school childrens' dental program. Now, quick, name one proposal Wall talked about.

The only one I can remember is his answer to post-secondary education; the program which would give students who qualify $500 for four years; or $2,000. Or, less than the cost of 1/2 a year of study at the University of Saskatchewan.

Other than that, Wall introduced no major campaign thoughts but talked vaguely about 'staying the course' and keeping Saskatchewan on track...Without any substance. Wall hammered Lingenfelter on costing for certain campaign promises; but Wall mentioned no promises or real ideas that would keep Saskatchewan 'on track.'

In this way, Lingenfelter presented the stronger case and better policy options in the debate. Wall brought no real ideas forward and stuck to vague talking points that provided no substance. So, that's 2 - 0 in favour of Lingenfelter.

In my opinion, Lingenfelter clearly won the debate. In a confrontation that was hyped up to be a battle between Wall's style and Lingenfelter's substance, the debate was turned on its head when Lingenfelter encompassed both and Wall was stuck looking inexperienced and at a loss.

Whether or not this translates into a bump for the NDP remains to be seen, but tonight was the night when Dwain Lingenfelter went from Leader of the Opposition to Premier of Saskatchewan.

An Omission Here, A Touch-Up There...

2011-10-24T01:17:00.001-06:00

Throughout the course of this election campaign, the Saskatchewan Party has been playing fast and loose with the history of our province. Commercial after commercial, press release after press release, the SK Party has been re-writing the history of our province and I for one am sick and tired of it. So, let's have an actual history lesson without any political spin, okay?

I know some of you will say, this is a political blog and I'm a biased NDPer...Valid points, but I am going to make sure that we stick to facts and not talking points.

The SK Party platform, which contains little substance; included the unusual step of including a small grey box portion on one page bashing NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter. Its one thing to bash a leader with paid advertisements, but I don't think I've ever seen one in a party platform before...

Anyways, the box contains much of the same information found on the website the SK Party has set up attacking Dwain's record. We've gone over some of these points in prior postings, so we won't delve too deeply on those issues again.

What I will delve into is the defence that the SK Party has created for themselves on why they deserve another chance to form government.

Let's start with the most basic one: The SK Party has long maintained the Saskatchewan is in a boom. Furthermore, they have maintained the idea that all of the good times in the past few years have been a direct result of their government.

If true, that would be an impressive statement. For a government to turn around an economy in a little under four years...It's unheard of! And it's untrue.

The SK Party platform specifically points out the fact that Saskatchewan is a have province. The wording and the omission of some details make it sounds as though this is a direct result of the SK Party being in power...

Let's think back for a moment.

It was around 2003, maybe 2004, when then Premier Lorne Calvert called a press conference. Lorne was smiling, as I recall, as he told reporters in the room that Saskatchewan was now a have province in terms of the federal equalization program. Though the SK Party has neglected to mention this fact at any point during their campaign.

Heck, even after their election in 2007 (just as the economy was heating up) the SK Party took credit for the economy boom only days after their election. Like it or not, the SK Party has to admit that part of the reason the province started to strive was because of the management of the NDP. Yes, it might not help them politically, but it is the truth.

And 16 years of financial stewardship that pays off is a hell of a lot more believable than a party reversing years of economic turmoil within three days of being elected.

The second thing we have to look at is the SK Party attacks on the NDP Platform. The SK Party has attacked the NDP for the spending it is projecting in their platform, and warns residents of the province that their campaign, promises, and spending are going to take us back to the 1980s...

What are they leaving out?

In addition to leaving out the projected increased revenue from a better potash deal (Come Brad, even you thought we could make a billion dollars off a potash at one time), the SK Party is neglecting the fact that the NDP wasn't in power during the 1980s.

The Progressive Conservatives were. And what happened to those crazy PCs? Well, some of them went to jail for stealing from the public purse. Others joined forces with disaffected Liberals to form the Saskatchewan Party; one of whom (Don Toth) had served in the Devine Government of the 1980s.

So, let's recap that for a moment, shall we? The PCs were in power in the 1980s. Many of those who serve in the SK Party today have links to the 1980s PC Government; including Brad Wall, who worked as a ministerial aide. And now, the SK Party has come out swinging against the 1980s government that racked up massive debt, and was besieged by other problems...But that government shared stripes with the SK Party, not the NDP.

In fact, the Devine Government used the same methodologies used by the SK Party; in regards to view points on privatization and tax levels. So, these policies were disastrous in the 1980s and led to the near financial collapse of our province...Yet, they are view points shared and espoused by the SK Party.

Confused yet?

The SK Party is attacking the Devine Government, but at the same time uses similar thought and ideological processes to form their own policies. And yet, they're making it sound like the NDP is the problem.

In fact, the SK Party doesn't mention that it was the PCs in power in the 1980s. They simply mention debt levels and reckless spending and say that the NDP's platform will recreate this situation...All the while trying to make it sound like it was the NDP who did it in the 1980s.

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of the way that the SK Party is attempting to rewrite history and pull the wool over the eyes of residents of Saskatchewan. I've mentioned before on this blog the need to improve political discourse if we have any hope of seeing democracy live to a ripe old age; but with electoral tactics like this, it seems the SK Party is all in favour of pulling the life support cord on democratic debate and facts.

Scott Muses: Choose Your Saskatchewan

2011-10-21T22:12:00.001-06:00

I'm still digesting the NDP platform release, as well as the announcements and headlines that have been made over the past week...I'm also dealing with one hell of a cold that is getting worse by the day and robbing me of a lot of free time and earmarked time for political involvement.

As such, this won't be a recap or facts post, but rather one of rather humdingers of an editorial. First thing, I'd like to thank The Jurist for his recent 'shout out' to my last post regarding the Sask Party's attack ad on Dwain Lingenfelter. As many of you are aware, a Nexen former CEO has stepped forward and said that Lingenfelter wouldn't have had the authority to make the decision to move the Wascana Energy office from Regina to Calgary. Despite this, the Sask Party continues to make their claims and have Bill Boyd suggesting that he was personally lobbied by Lingenfelter back in 2001...

Yes, because we're going to believe a man from the party who created the attack ad. Boyd either needs to produce some proof that Lingenfelter lobbied him back in 2001, or the Sask Party is going to have to let this issue come to a gentle rest...Though their current actions suggest that they plan on locking their jaws on this issue and putting fingers in their ears and humming very loudly when someone tries to tell them differently.

No word yet on the other points I made from that post; from either the mainstream media or the two parties, if only because they don't wish to dwell on this commercial any longer than we have to. But as stated before, that ad is filled with half-truths manipulated to sell a specific story; but when you have the full truth, the story becomes a very different thing altogether.

Now, I'd like to talk to you all for a moment about the future of our province...Since that seems to be the argument both political parties are focusing on. Hence, the name of this post. This election is about more than personality, it is indeed about choosing the road for Saskatchewan's future. Like the Robert Frost poem, we may find ourselves a few years older reflecting on the road not taken.

So, let's talk some substance, shall we?

In the slew of campaign releases, we have seen a very different approach between the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party in this election. The NDP has put forward programs and ideas, along with the means to pay for them. While the SK Party has introduced a series of 'mail-in rebates' (as I like to call them) that tend to only benefit people who can already afford an initial investment.

Allow me to explain on that one. For the most part, the SK Party has not really put forward any new initiatives or ideas in this campaign. And the ideas they have put forward, well, they usually leave a lot left to be desired. I say so because the SK Party has put forward ideas that are not having a major impact on the broad spectrum.

The majority of their spending promises comes in the form of tax rebates and credits. If you spend $____ on in this area, the government will give you $_____. A perfect example is the Registered Education Savings Plans, or RESPs. The SK Party will chip in an extra $250 if you max out a one year RESP to help pay for your child's college tuition in the future.

The problem with this is that there are many families in the province struggling to get by; and these families cannot afford to invest in RESPs, which leave them out in the cold. And then there's their consolation prize, a $2,000 one time scholarship for eligible high school graduates to put towards their college tuition.

How much does the SK Party think it costs to go to college? Well, allow me to inform you. I took 1 semester, or half a year, of university last year to get some prerequisites to a program I'm applying to. The cost of that half year was a $2,400. That means these eligible high school students aren't even getting enough to buy 1/2 a year of study at Saskatchewan universities. Keep in mind, that's only half a year. All in all, with textbooks, a student is likely to pay close to $5,200 a year for just a bachelor's program.

And that's not including cost of living (housing, food, clothes, etc.). So, this program is effectively useless as it provides no real help to those who are already struggling to pay to afford university.

This is in direct contrast to the NDP plan to put a freeze back on tuition (which the SK Party let die in 2007). Also, the NDP would raise the maximum allowed income of parents when children apply for Saskatchewan student loans (effectively, getting rid of the 'hell of the middle-ground' where parents are still too poor to be able to pay for their childrens' education, but too rich to qualify for government backed loans).

Effectively, what does this highlight?

What it highlights is the very different realities that NDP supporters and SK Party supporters exist in. The SK Party believes its own hype; that Saskatchewan is booming and everyone in the province is better off now than they were ten years ago. If that's true, then why was food bank usage up last year in our province? Why, to the best of my knowledge, did the Saskatoon food bank run out of food last Christmas?

Why are people in this province having to choose between having a roof over their head or food in their belly? Why are people having to choose between buying medications or making a home heating payment? Why are renters continuing to see massive rent increases, but no major building modifications to make their living atmosphere reflect the rent they are paying?

Saskatchewan is booming, in some regards, but not for everyone. And it's a reality that the SK Party refuses to accept.

Whereas the NDP is willing to say that things are going well, but they could be going better. Franklin Roosevelt once said, 'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.' And that is the mindset the NDP is using.

Saskatchewan deserves to boom for everyone who lives here; not just those who already exist at the top. More needs to be done to make sure the people of Saskatchewan get to experience the best possible quality of life that can be afforded to them. The NDP wants this to be a reality for everyone in Saskatchewan; while the SK Party wants to help those who already have the means to help themselves.

As mentioned, this election is about choosing your Saskatchewan. You can live in the land of sunshine and lollipops the SK Party believes in; or you can accept reality, roll up your sleeves, and help make that delusion a reality.

Setting the Record Straight

2011-10-17T23:04:00.002-06:00

There are times when I wonder if I've made the right decision with my life; by which I mean, to become the political junkie that I am. Nothing makes me wonder more about this than when I see parties take out 'attack ads' on the other guys.

Now, I've talked a bit about attack ads before on the blog...But since the Saskatchewan Party continues to inundate the airwaves with attack ads against Dwain Lingenfelter, I suppose it is worth talking about again.

While sitting down and watching TV after a long afternoon and evening of canvassing, I sat down and was blasted by two different, but similar, attack ads from the Saskatchewan Party against Dwain Lingenfelter. Of course, the advertisement directed viewers to check out a website based around Dwain's record.

Needless to say, this looks a lot like an attempt to follow the popular s**t harper did website tha popped up in the last federal election. Although, since it was done with party blessing, obviously expletives are not used in the web domain. Now, I'm not going to post a link to this website. If only because the facts and figures on it are of questionable accuracy.

Instead, I'm going to paste some the claims here and we can talk for a moment about why they're completely off base. Then, once we've picked apart a few of these claims, we'll talk about attack ads in general.

"Lingenfelter says he wants more head office jobs in Saskatchewan, but when he went to work for Nexen he moved their head office and his own job from Regina to Calgary.

When times were tougher in Saskatchewan, Lingenfelter quit his own NDP government and moved to Calgary to become an oil company lobbyist for Nexen.

Right after Lingenfelter went to work for Nexen as a paid lobbyist, the NDP changed the law to allow Nexen (which used to be the government-owned Crown Corporation, SaskOil) to move its head office from Regina to Calgary.

At the time, the NDP promised that Nexen's head office would stay in Regina.

Let's explore this one, since it sticks out the most to me.

So, here's the first problem: Dwain Lingenfelter left Saskatchewan, as such, he doesn't deserve to be Premier. That's basically the argument be made by this sentence. Essentially, the Saskatchewan Party seems to be making the argument that leaving Saskatchewan makes you ineligible for public office.

Surely, there's no hypocrisy in the Saskatchewan Party ranks...Right?

Enter Wayne Elhard, candidate in Cypress Hills. According to the Saskatchewan Party website bio:
"Wayne is a Saskatchewan native son, who obtained most of his education in Alberta. He graduated from high school in Medicine Hat, obtained a B.A. in history and philosophy from the University of Lethbridge, and later earned a Master's Degree from Baylor University in Waco, Texas."

So, he was most educated outside of the province. He spent a lot of time outside of the province. Heck, he even worked OUTSIDE of the province.

"Wayne also worked as a personnel recruiter for one of Canada's leading recruiting and consulting firms. Based in Edmonton, he worked on behalf of many of the nation's foremost engineering and construction companies, recruiting professional personnel. It was that job which helped form his views on the significance of economic growth and the importance of labour mobility."

Yet, no one is calling Wayne Elhard an 'opportunist' or attacking his motivations for entering the public service in Saskatchewan. Well, I suppose some might say I'm attacking him now...But that's besides the point. Why is it okay for for Mr. Elhard to serve Saskatchewan, but we question Dwain Lingenfelter for wanting to do the same thing?

And it's not just Elhard; Prince Albert Carlton Candidate Darryl Hickie was born in Winnipeg. Prince Albert Northcote Canadidate Victoria Jurgens received her MBA from Athabasca University, a university located in Alberta. Regina Lakeview Candidate Bob Hawkins, "...has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Canon Law from St. John’s College, University of Manitoba and holds degrees in law, economics and history from Oxford, Yale, the Panthéon-Sorbonne, Toronto and Manitoba." Gasp, many of those schools are outside Saskatchewan!

I can assure you, there's plenty of Saskatchewan Party members who have lived, worked, and studied outside of Saskatchewan. Yet their time abroad is not being called into question; which is quite audacious considering it is the Saskatchewan Party itself who is most vocal into calling notice to Dwain's time outside of Saskatchewan.

So, I think I've managed to pop the bubble of 'someone who left Saskatchewan doesn't belong in politics'...Let's move on to the next point.

The Saskatchewan Party website suggests that Lingenfelter had a personal hand in moving what was left of' 'SaskOil' out of the province and into Alberta. Let's explore what's wrong with that sentence.

For starters, the SK Party website mentions that SaskOil used to be a Crown Corporation. They leave out the bit where it was privatized in 1986 by the Grant Devine Government. They also suggest that Nexen, the company that was formed when Wascana Energy Inc was BOUGHT OUT by Canadian Occidental in 1997 was moved out of Saskatchewan.

Well, for starters, Canadian Occidental was based out of Calgary which was owned by a mostly American board.

So, we have a Calgary based company in charge of what used to be a Saskatchewan based oil company, which used to be a crown corporation but was introduced to privatization by the Devine Government...

And the SK Party has the audacity to suggest it was the NDP who moved towards destroying SaskOil?

Of course, it is true that the NDP government repealed the Wascana Energy Act which more or less kept the office in Regina and made the board of directors 50% Saskatchewan residents. Though, let's keep in mind that the government sold its shares in Wascana Energy to Canadian Occidental in 1997.

But, let's examine something else as well.

What was Lingenfelter's job with Nexen? Well, according to his bio he was in a Vice-President in charge of Government Relations. What does that mean? It means it was his job to interact with government officials on behalf of the company. From what I know of Dwain's personal history, these types of interactions occurred outside of Canada; in places such as Yemen, and Colombia.

There is no proof, written or otherwise, that Dwain ever lobbied the Saskatchewan Government on behalf of Nexen. As such, the claim that he moved to the company and a year later the Wascana Energy Act was repealed is a bit of a straw man argument and hearsay of the worst kind.

Keep in mind, as well, the SK Party is blaming Lingenfelter personally for this. Yet, at the time, he'd been out of government and Saskatchewan politics for a year.

So, why did the NDP government of the time write off the Wascana Energy Act? That's a question I can't answer. I don't know why...But I can guess. At the time, it was likely considered odd that the government of Saskatchewan was legislating the purview of an independent company that existed outside of Saskatchewan.

Keep in mind, the Saskatchewan Government had no shares in Wascana Oil at the time and Canadian Occidental/Nexen was the majority shareholder. Now, I know businesses...They don't like being told what they can and cannot do by someone who has no stake in the company. And most people would say that the government had no right legislating Wascana Oil given that they didn't have a stake in it.

As such, it seems possible to me that the government realized the awkward position they were in. And either Nexen was getting ready to challenge them over how their company was being run...or some other type of situation. This blog is not really designed for speculation over the hypothetical, so draw your own conclusions.

Effectively, the Saskatchewan Government was already out of Wascana Oil in the late 90s; the repealing of the Wascana Energy Act in 2001 was the recognition of this fact and nothing more. Perhaps they had an agreement with Nexen to keep the office if the act was repealed, and Nexen simply disregarded the terms...Or perhaps the government of the time allowed the office to be closed based on projections and figures that this blogger does not have access to.

Either way, all of this occurred outside of Lingenfelter's watch and to try and tie him to it is simply absurd.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg...I had planned only to refute those claims, but there's more hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out.

"In an October 26, 2005 Leader Post article entitled Lingenfelter Campaigns for Nuclear Plant, Lingenfelter said, "If Tommy Douglas were here, [nuclear power] would be exactly what he would be doing."

What did the Saskatchewan Party leave out of this quotation:

"And his idea is getting some qualified support from some unlikely sources including Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall, Liberal Leader David Karwacki and even former Saskatchewan Wheat Pool President Garf Stevenson who all say it's a notion worth exploring."

That's right! In 2005, when Lingenfelter was musing the idea of building a nuclear reactor to supply power to Alberta Oil Sands development, then Opposition Leader Brad Wall agreed with the idea.

So, apparently, it was alright in 2005...But now it's not?

Now, I don't support nuclear power...If only because of the problem with what to do with nuclear waste. So, I wouldn't agree with either leader if they wanted to pursue nuclear power. But let's look at the most recent NDP energy proposals:

The NDP has committed themselves to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. There is no mention of nuclear power anywhere in the NDP energy platform. Yet, Brad Wall was gung-ho about nuclear development during his first time as Premier. Who could forget the public consultations which condemned nuclear power, yet were almost all but ignored by the SK Party?

Who could forget Wall's rush to convince Stephen Harper to build a replacement for the Chalk River isotope facility here in Saskatchewan?

So, yes, Lingenfelter mused about nuclear energy in the past...But Brad Wall agreed with him then, and is still pursuing it now.

Then we come to the nuclear waste site...Lingenfelter's quote on this is actually a bit misrepresented. In the speech Lingenfelter made, he suggests that Saskatchewan is acting hypocritically by mining a large percentage of uranium for export, but by calling it too risky to use at home.

Why, that sounds like the argument people use against asbestos mining.

Lingenfelter suggested that either we close the mines or we open ourselves up to using nuclear energy. While I disagree with the conclusion, the logic behind it is actually fairly sound. But again, Brad Wall is rewriting history on this subject.

After all, under his watch 3 Saskatchewan communities have more or less demanded the chance to build these nuclear storage facilities in order to create jobs in their communities. Wall has remained mostly 'mum' on the issue, and backtracked just enough to not step on too many toes over the subject. But, he didn't say whether his government would step up and create a law to prevent the construction of such a facility.

As such, Wall's waffling over the issue shows that he's not opposed to the idea either...And will likely move on it after it becomes politically palpable.

"Some, like former NDP deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, say Saskatchewan's wide open spaces make it ideal for every step of the cycle, including power generation and waste storage. While conventional reactors are widely seen as producing too much power for the province's needs, Lingenfelter argues Saskatchewan could become a power hub and supply energy to the rest of Canada and the United States."

Read that carefully.

Why?

Because the argument Lingenfelter uses there is the same one Brad Wall used when he proposed nuclear power for Saskatchewan shortly after being elected in 2007. He's used the idea that Saskatchewan has enough vast space that no one should worry about nuclear reactors in their backyard.

He's also used the argument that excess power can be provided to the USA and other provinces as a means of generating income for Saskatchewan.

So, once again...Why is it bad when Lingenfelter says it, but it is okay when Wall says it?

Like I said before, I oppose nuclear power. But, again as mentioned before, the NDP platform shows that a nuclear Saskatchewan isn't on the table under a NDP government. And even if Lingenfelter still wants to produce nuclear power as Premier, there's plenty of anti-nuclear proponents in his caucus and in the party that would never allow the party to pursue nuclear power.

The same can't be said for the Saskatchewan Party.

To use a Wall quote: "Who knows what opportunities lie ahead in this area for the province?" Premier Brad Wall said recently. "I believe we can lead in this area, certainly in research and development."

So, why can the Saskatchewan Party attack Lingenfelter over nuclear power when their own party is just as willing to take Saskatchewan down that road?

Now, there are many other problems with this so-called website being run by the Saskatchewan Party.

To examine just a few more, in briefer detail...

Let's look at their claim that the NDP raised taxes 17 times while in government and shut down 52 rural hospitals.

Jeez, that sounds awful doesn't it? Why in god's name would they have to do that...

Oh yeah...The massive ballooning deficit and near bankruptcy Saskatchewan teetered towards after the Devine Government. No where does the Saskatchewan Party website mention the state of the province's finances after the 1993 election. They neglect the fact that our province was near the breaking point, and the NDP had to scale back their vision for our province because of crippling levels of debt that tied their hands in regards to social spending.

Yes, hospitals were closed. Yes, taxes were raised. But anyone who's managed a budget or a household knows that when times get tough, you have to make tough decisions. You have to cut spending and you have to increase the amount of money coming back into the budget. Unfortunately, hospital closures were one thing that had to occur to achieve this.

Ask Roy Romanow, who I've had the pleasure of hearing lecture on health care, and he'll tell you that in 1993 he didn't want to, or expect to, close hospitals when he became Premier. He'll tell you it was the last thing he wanted to do, and one of the regrets he had during his time as Premier.

Yet the SK Party is making it sound like the NDP did these things for fun or sport; which simply isn't true...Much like all the claims on this so-called website.

Now, this post has already gotten pretty long...Making me wonder if I should even speak to the nature of attack ads in the first place. Perhaps I'll save that for another post, but I will say this:

It is a sad state of affairs when political discourse becomes the arena of they who scream loudest win. When it becomes not about the free flowing exchange of ideas, but about the destruction of opponents for pure ideological, egotistical, and personal benefit.

Politics is supposed to be the realm of the possible, where idealists come together to strive and create a better world than the one they inherited from the previous generation. It is not supposed to be a shouting match between two increasing angry sides that reject civil debate and reason in favour of blind ideological belief and malice.

We deserve to an adult conversation when it comes to how our country, and our province, are governed. We should not be talked down to as children; nor should we be flat out lied to by those who are seeking to lead us.

In the Westminster political discord, we award the title of Honourable to those who serve in our legislature. It's about time we demanded they live up to that title.

A Notice

2011-10-10T23:30:00.002-06:00

Hello all,

I suppose with the writ dropped for the Saskatchewan election, many of you are expecting this blog to become a wildfire place for information and the like...

However, I must sadly suggest that this will not occur. Allow me to explain, before everyone starts throwing bricks or some other hard/blunt instrument in my general direction. I've gotten involved in this campaign, and as such, I'm going to be on the road a lot. As such, I will not always have the time to post regularly to the blog.

Furthermore, given my connections to the campaign, it seems odd but I may have to recluse myself from posting on a particular issue. After all, I don't wish to take away any of the thunder from my party and their announcements.

As such, should I find the time to post, it will most likely revolve around the major announcement of day/week AFTER it has been put forward. So, look forward to that.

That said, I think it's time for another 'Scott Muses' post...Maybe I'll start naming them like that for those of you who would prefer to skip the editorializing and simply read the facts.

I apologize if this sounds like a speech; sometimes in my head that's the way I imagine this blog being read out, just so you're all aware.

As Saskatchewan heads to the electoral polls, we find ourselves at the dawn of a new political landscape. The general assumptions of what we consider to be Canada's political machine have been thoroughly put to rest; a fact that many of different political stripes refuse to accept.

We rely on precedent. We look back to the past to see if we can glean from past generations the patterns that will predict future outcomes. As such, politics in Canada has always been something of a psychic with a crystal ball. After all, who could forget the last federal election? Pollsters had all but ruled out a Conservative majority government, yet that was the over all outcome.

Furthermore, the NDP rose to heights that were not expected. It was clear that the party was surging, but pollsters did not see the lengths to which that surge would go. As such, the crystal ball was shattered and Canadians were generally surprised by the outcome of the election.

But this has not been the only time the pollsters got it wrong. Let's look to some of our most recent provincial elections. For the longest time, doomsayers would predicting the downfall of the NDP in Manitoba and the Liberals in Ontario; at the gain of the Progressive Conservatives of those provinces.

Even Stephen Harper smiled at this prospect; going as far as to suggest that Ontario would be better served by a triumvirate of himself in Ottawa, Rod Ford in Toronto, and Tim Hudak in Queen's Park. After all, this is what the polls were suggesting. Even historically speaking, Canadians do tend to ditch governments when they get a little long in the tooth and too unpopular.

(Alberta has been the exception to this, but mainly by changing leaders regularly enough to prevent the electorate from letting the party get too unpopular.)

However, there has been another historical trend that Conservative politicians have been overlooking. There is something of a trend in provincial-federal relations that states that the provinces want to balance the power between the feds and the provinces. This is traditionally done by electing governments of different political stripes provincially than those federally.

Now, much like the other historical trends, this is something of a crap shoot. Not always do the provinces elect differently striped provincial parties..But they do tend to elect parties that are vocal about standing up for the province.

Take Newfoundland & Labradour for example. Danny Williams was a conservative, so was Stephen Harper. Yet Williams consistently stood up to the federal government for the sake of his province. In fact, he did it in such a way that the two had a very frosty relationship and you'd never guess that they shared similar political ideologies.

As such, the role of the provincial government has always been to stand up for the province when Ottawa comes a calling. In this manner, the historical trend suggests that the citizens of the province want a provincial government who is going to put the province's needs ahead of everything else...Including political ideology.

So, what does that say for Brad Wall?

Well, if we look at his track record of standing up to Ottawa...The record isn't good. The only thing Wall grew a backbone over was the potential selling of PotashCorp. And even then, he was the last provincial leader to condemn the sale, and only did so when it became public that the province would stand to lose billions in revenue if the sale went through.

One can't help but wonder that if the cost to Saskatchewan had remained in the shadows, if Brad Wall would have stayed there as well.

Then we have the fabled equalization debate with Ottawa that started before the last election in 2007. Wall was quick to surrender Saskatchewan's argument that the formula had robbed Saskatchewan of a sizable amount of money from Ottawa; and instead allowed the issue to die a quick death and never bothered to fight for money that Saskatchewan was entitled to.

As such, we've seen in Brad Wall a man who is not putting the province ahead of ideology. One has to wonder if this will be in the mind of the electorate, especially considering the Conservative majority in Ottawa.

We're standing at a crossroads. Harper has put forward his vision of Canada for the next few years, and it is a vision which many oppose. The dismantling of the Wheat Board, for example, is opposed by farmers yet Harper is hell-bent on continuing. And the Wall Government is silent on the issue.

As such, we could very well see rural voters (who have traditionally voted Saskatchewan Party) turn to the NDP, simply because they know that a provincial NDP government will fight against Ottawa to save the Wheat Board.

Then there's Harper's law and order agenda; which Justice Minister Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Towes have said will have significant costs to be covered by the provinces. Given Wall's enthusiasm only a few years ago to build a 'super-max' prison facility somewhere in Saskatchewan, we know which side of the debate he falls on.

Yet I imagine the NIMBY (Not-In-My-BackYard) principle will be alive and well. After all, what community would want to have a prison housing dangerous offenders from across western Canada? Furthermore, what Saskatchewan taxpayer would want to pay to have such a facility built with limited financial support from Ottawa?

There a myriad of small strings on this tapestry, and yet so few of them have been unraveled. Pollsters and 'specialists' have already suggested that Brad Wall is waltzing towards victory simply because of historical precedence and 'stage presence'.

But we've already seen that historical precedence is easily tossed to the wayside when the electoral decides to do so. Furthermore, Wall's 'stage presence' is easily chipped away when one considers how easily he curtails to Ottawa, provided it won't cost him dearly at home.

Now, I may be biased in my own political leanings; but, I feel that this election is not as easily written off as many have said it is. Many are saying that the electorate is slow to change current sitting governments because of economic uncertainty; but there is also another thread that many are missing.

All of these governments trailed their right-of-centre party for the bulk of the pre-election period. And despite looking as if marching towards defeat, centre-left and left parties performed admirably. All of these provincial elections have been a rejection of conservativism, thus far.

It does seem likely that the PCs will win in Newfoundland, but the NDP will rise to official opposition and likely receive their highest seat total ever in the province. As such, what does this mean for Saskatchewan?

Many are suggesting that not only is Wall going to win, but he's going to gain seats in this election. Again, this is all historical precedence speaking.

But if we look at voter mood, it's those on the left who are the most organized and 'riled' up at the moment. (Occupy Wall Street movement, anyone?) And that could very well propel left of centre parties into a better position than people are giving them credit for.

Effectively, to borrow a line, the only poll that matters is the one that happens on election day. Thus far, polls have proven themselves to be wrong more often than they were right. As such, no party can be written off.

But what can be said is that Canadians are not moving towards the right of centre; and this is a movement that is definitely going to have an impact on the November 7th election here in Saskatchewan.

Hate to Say I Told You So...

2011-10-01T03:45:00.002-06:00

"As I mentioned when I talked about that, I said there were a number of backbench MPs I believed existed in the Conservative Party who would not take the leader's advice and would pursue these issues anyways. Brad Trost was my number one choice to raise this banner, given that he's more or less known for abandoning Harper's attempts to appear centrist in order to appease social conservatives." - Me, April 2011

"I have no doubt in my mind that a Conservative Majority government would move quickly to pass legislation on these two issues; though, I will concede that they will not be government bills but private members bills.

I can, off the top of my head, name quite a few Conservative backbenchers who would introduce such legislation; but I won't go through the bother of naming them here, we all know who are the social conservatives in the Conservative Party caucus. From Saskatchewan alone, there's at least 4 names that come to mind that would draft and second a bill to repeal same-sex marriage and limit or restrict abortion.

As such, this is the scenario I imagine:

2 of the Conservative backbenchers will introduce and second a bill on these issues, and eventually it will go before a vote in the House of Commons. Stephen Harper, and a key few Cabinet Ministers, will either abstain from voting or vote against the private member's bill.

The few socially conservative members of the Liberal Party, as there are a few, will vote with the bill, and the rest of the Conservative caucus will be left to vote as they please. The bill will either pass or fail, depending on the number of Conservatives elected." - Me, April 2011

Source: CBC News: Planned Parenthood 'Conned' Government, Tory MP says

Sometimes, I really hate being right.

It's a fault that I don't admit to readily, if only because most people are overjoyed when they're proven to be right. Sadly, in this case, I wish I were wrong. I've included two quotes from prior posts on this blog to back up my point...

We're in the starting days of exactly what I predicted was going to happen; socially conservative backbench MPs are starting to buck the trends of party leadership and introducing bills and ideas that would normally be political suicide.

Harper was quick to dismiss the idea that his party would re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debates; yet, I was quick to point out that there are many ways around that.

Allow me to explain again, in a nutshell:

It's no secret that the Conservative caucus is full of social conservatives who want to roll back social rights for dozens of minorities across this country (from women to homosexuals). As such, there are more than a few who would have the gall to put forward a private members bill that would support their socially conservative agenda.

And we've seen two step forward here in Saskatchewan: Brad Trost and Maurice Vellacott. The two have openly spoken out about international funding for Planned Parenthood (see my defence of planned parenthood here: LINK); and are rattling cages across Canada by promoting their social conservative agenda.

And now they've come together and are actively doing what I feared would happen in a conservative majority: a handful of narrow-minded MPs working together to pass bills passed on ignorance, hate and intolerance.

This is the opening salvo, and the silence from the Harper Government is more than telling. In the old days (the minority days), Harper would have been quick to snap Trost in line. In fact, it wouldn't have reached the point where Vellacott would have chimed in with his two cents on the subject as well.

So, why has it changed now?

It has because Harper is just as keen to pass socially conservative legislation, but he can't use the guise of government to get it done. As mentioned, it would be political suicide for his government to introduce measures like these (as it would alienate soft-C conservatives and socially liberal but financially conservative conservatives); but having a few members of the backbench put forward such legislation is more palpable.

After all, Harper can distance himself from the bills. He can stand behind the shield of them being private members bills, not government bills. He can even condemn them, if he wants, but still end up saying "It will be up to parliament whether or not these bills pass."

And of course, there's no telling how it goes from there...Harper could not attend the vote on the bills, allowing him to take credit with social conservatives but avoid the flak from soft-C conservatives. And whether or not such a measure would pass...Depends.

There's no telling how many members of the Conservative caucus would support such a measure. At best, it would be all but the cabinet ministers (who like Harper, would be pressured into abstaining whether than coming down on a side on the issues); at worst, it would be a small number of Conservative backbenchers.

But then there's the few socially conservative Liberals who would vote in favour of any bill which rolls back abortion and same-sex marriage rights.

As such, I don't know how a vote would go down...But I assure you, Harper and cabinet will make sure to distance themselves but not kill the bills.

I know, perhaps this is just worst case scenario...But the fact that Vellacott and Trost haven't been smacked down by the party whip or the PMO suggests that they're speaking with impunity...After all, Harper is known for controlling his caucus with an iron fist. It's doubtful that Trost and Vellacott have finally developed a spine over such a narrow-minded issue (after all, where was their defiance when the Harper Government was still considering allowing Saskatchewan based PotashCorp to be sold to BHP?).

As such, I think we can only assume that Trost and Vellacott are speaking with sanction from the PMO...It is the only way to explain how they haven't been knocked back into line by the party.

So, despite telling Canadians that his government would have no interest in re-opening these debates; it seems it was a campaign lie and the opening shots have been fired in this socially minded conflict that lies ahead of us.

I'm not a man who treads on conspiracy theories; nor musings that I can't back up with proof from a reliable source...But my instinct tells me that this is the scenario we're looking at. If Trost and Vellacott go unpunished for weeks, then we can only assume that they are indeed speaking with the blessing of the PMO on this issue.

And a lack of punishment is going to lead to action on their parts; and we will see bills introduced that are designed to roll back social rights across this country.

I don't know about you, but this is one issue that I'm damned ready to fight for. And that's what we all need to be ready to do; we need to defend our social rights in this country, even if they don't extend to us, because it will only be a matter of time until other social rights fall under attack by this government.

And social rights are well worth fighting for.

Crime and Punishment

2011-09-28T22:21:00.002-06:00

Source: Globe and Mail: The Cost of Conservative Crime Bill for One Year: $458 Million
Source: Vancouver Sun: Judge Deems Harper's Crime Bill 'strain' on System
Source: CBC News: Tory Crime Bills Cracks Down on Drugs, Sex Offences

I've put off discussing the crime bill for awhile now; mainly because some of the issues to discuss about it have been discussed before on this blog.

Before the election, the opposition parties were hammering the Conservatives over the cost of their crime bills, as well as other bills, which were not fully documented in terms of cost. You may remember that the Minority Conservative government was found in contempt of the House of Commons over their refusal to provide this information; which in turn led to an election where Canadians seemed to forget that the government was basically pushed out of office for being untrustworthy.

Crime bills were part of the triumvirate of issues that had not been fulled budgeted to the Commons; fighter jets and corporate tax decisions were other parts. Yet, the one thing we all could agree on, was the fact that these bills were likely going to cost more than the Conservative Government said they were going to.

And now the cost of only one piece of the new Conservative omnibus crime bill has come out at a whopping price tag of $458 million dollars. This tag is associated with the 'Truth in Sentencing' Act; wherein a person waiting to stand trial is given time off their sentence due to time served in remand.

By removing this from the criminal justice system, those convicted of a crime will serve their full sentence...Ideally.

Let's not forget that full sentences aren't really full sentences. After all, someone who commits a crime may get a sentence of ten years; but may become eligible for parole at the four year mark...Meaning that they would still only spend four years in prison out of the ten they were sentenced for.

So, what do I mean by that example?

Effectively, this piece of the omnibus crime bill is useless. It increases prison populations, while ignoring the fact that many of these people will still be eligible for parole at some point in their sentence. As such, this is not even a half-measure. If the Conservatives were serious about tackling crimes and making sure criminals serve their sentence, they would remove the eligibly for parole at the same time, a move they have not yet made.

Now, I'm not advocating that. I'm simply saying that it doesn't make sense for the Conservatives to talk about people serving their sentences when there is still another method for criminals to leave prison before their sentence is fulfilled. There is a condition for increasing the length of time that an inmate must serve in good behaviour to be eligible for parole; BUT they still remain eligible.

I had to dig to find that piece of information, which goes to show just how much the Conservatives are burying that. If only because the process of parole shows what hypocrites they are being in terms of time off for days served. Parole invalidates the need to remove time off sentence for days held in remand; so either both have to go, or neither go, as that is the only thing that makes the difference.

Again, I'm not suggesting that we remove parole from our criminal justice system; but if Conservatives want 'truth in sentencing', then parole has to be taken off the table as well.

Furthermore, that brings us to the issue of prisons themselves. Canada's prisons, in many regions, are already suffering from overcrowding. Our legal system, as well, is suffering from a massive backlog wherein criminals do wait ridiculous amounts of time to be found guilty or innocent by a court of law.

Yet, there is no Conservative plan to address this. Obviously, this could be the prelude to the building of new prisons across Canada. After all, if the population in prisons explode than we will need new facilities to house our criminals. However, the Conservatives push this bill as a means of diminishing crime.

Building new prisons suggests that crime is increasing. If this bill leads to new prisons NEEDING to be built, than it has already failed in reducing crime in Canada.

Add to that the fact that our justice system is backlogged on a massive level. Courts across Canada are taking years to bring offenders to trial, simply because they don't have the resources to move them through the system quicker. Yet there has been no Conservative plan to increase the resources of the court.

Which brings me to the next point: Crime rates are lower across the country. The media has pointed this out, academics have pointed this out, and the opposition parties have pointed this out. Sadly, those are three groups that the Conservatives have shown in the past that they don't listen to.

Even the Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, scoffed at the lower crime rates and suggested that the government wasn't legislating based on figures or facts...though he stopped short of admitting it was blind partisan politics that guided them.

And then there's the blind War on Drugs...Possession of marijuana, and its production, will be increased from seven to fourteen years in prison. Many have laughed at this given that the punishment for possession is now sterner than the punishment for abuse of children. The War on Drugs is a failed left over from the 1980s and 1990s, and its a public policy that needs to be pushed to the wayside.

We made progress over things like In-Site, or safe injection sites, under the previous Liberal Government...But the Harper Government has been combating In-Site and safe injection sites since being elected.

The War on Drugs has failed. Even a UN team, which had sitting politicians and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on it, published a paper which suggested it was better (and more cost effective) for countries to legalize certain drugs than it was to combat their spread. Again, I'll cite Prohibition Era America.

Up until the 1920s, the power of the Mafia and organized crime in the US was pretty minimal. It wasn't until prohibition provided these organizations and individuals with a means of controlling a substance (distribution, production, all of it) that they were able to become the powerful organizations that they were.

The same thing happened with drugs. Look at the Mexican Drug cartel, for example.

When you outlaw something, you're playing right into the hands of those who break the law. Drugs make money, like it or not, and it is something that is not going to go away. Unlike prohibition, we've yet to give our heads a collective shake and realize that people are going to want mind-altering substances regardless of whether or not we think they should have them.

As such, we should be moving in a different direction in regards to drug policy than the one the Harper Government is taking us on.

The other major problem with this bill comes in the form of youth crime. The Conservatives have always been more of a 'stick' than 'carrot' kind of government and party, which is why they have perhaps missed the point again.

Conservatives are once again tearing apart the young offender's act in the name of 'safer streets'. They will punish young offenders more harshly, including removing publication bans of their names and faces; and will effectively establish longer services for young adults.

For a government passing parts of this bill that are all about protecting children and minors, they sure are screwing it up with other parts.

There is a movie I'd like to suggest you all see; it is called Boy A, it's a British movie about a young man who was involved in a crime as a young boy. Because of his age, he spent all of his youth in care facilities and when he was released back into the public he was given a new name and moved to a new town.

About midway into the movie, he rescues a woman when he car goes off a road, and him and his work partner become something of local heroes. However, his face is eventually recognized when it is plastered everywhere and the new life he's built for himself comes crashing down around him.

I won't say more than that about it, as it's a damned good movie and an example of what can happen to young offenders when the right precautions aren't taken. Needless to say, the Harper Government is BREEDING criminals with stiffer penalties, and not just for young offenders.

I've said before on this blog, if someone commits a crime at 14 (an age the Conservatives said isn't even old enough to consent to sex, hence why they raised the age of consent to 16) they need to be given some leeway in regards to what they did. We need to understand why they did it, and how we can prevent other youth from making the same life choices.

We all did stupid things at 14; yet this bill would have that person carry their bad choices with them until the day they die. Finding a job in this economy is tough enough without having a criminal record attached to your name. And even if you do manage to get a pardon; yet another thing the Conservatives are going to make harder, someone may always remember your name and what you did as a child.

As such, releasing this sort of information is going to destroy any chance a youth has at forming a normal life as an adult. Which in turn means one thing and one thing alone: They will have to turn to crime in order to survive. As I said, this bill is only going to breed criminals from youths as opposed to reducing youth crime.

Which brings me to my last point: Prisons are not deterrents to crime, in fact, going to prison makes crime rates worse.

According to this study (LINK) offenders who have served in prison are more likely to repeat their offense in the future, as opposed to someone with the same conviction serving outside of prison.

Let me say that again: Someone who goes to prison for a year, on let's say a breaking and entering charge, is more likely to re-offend than someone with the same charge who is placed in community service, or house arrest (another thing Conservatives are getting rid of with this bill.)

So, as it seems, the Conservatives are doing everything possible to making criminals more abundant than less with this crime bill. Their antiquated approach to the criminal justice system is only going to breed more criminals and leave Canada less safe in the years ahead. As such, this bill does not live up to its name in the slightest.

Effectively, if you want to make Canada safer you need to address the problems that create crime in the first place. That means more funding for education and extra-curricular activities to keep youth off the streets and involved in the community. That means addressing poverty and homelessness. That means sensible drug laws that will remove power and funds from criminal organizations.

The Conservatives have failed to consider any of those types of proposals, if only because they all stand against their ideological viewpoints. But those are the most effective ways to cut crime rates.

Look at European countries, with low levels of poverty and great education systems; their crime rates are much lower than anything we post here. Now, you could say that's a coincidence; but that would be like me saying that the green cup on my desk keeps tigers away...Just because there's no tigers, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

If we want to cut crime, we need to address it at the source. We need to be proactive, not reactive.

But if we do need to react, the least the Conservatives could do is put something on the table that would actually reduce crime, not encourage it.

Come Fly With Me...

2011-09-23T21:27:00.003-06:00

Source: CBC News: Challenger Jets' True Cost Revealed
Source: CBC News: MacKay took Military jet to Lobster Fest
Source: CBC News: Challenger Logs Show Low-Security Officials Taking Flights

So, about a week ago we were all aghast when it was revealed that General Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, was jetting about the country using Canada's Challenger jets. One of the major sticking points was his taking the jet to rendezvous with his family in the Caribbean; of course, the flight was defended by the fact that Natynczyk had missed his original flight with his family in order to attend a repatriation ceremony. So, the defence is that he was flown down since he was detained in Canada on official duties as Chief of Defence Staff.

But soon, more and more information started to come out. Natynczyk, and his family, had used the Challenger to fly about the country to attend hockey games and other events. Some have again, defended the action by saying that prior to the games Natynczyk visited military bases in the area. Whether or not that is true, I can't say. I haven't seen any documents that support that statement, but for now we'll leave it as a loose end.

Natynczyk condemned the scrutiny he was under as saying that it seemed like smear campaign...But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that Natynczyk isn't the only one using military transports as his own personal transport. For security reasons, and likely good ones, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor General David Johnston are required to fly by private jet. Personally, I can understand that...For the most part; so we'll let that go.

Harper, however, has compounded the problem by suggesting that the flights do not cost as much as the media is suggesting. Other military members have also stepped forward, and said that the Challenger cost is inflated in media reports...

Now, the CBC has released a very detailed document that breaks down the cost of the Challenger flights. They can related it better than I, so if you missed the source, you can read it: HERE.

Essentially, the CBC has stated that the cost of flying a Challenger jet for one hour costs Canadian taxpayers $12,531. Which already is higher than the $10,000 estimate the media was running with; and much higher than the $2,000 quote some military officials have provided.

And of course, things get worse from here.

We'll start with the no-named officials who have been using the Challenger fleet. The CBC reports that in June the Challengers flew for 165 hours at a cost of $2 million to taxpayers; the shocking, and downright frustrating part, is that 60% of those hours were for officials who do not require extra security or who cannot take regular flights.

Let me repeat that: 60% of the flights meant for officials who cannot safely ride regular flights were being taken by personnel who did not need the extra security.

At the same time, some are trying to defend the cost of the Challengers by saying that 70% of Challenger's existence is spent inside the hanger. As if we're supposed to be comforted by the fact that the Challengers, which military personal say would have their pilots paid regardless of whether or not the planes fly, only spend about 30% of their time in the air.

And that brings us to Peter MacKay. A day ago, MacKay was under fire for using a search and rescue helicopter in Newfoundland to pick him up from a vacation near the Gander River. MacKay has defended the helicopter ride, which cost taxpayers about $32,000, by saying that he was taking part in a search and rescue demonstration and training exercise.

Needless to say, a lot of people are not happy with this answer. As it stands now, it seems that the helicopter was called to pick up the Defence Minister on the day that it came for him. If someone was taking part in a training exercise, wouldn't they have made arrangements ahead of time?

I mean, if you think about it, you'd check ahead and see that this demonstration was taking place. And once you did, if you wanted to be involved in it, you would probably make sure that you were in the region without needing to be picked up by the aircraft.

Effectively, with how tightly controlled a minister's schedule is, it's doubtful that MacKay had made plans in advance to tag along on this exercise. Which furthermore, makes it doubtful that he really wanted to tag along in the first place. Rather, as it stands now, it looks more like he simply wanted the fastest ride out of his vacation spot of choice.

And then the plot thickens...Almost like a bisque. (Bad pun, perhaps?)

The day after MacKay hopped aboard a military helicopter, he got involved in the use of Challenger jets, by hopping aboard one of the jets and heading to a lobster festival in his riding. MacKay is defending the use of the Challenger by suggesting that it was a work trip, not a personal one, and therefore he has right to use the Challenger.

So, with person after person being found abusing these military transports, what exactly does that mean?

Well, it depends on who you ask. Some people will tell you that our politicians should be able to have access to safe and secure transport. While that is true for the Prime Minister, and even the Governor General, it's hard to make the same argument for cabinet ministers. We'd all be outraged if a backbench MP took a Challenger jet to fly across the country, regardless of the reason for their trip, so why do we seem willing to give cabinet members a pass on this issue?

Canada is facing down the barrel of an economic crisis, as is many other parts of the world; which begs the question about what our government should do to scale back funding and make sure that tax dollars are well spent.

Given that Harper, a trained economist; and Jim Flaherty, a career finance minister, have tendered a $90,000 a day contract to an outside firm to help them balance the budget...Obviously, we all need to be concerned about how this government is spending our tax dollars.

One could argue, that it's part of a bigger plan.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd argue that the Conservatives are tempting Canadians to show outrage over certain issues in order to demand that they be scaled back. The Challengers are estimated to cost Canada $33 million a year, which would be a pretty penny saved if the bulk of the jets were cut.

So, is this simply a move by the Harper Conservatives to get Canadians outraged about the Challengers in order to scrap them? It's possible...But there's no proof. Furthermore, Harper and Johnston still require secure travel, so it wouldn't be wise to scrap these jets altogether.

On top of that, Peter MacKay is still the most likely Conservative heir apparent after Harper steps aside...Something like this could be a major dent in his armour, which I doubt he would take willingly. So, it would seem that this isn't some Conservative plot.

What is the point of this post then?

Frankly, it's a harbinger of whats to come over the next four years. The Harper Government was elected to balance the books, that's the key issue they ran on, and they have talked about being good financial managers. Yet, all we've seen is questionable decision after questionable decision when it comes to spending tax dollars.

Whether that's the cost of the Challengers and who is using them; whether it's paying an outside $90,000 a day to do the government's job of balancing the books; whether it's Tony Clement and his spend fest in his riding prior to the G8/G20 meetings, and the 'posturing' of a friend into a job with a city within his riding...

This is just months after the election; what are we going to see a year from now? Three years from now? Come the next election?

Unlike our tax dollars, by electing the Conservatives, Canadians are getting what they paid for.

Style over Substance

2011-09-19T19:35:00.002-06:00

Once again, there's a lot of things worth talking about. We have the House coming back into session in Ottawa; the first session without Jack Layton heading the NDP in the House of Commons; and a question period that saw the opposition hound the government over their decisions to focus on 'law and order' bills at a time when the economy still needs a firm hand guiding it.

However, I'm going to keep it local this post.

As Saskatchewan approaches election day, the contrast between the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP is already very clear. It seems every other day, the NDP is coming out with policy developments and announcements while the Saskatchewan Party is staying mostly silent in terms of policy.

In fact, the only policies the Saskatchewan Party have really put forward have been in direct competition to what the NDP has said. For example, the cracked bridge in Prince Albert. The NDP have stated that the Diefenbaker Bridge will be repaired, and that a second bridge may be constructed to reduce the work load of the bridge and traffic congestion.

As such, the Sask Party was quick to play catch up when they announced that the province would absorb most of the repair cost to the Diefenbaker Bridge...No word on whether or not they would create a second bridge.

And yet, I've said that the Sask Party has been 'mostly' silent.

And that's because they are taking the path of least resistance, and least chance of ticking off voters, by sticking to sheer large amounts of advertising.

Rather than release policies, or detail what it is they would do if re-elected, the Sask Party has been focusing on massive ad buys. Look at billboards throughout Saskatchewan; numerous Sask Party signs (either for local candidates, or for Wall himself) can be found in cities and along the highways throughout our province.

Unlike previous billboards for Wall, which tried to tout the Wall Government's financial record (incorrectly, I might add), the new ads have no sort of policy announcement or track record for the government. Rather, it is just a picture of Wall with the Saskatchewan Party slogan.

But billboards are only the tip of the iceberg.

What is more obvious, especially to internet users like myself, are the large amounts of internet ads that have been purchased by the Saskatchewan Party. Numerous websites, ranging from Hotmail to the Internet Movie Database, are plastered with banner ads sporting Wall's image and the Saskatchewan Party colours.

Again, there is no mention of track record or policy; or any reason to support the Saskatchewan Party, just a simple ad that exists as a means of keeping Wall in the public view.

This really must be compared with the NDP's approach to the election campaign thus far. As noted, the NDP is coming out swinging hard with policy ideas and proposals. Furthermore, as previously mentioned on this blog, these policies have been crafted through public consultation with people across party lines throughout Saskatchewan.

As such, the NDP is running on a strong platform of ideas that were crafted by the people of Saskatchewan. Whereas the Saskatchewan Party is, at this point, running on the popularity of its leader.

So, as it is framed right now, the election is a choice between style and substance. It is likely that as the election continues, the Saskatchewan Party will bring out some policy ideas of their own; but by that point, the NDP will have staked out the policy development area of the election (and the Saskatchewan Party will be left to simply oppose NDP policies, or tweak proposed ones, as opposed to crafting their own.)

As it stands now, the NDP is clearly winning on the policy front. But whether or not that will translate into popular support remains to be seen.

Thanks for the Help, Now Get Lost.

2011-09-13T14:49:00.003-06:00

Source: CBC News: Canada Rejects Majority of Afghan Interpreters' Refugee Claims

After getting a good night's sleep, but waking up fairly early, I found myself browsing the news websites and was greeted by this headline. Now, you have to do some digging on CBC to even find the article. So, since it's fallen so quickly to the wayside, I figured I'd do my part and bring it up here.

I know, I said I was going to try and focus more on Saskatchewan aspects (what with the election coming), but federal politics still remains the easiest to find news sources for. I could easily find sources through party websites for Saskatchewan, but I think it's best to stick to news organizations.

So, what is this article all about?

Essentially, Canada's immigration department has turned their back on Afghan citizens who served as translators for the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan. In fact, according to the CBC, two out of three translators were rejected for immigration based on refugee status.

Through some nitpicking, the department of immigration set requirements for those seeking refugee status; primarily, the condition that the applicant must have served 12 consecutive months of service with the Armed Forces, and that those twelve months exist after October 2007 - July 2011.

Let's examine those dates for a moment, shall we?

Think back to when the US first attacked Afghanistan, in retaliation for their involvement of the 9/11 attacks and the harbouring of Osama Bin Laden. What year was that?

It was, if you recall, 2001. Canada, among with numerous other international allies, joined the US in the war as in 2001. That means, that Canadian troops were involved in Afghanistan since 2001. Which means that six years of translation services are not being covered by the timeline set by the department of immigration.

Granted, they are trying to tie the situation to those who worked within just Kandahar; but I think it is safe to say that translators worked for Canadians throughout Afghanistan, wherever Canadians could be found, not just in Kandahar. As such, the department seems to be intentionally omitting anyone who provided service prior to 2007.

The main question to look at here is should translators be given access to Canada as refugees?

Essentially, the answer is yes. It's no secret that translators have been targeted by Taliban insurgents since the war began, and that many have faced violence and threats of violence because of their co-operation with NATO powers.

With troops slowly withdrawing from Afghanistan, these former translators are going to find themselves in a bad situation; especially, should Afghanistan become what is known as a 'failed state'.

Perhaps I should attempt to explain that concept before moving on. A failed state is more or less what it sounds like. A country which underwent a radical change, in this case from a near theocratic junta to democracy, which failed to maintain itself. Effectively, if democracy fails in Afghanistan (due to either corruption in the system, or a rise in Taliban support and control, or some other situtation), those who helped any one other than the current regime will find themselves targets.

It may be 'defeatism', but there is a possibility of this happen in Afghanistan. As I've said times before, though perhaps not on this blog, no country has ever successfully switched to a democracy without the people of the country supporting it.

Or to compact that, democracy is something that starts from within the country. It cannot be fought for by external powers hoping to switch a nation towards democratic ideals. As such, the people of Afghanistan have to decide that they want democracy and the things that come with it. Only when they accept that, and are willing to fight for it, will they be able to keep a democratic system functioning.

My sense is the people of Afghanistan are generally happy to be rid of the Taliban, but they don't necessarily support having a full democratic regime either. And that is where the problem comes in. Unless they are willing to have a democracy, we can't force one upon them. Which means we are personally responsible for the problems that will be created if Afghanistan becomes a failed state.

Which further extends to the fact that we are responsible for the people who helped us, and who will become further targets by countrymen who see them as traitors. You can say that they knew the risks associated with the job, but they also knew that immigration out of Afghanistan was possible because of taking the job.

This program was created with the purpose of getting those people who helped us out of the country for their safety. Unsurprisingly, a similar American program has performed even worse than the Canadian one, after it handed out zero visas to immigrants.

The facts are this: Like it or not, we are responsible for the situation these translators find themselves in. We have a responsibility to assist those we can, especially when programs are created to help them. As of now, that program is failing.

It's true, there's no way we can remove every translator who helped us and give them a new home in Canada; that's just unfeasible. But to reject two out of every three that come to us for help, is unacceptable. These people risked their lives for us, and will still be in danger when we leave (if circumstances do not improve in Afghanistan).

Is this how we repay those who help us?

General Posting

2011-09-12T15:39:00.002-06:00

Source: Globe and Mail: Prairie Farmers Vote to Keep Wheat Board

So, we have a few things to talk about today. I realize that I've spent a bit too much time on the blog looking only at 'Federal' politics, while neglecting my home province of Saskatchewan, and I will try to rectify that today. That said, there is still some things in federal politics that we need to discuss as well.

Let's get the federal stuff talked about, and then let's wrap up with a look at what's going on around Saskatchewan.

Firstly, in the federal arena, Canadian farmers have voted against the government in a Canadian Wheat Board sponsored vote on the future of the agency. The farmers voted a little over 60% in favour of keeping the Wheat Board up and running, while 38% voted to scrap it.

According to the CWB, about 55% of eligible voters took time to vote.

However, this (largely predicted) decision is not having any sway on the governing Conservatives, who still intend the scrap the CWB's monopoly later this year. Gerry Ritz, the Agricultural Minister, dismissed the vote as an 'expensive survey' and went on to explain that the government is committed to giving farmers 'marketing freedom'.

Marketing freedom is another way of saying 'choice'...Which allows me to use this clip:

My apologies if the above video doesn't work, if it doesn't you can find the link HERE.

Now the reason I've included that clip is because it is fairly accurate. The Conservatives have been suggesting that the government needs to step back and allow farmers to have the CHOICE to market their grain any way they like...Provided that choice is not to keep the CWB functioning.

After all, the farmers have voted and said that they would like to keep the system in place. Yet the government maintains that farmers should have a choice of ways to sell their grain. Seems rather hypocritical when you break it down to that point, doesn't it? Where the Conservatives want farmers to have choice in marketing their products, provided that it doesn't have to give them the choice the majority wants.

And wait, it only gets more hypocritical.

As mentioned, Minister Ritz dismissed the CWB vote as an 'expensive survey' and non-binding; despite CWB proponents suggesting that laws regarding changes to the CWB require votes from farming members.

Now, why is this hypocritical? Well, let's think back to the election and the staunch defenders of the democracy the Harper Conservatives proclaimed themselves to be. Where a coalition government was more or less denounced as a basically treason; and where Harper himself conceded that if he lost, he would have to accept the will of the people.

Yet here is the will of farmers in plain daylight, and their voices are dismissed. So yes, more hypocrisy from the Harper Conservatives...And we're in for four more years of it too.

The last federal thing I'd like to talk about is the NDP Leadership race. As of posting, on NDP Party President Brian Topp has declared himself and official candidate for the position. He's also received some endorsements from important NDP figures, such as Ed Broadbent.

Now, I must admit, I do not know a lot about Brian Topp. I've heard things, and read a few columns he's written over the years, but other than that I can't really say whether or not he would be the best leader to guide the NDP over the coming years.

Of course, I look forward to hearing and learning more about him as the months go by; much in the same way I look forward to learning about all the candidates once they're declared.

However, as a simple blogger, there will be no endorsement coming from me...For any candidate. If only because I don't think my blessing would be very news worthy or important, nor would it dramatically change the leadership race. So, when I have decided which candidate to support, you'll hear nothing about it from me here.

Well, that wraps up the Federal stuff.

Now, as anyone in Saskatchewan will know, we are heading towards an election. Come November, thanks to the Saskatchewan Party's fixed election date laws, we will have elected a new slate of candidates to the Legislature to represent us for the next four years.

However, even though the election is still months away, the campaigning has already begun. If you're the Saskatchewan Party, the campaigning began years ago...Since I don't think there's a single billboard in Saskatchewan that hasn't had Brad Wall, or a local candidate, plastered on it for the better part of a few months in the past three years.

And while the Saskatchewan Party has been running attack ads against the NDP, basically since getting elected, the NDP has recently entered the electoral battle but with the announcement of policies.

So, we have the Saskatchewan Party bashing and promoting Brad Wall; while the NDP has released a flurry of policy initiatives that they would implement when they are elected. After all, this is the party that has spent the better part of four years going across the province and organizing policy town hall meetings with members and non-members.

Contrast that to the Saskatchewan Party's last convention, in which policy discussion and voting weren't even on the agenda.

As such, the NDP has been developing policy for four years with vital input and should be coming up with some interesting policies.

After all, we've already seen policies on health care and education come from the NDP camp. And the well received Bright Futures Plan, which aims to ensure future generations benefit from Saskatchewan's resource wealth, has already been touted as a successful policy for the NDP.

I've said this before on the blog, but it bares repeating: The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives live in the now while progressives live in the then.

Conservatives want a better life for themselves and they want it now, regardless of what that means for future generations. Whereas progressives look at the big picture and figure out what today's decisions mean for future generations, not just what it means for themselves.

And that is going to be the biggest difference between the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP. The Sask Party will be focusing on the now while the NDP will focus on what's to come. Frankly, I'd prefer a long term vision over a short sighted on. Granted, there is some bias here given that as a young man, I'll be around to see the future and today's decisions will impact my life later on...

But that said, I think we deserve a Saskatchewan that creates positive benefits for everyone, not just a select few. And that's a message that the NDP is running strongly with, not because it could collect votes, but because it's the truth.

The Biggest Threat to Canada?

2011-09-07T01:28:00.003-06:00

Source: CBC News: Harper Says 'Islamicism' Biggest Threat to Canada

Alright, enough of a break and time to get this blog back up to 100%...Hopefully.

Now, I contemplated a lot of topics to discuss for this post.

I considered the fact that Saskatchewan's Green Party leader has resigned and advocated voters to stand behind the NDP in Regina...

I considered the fact that Federal Agricultural Minister Garry Ritz has basically said that the government will ignore any vote from farmers on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, and unilaterally move to dismantle parts of it, even if farmers vote to keep the system as is...

I considered the fact that the Federal Conservatives have asked Elections Canada to probe into allegations that the NDP broke electoral financing laws by having a convention which seemed to have events sponsored by unions... (Though let's face it, the Conservatives preaching electoral financing ethics is like a lion preaching vegetarianism.)

I considered the idea that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien has jumped on board the NDP-Liberal merger talks, and believes that a merger will happen one day between the two parties...

However, I found myself aghast when seeing the CBC news headline above and figured that it would be a good issue to discuss in detail. In an exclusive interview with the CBC, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suggested that Islamicism is the biggest threat to Canada.

Now, this is a complex issue. I'm going to spend some time picking apart the real issue versus the 'scare tactics' that Harper is using to push his party's controversial crime bills.

Firstly, let's explore the idea of 'Islamicism'.

In our world, we seem to exercise the idea of tolerance and acceptance. Religion is one of those sticky widget issues where these ideas are really put to the test. In Western Culture, we seem to have a no-nonsense zone for religion.

This is clearly seen with Christianity. In Western Culture, speaking out about problems with Christianity are likely to get you tarred and feathered in the arena of public opinion. As such, at times, it seems as if you cannot speak out against Christianity. That faith supersedes public debate.

However, this is not true for other religions. Islam, happens to be one of those religions which is seemingly okay to attack in public debate.

Now, whether this stems from a lack of understanding about the nature of Islam...Or from some form of deep seeded racism, I cannot fully say. Nor would I want to presume why we can openly attack one form of religion, but cannot say a bad word about any other.

Granted, this situation is reversed in some Islamic nations; where Christianity is attacked openly, and no unkind words can be said about Islam. So, all of us are guilty of attacking the other side on this issue.

But, let's try and clear some of this up. Now, I'll admit, I've never read the Koran. I have picked it up once or twice and read a few passages, but I've not read the whole text. So, I could be incorrect in my assumptions about Islam. If so, I do hope that someone with more familiarity will let me know if I've made any mistakes.

Now, my understanding of Islam is that it is actually a very peaceful religion. That the Koran preaches peace and tolerance, much in the same way that the Bible does.

However, there are problems when extremism gets involved.

Much like the Bible, a few verses in the Koran are open to interpretation. As such, some people read the Koran and see a book of peace...While others read it and see justification to attack those who do not believe the words contained within.

But this is not a problem that is solely found with Islam.

Christianity is just as guilty as misinterpretation justifying extremism. From a historical perspective, you have events like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. From a more recent perspective, you have individuals who shoot abortion doctors.

Or even more recent, the shootings which occurred in Norway. According to the BBC, Anders Behring Breivik self identified as a Christian Fundamentalist and far right wing conservative. Part of the reason Breivik did what he did stemmed from a hatred towards Islam, Muslims, and the influence of the left in his country.

Yet, in all of the media, Breivik was never once identified as a 'Christian Terrorist'. Think for a moment, if he had been a Muslim, would the media have been quick to label him as an 'Islamic Terrorist'?

Now, I know some of you are going to give me grief for mentioning Mr. Breivik, but allow me to attempt to explain. Breivik did something based on his own twisted views of his beliefs. He believed that he was doing the right thing and that he was justified from his beliefs to do what he did.

Islamic terrorists share the same viewpoint. They believe that they are justified by their interpretation of the Koran, and use their religion as a defense to undertake horrific actions.

We don't judge Christianity by the actions of Anders Behring Breivik, so why do we judge Islam by the actions of those that kill in its name?

Here is where we come to the root of the problem: Extremism is extremism, regardless of what other beliefs you hold. When someone takes their beliefs to the extreme, bad results are likely to occur.

It is not Islam that is the problem, nor is Christianity, but it is extremism in any form.

When someone believes that they can justify any action through any belief, it becomes a problem. And that is the real problem that is facing the world today. It is not just ISLAMIC extremism, but ALL extremism.

Look again, to the United States. Particularly look at their political system at the moment. The USA is becoming polarized to a state we've never really seen before. Those on the far-right are organizing and becoming a powerful voice within the Republican Party, and have hijacked it from any chance of moderation.

Again, extremism.

Now, some of you might say this is completely different, but is it really? Look at the attack on US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Ms. Giffords was targeted by an unstable individual with extreme views of their own. Furthermore, it doesn't help that Ms. Giffords was one of several Democratic politicians 'targeted' by crosshairs as districts to take back by Tea Party darling, Sarah Palin.

As such, is it really such a stretch to believe that such iconography could have easily contributed to an unstable and extreme individual targeting the congresswoman?

What I am attempting to say, is that extremism is the biggest threat to the world and to Canada, not 'Islamicism.'

Granted, there seems to be times when the world has seen the actions of extremist Muslims more than those of peaceful faith. But, how often does the Iman who preaches tolerance and community involvement end up on the news; especially when compared to the extremist who attacks and kills people in the name of religion.

The truth of the matter is that we don't often hear of the good works done by moderate Muslims, and are bombarded by the actions of extremists.

Now I think I've sufficiently stated the case that 'Islamicism' is a misnomer and it is extremism, of any form, that we need to fear and do something about. With that out of the way, we can discuss why our illustrious Prime Minister felt the need to declare 'Islamicism' as the greatest threat facing Canada.

At the heart of the debate is Harper's desire to bring back two anti-terrorism clauses that were first brought forward by the Chretien Liberals in the wake of 9/11.

The first allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and hold them for three days without placing a single charge. The only requirement to provide such an arrest would be the belief that the individual had committed, or was planning to commit, an act of terrorism.

The second allowed a judge to force a witness into testifying about past associations with suspected terror groups, or any other group really, and any plots by those groups under penalty of jail time.

It is worth noting that these clauses expired, after the opposition parties refused to renew them in 2007, without them ever being implemented. Essentially, Canada had these clauses and never saw them used within the course of six years...Yet Harper believes they're essential to Canadian security and need to be brought back immediately.

The problem with these clauses is the ambiguity. Terrorism is VERY hard to define, even after a course in International Terrorism I can't define terrorism to a single sentence, which makes implementing these laws incredibly difficult. After all, what would count as an act of terrorism?

Would attending a peaceful rally that lead to arrests be terrorism?

Would belonging to a group that advocated social change and used protests, rallies, and other forms of social disobedience be considered terrorism?

Most people would say that terrorism involves the implicit act of violence against civilians for the advancement of political goals. But terrorism is not that clear cut. If it were, could we still charge those who attempted violence but failed to obtain it? The failed shoe-bomber, for example. He had plotted an 'act of terrorism' but failed to succeed or cause any violence.

As such, this seems to preclude committing an act of violence as terrorism. Yet, we still call him a terrorist.

Now, you may say, 'Scott, you're just arguing semantics.' And it's true, I am perhaps spending too much time looking at the definition. But if we give a government that kind of authority, it should be clear what they can and cannot call terrorism. If we give blanket authority, its only a matter of time until that authority is abused.

After all, look at the Harper Government's response to protests at the G8/G20 summit. How many people were arrested and detained in substandard holding areas? How many were detained without charge? How many people, who did nothing but stand in the crowd, were detained simply for being there?

Questions like those should weigh on the mind, and cannot afford to be overlooked. If Harper wants to give authority to the police to battle terrorism, that authority must be clearly defined. As it stands now, it is not.

In closing, Prime Minister Harper is mistaken when he says that Islamicism is the biggest threat facing Canada. Rather, this is simply an 'eye-catching', 'fear mongering' headline that will catch major attention for his anti-terrorism bills. Furthermore, with the anniversary of 9/11 only days away, it serves as a powerful reminder of the harm that extremism can do.

Yet, as mentioned, Harper is quick to point the finger only at Islamic extremism; while ignoring extremists that exist outside of Islam. This type of hypocrisy is staggering, and simply unbecoming of what we should have in a national leader.

As such, I feel the only thing I can do is reinforce the idea that extremism in all forms is the problem. Only when we stamp out extremism, in all forms, will we truly create a safe and functioning society. We're too quick to condemn one side, while ignoring the fact that the same problems exist in structures that we belong to.

I suppose there's nothing left to say, except for this quote, which more or less sums up the problems with only focusing on Islamic extremism:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
-Matthew 7:5 (NIV)

On Jack

2011-08-26T23:29:00.003-06:00

I must admit, I've been putting off this post.

It's been a few days since the passing of Federal NDP Leader, and Leader of the Opposition, Jack Layton. Like many people, I can recall where I was when I found out about it. I was visiting my parents and brother, and is my habit when there, I stayed up much too late and slept well past noon.

It was shortly before one that my brother came into my room, and told me that I needed to know about something. At which point he switched on the television set and turned over to the news channel, which was covering Jack's passing. Needless to say, I was shocked and surprised.

I recall how a few days before, during a get together with friends, we discussed the future of the NDP.

We reflected on how weak Jack had appeared when he announced that he would be stepping aside to focus on his health, but I assured my friends that come hell or high water he would be coming back to lead the party come September.

Well, sadly, I have to admit I wasn't quite right in that statement.

A lot of people have expressed their grief and their remembrances of Jack over the past couple days; and many of those thoughts have been expressed in ways that are more elegant than I can hope to achieve.

Unlike many, I never personally met Jack. I had attended NDP events where he was present, and had given speeches, but I never approached him afterwards. Perhaps it was the timid man that I am, worried that I wouldn't know what to say, that kept me from approaching him...I can't fully answer why.

But what I can reflect on was his ease with the people who did approach him. Young or old, Jack had way of making everyone around him just a little bit happier. I don't think I ever saw anyone standing near him without a smile on their face, or a smile on Jack's face for that matter.

I'm still struggling to come up with words to express my feelings on this subject, perhaps I will never quite find the right words, but I do know that the loss of Jack is a loss that all Canadians feel. The outpouring of sympathies and grief, across Canada and political lines, is only proof of that.

Since I'm still struggling with words, which is rare for me I might add, I suppose I can only wrap this up with the words of the man himself, which so perfectly encapsulate Jack's vision for Canada and Jack's approach to politics:

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

Random Thoughts and Musings

2011-08-14T00:41:00.005-06:00

A lot has happened since I took a bit of a sabbatical with the dawn of summer; and many of those events are worth talking about. Jack Layton's temporary leave of absence to battle cancer (and our best thoughts are with Jack as he goes through this); the insertion of rookie MP Nycole Turmel as interim NDP leader, not to mention her ties to separatist parties in Quebec; and not to forget that a Conservative Cabinet Minister also has Bloc Quebecois ties...

Yes, truly there is a lot to talk about. However, I think that right now those issues are frankly non issues. Speculating on Layton's absence and what it means for the NDP is, in my opinion, in poor taste. Yes, Jack is a charismatic leader who helped bolster the NDP result in the last election; but there are other factors in play that made Quebec turn to the NDP as well. As such, speculating that his absence (temporary or otherwise) will be a turning point for the NDP is in very poor taste.

As for Turmel and Cabinet Minister Lebel, they are open to changing their minds. Turmel suggests that she joined a separatist party to support a friend, and also because they were the only socially progressive party to vote for provincially. Lebel has not answered questions as to why he held a Bloc Quebecois membership for almost eleven years.

The great thing about democracy is the ability to change your mind. As times change, people will re-examine positions that they hold and decide whether or not they can stand by what they used to believe in. As I've mentioned before on this blog, there were times in high school where I thought I may have been a Liberal; proof that people do examine their beliefs, perhaps.

Needless to say, I've only ever been a dues paying member of the NDP; but if I felt that the party no longer represented the things I wanted in society, then I'd have to re-examine whether or not I could belong to such a party.

The short of it is that people will change, and political parties will change as well. The Conservative Party of Stephen Harper, for example, could hardly be called the Conservative Party of John A. Macdonald. Much like the Liberal Party of Michael Ignatieff (or any other of their former leaders in the past decade) could be called the same party of Mackenzie King.

And there's also the issue of cherry picking. Turmel's defense is that she was supporting a friend AND that they were the only socially progressive party provincially. This is a VALID defense. Why? Ask a Conservative who thinks Global Warming is a problem.

Despite personally believing in the need to protect the environment, that person supports the Conservatives and their non-existent environmental platform if only because they identify strongly with another part of that party's agenda. Say lower taxes, or their opposition to certain social issues.

As such, since those issues mean more to them, they are willing to overlook a poor environmental record as long as other issues are met.

All of us have done this. Again, using myself, I've said many times I don't support abolishing the Senate. Yet, the NDP does. But my commitment to social justice means more to me than worrying about the Senate; as such, I'm willing to overlook that issue in favour of others. Turmel suggests that this was the same case.

Surely, we can't be the only two Canadians who have overlooked one part of a party's platform because we liked another part of it. I would defend Lebel's actions, however, I don't have any defense for him given that he is not talking about why he was a member of the Bloc Quebecois. If he simply stopped believing in the party, then that's his right to change his mind.

There, two thorny issues defused in less space than this blog usually takes. And now, more so on to what I wanted to talk about.

For the record, all numbers I'm citing come from the following source: 2011 Labour Force Survey.

There has been a lot of talk about how Saskatchewan is 'booming'. Since the election of the Wall Government, almost four years ago now, Saskatchewan has been in a period of economic 'growth'. The Wall Government, has of course, taken all the credit for the situation despite coming to office in the middle of the boom.

It's as if the day after the election, all the Saskatchewan Party MLAs had their memories erased and the last few years of NDP government had never happened and all good things in the province were directly because of them. Of course, anything wrong that happened was immediately placed at the feet of the previous government. Again, cherry picking.

Our government has been so gung-ho on the idea of Saskatchewan booming that they took some rather unusual tactics to defend the idea. Who can forget the Saskatchewan Party commercials attacking NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter for being 'down on Saskatchewan', simply because he was talking about problems with the 'boom' and how it was not affecting everyone.

In fact, simply having the audacity to claim that Saskatchewan's boom had gone bust would make you an immediate enemy of the Saskatchewan Party Government. Yet, almost every quarter the Sask Party comes out and talks about how good Saskatchewan is doing economically. They've talked about how we're below the national average for unemployment and how our economy has generated jobs.

Yet let's look at the numbers, since they can do more than I can:

As of July 2011, 532,600 were employed in this province; roughly a little over half the population of the province. This number is down 4,600 from June of 2011; so in June we had 537,200 people working in the province.

The unemployment number is 29,500 people in the province, a raise of 5,600 from June 2011. Now, in a province of barely a million people...In fact, in a province where 29,500 people could be the size of a small city, how is this a boom?

The Wall Government has said that Saskatchewan has weathered the economic storm that has struck the rest of Canada, and indeed the rest of the world. Yet, these numbers are painting a very different picture.

Now, I'm going to do something that I don't usually like to do on this blog. By which I mean I'm going to get personal. These numbers are more than just numbers to me, because I am one of the 29,500 people in this province who is looking for work.

In fact, since convocating from University in 2009, I have been on the constant search for work. And rather than put out facts and figures, perhaps a more personal perspective can explain why Saskatchewan is not as rosy as the Wall Government would have you believe.

As I said above, I convocated from the University of Saskatchewan in 2009. I was a decent student, and yes I could have applied myself a bit better and improved my grades, but on the whole I did mostly well within my classes. In the lead up to my decision to undergo a degree in political studies, I met with advisers and various professors and asked about career choices and other options.

I was always told that while it was an open topic, having a B.A. would in and of itself be a door opener to professional positions ranging from the public to the private sectors. Naturally, I took them at their word and figured that in four years time I would be working within the civil service or somewhere in the private sector.

I worked, briefly, as I attended university. But I found that it was too difficult to juggle both the expectations of work and school work, particularly after being stuck at work until 3am with a final in less than 7 hours. As such, I resigned that job and focused on my schooling.

During summer, was when I noticed the problems that were lying ahead. I had a great degree of difficulty finding summer employment, even back when times were 'better' in Saskatchewan. Despite sending out hundreds of applications, I received very few interviews and worse never heard back from those interviews.

Of course, school would start again and then search for work would be put on hold until next summer. And then the exact same cycle would start again.

As I entered my final year, the bubble began to burst. The economic downturn struck the world markets and I found myself convocating in one of the worst economic crisises since the Great Depression. All the while, the talking heads of government tried to keep us from panicking and told us everything would be well.

After all, who could forget both Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty boldly declaring before the 2008 election that no recession was on the horizon...And then after getting elected, having the put up stimulus money to battle the massive recession.

Regardless of this economic worry, I put my nose to the grindstone and got to work sending out application after application to various job choices within my field. I even turned to the Saskatchewan Gradworks Program, which was designed to help recent graduates find placement and gain experience in their fields.

Now, I'm perhaps going to shoot myself in the foot here, but I had a lot of problems with the Gradworks program. So much so, that I sent a rather sarcastic filled e-mail to the site administrator. The problem is that the site shows you when an application has been received by the employer, usually a crown corporation, and then shows you when your application has been viewed by said employer.

Nine times out of ten, my application status was never even viewed by the employer before someone was placed into the job opening. Allow me to restate that, someone was hired before all the applications were reviewed. Needless to say, that was the last straw that led to my e-mail to the site administrator...Asking if either the website was slow to update or if the applications were just not being passed along properly.

Despite pinning some hopes on this program as a means of getting more experience, I found myself in a position where a year had gone by and 2009 had become 2010. In accordance with the Gradworks Program, I was no longer eligible to apply for any of the postings since I was no longer considered a 'recent' graduate.

As more and more time went by, more and more applications were sent out. And despite some promising interviews, I never found myself on the end of a phone call saying that I'd gotten the job. In fact, I found myself in the unenviable position of avoiding my mailbox because I'd received so many 'thank you for your application, but...' letters.

By this point, I was beginning to get rather desperate. I expanded my horizons and started applying for jobs that I wouldn't have considered before.

Allow me to explain that statement, less a sound like a pretentious *expletive deleted*.

I was, and am, looking for a career not a job. I'm was looking for something that allowed me to contribute to my community, and gave me a sense of satisfaction in knowing that I was doing good out in the world around me. Despite being a necessary position, sling coffee or waiting tables just didn't have the kind of community impact I was hoping to make.

However, a light at the end of the tunnel arose. I received a call back from an application, and met with the manager and one of the other hiring people of a chain that shall remain nameless. Ironically enough, the other hiring person was someone I had known practically all my life, as they were a type of family friend.

So, needless to say, I ended up getting that job. Now, while it wasn't perfect...If only because my first hour of work was lost to pay for parking that was not provided to employees (or when forced to use heated parking during -40 winter days, a whole day's wages), the job itself was not that bad. I even found myself enjoying the work, despite some initial hesitance.

I say that, because the job I was hired for is also something that is done on a government level. However, this job is not a government job. As such, you do the same work as a government employee but for less pay and no benefits. The social democrat in me had some reservations about this, and I was even worried that other social democrats I knew would judge me differently for taking such a job, but it was a paycheque.

I worked there for about 2 and 1/2 months when fate stepped in and decided that it was time to stop. I say that, because as more dedicated readers will know, I required surgery. Without getting into too much detail, I found myself on the receiving end of a ingunial hernia. As such, I more or less lost the ability to lift heavy objects and stand for long periods of time without a great level of discomfort.

I informed my superiors immediately, and we talked about options. I tried working, even light duty, but the discomfort level was sufficient enough to prevent me from working. As such, in light of my inability to work, I was effectively let go from the position.

Keep in mind, that I was still in a 'probationary' period of 3 months. Since I had not left this probation period, I was subject to termination without explanation. And effectively, that was what happened. Of course, the management would likely say differently (given that you can't legally fire someone due to a health issue) but I'll never know since I was allowed to be let go without cause.

I had my surgery in May, and have now more or less recovered back to 100% health. And since about June, have been scouring the employment ads yet again for employment. To date, I would say that since being let go in January, I have sent out around 120 job applications.

To date, I have received zero call backs. As for job applications before October 2010, I have officially lost count but the number might even warrant 4 figures.

Now, I'd like to talk a bit about why I've shared this personal story with you all. I think, I hope, that I am a qualified individual with a certain number of skill sets. However, despite having these qualifications, I find myself unable to put them to use. All this at a time when our government is standing out there and telling us that the job market is improving.

The truth of the matter, in my opinion, is as follows:

1.) All the jobs we've gained are exactly that: Jobs, not careers. People are finding themselves in positions where they are working more hours and getting less pay out of it. They are finding themselves in part-time jobs where benefits, such as dental and pension plans, are non-existent. They are finding themselves in jobs where employers do as much as they can to 'classify' workers as 'part-time' to prevent having to pay them more.

(We should all be familiar with the Wal-Mart practice of placing part-time workers at 39.4 hours a week, just .6 hours short of being classified as a full-time worker; thus denying them the privileges that come with full-time status.)

2.) The economic crisis has the job market shrinking, not expanding. This goes with observation 1; the jobs we gain do not allow a person to really keep up with inflation and rises in cost of living.

3.) Employers want the most gain with the least amount of worry. There is an old mentality from the industralization of Great Britain during the 1800s; the thought process runs that there are hundreds, or thousands, of people out of work. As such, if an employee wants more it is cheaper to fire them and replace them with someone who will be happy to have the work for a cheaper wage.

This is a process we are seeing. Employers are able to demand more from their workers, and give less, because they know that the employee will not risk losing their job. And further more, we all know that there are people lining up who will take that job once it is open.

4.) It's not what you know, it's who you know. I'm not surprised that the first job I was able to get outside of university also happened to be in a place where I knew someone. More and more hiring processes seem to be based more along the lines of patronage and nepotism than ever before in our economy.

Let's face it; a job in a private sector company is much more likely to be given to the under-qualified son of the boss' golfing buddy than the qualified college graduate just starting out in the field. Even if both candidates ARE qualified, the one who knows someone inside the company stands a better chance to getting the job because of their connections.

5.) In this economy, smart is the new stupid. This may be a stretch, but allow me to explain. Each time I talk with my mother on the phone, she always reminds me that I should find something to do just to make a bit of money...And while I'm working there, keep my eyes open and apply for better jobs.

The problem is, employers are also keeping their eyes open for this type of thing. A college graduate applying to work at Tim Hortons is like a former CEO of a fortune 500 company applying to work in a daycare centre: It reeks of a temporary situation.

Many companies would prefer that if they take the time to train someone, and what have you, that that person will at least be around for awhile. They don't want to hire someone who turns around in six months and tells them to start looking for a replacement because they finally landed their dream job.

To a degree, this is an understandable position. Personally, I'd hate to throw someone in the lurch like that. If I take a job, I'm taking it because I expect to be there for a long time, not to use it as a stepping stone. Hence why I'm looking for a career, not a job.

But it is, in my opinion, common practice now for over-qualified candidate to be immediately removed from consideration because this thought is at the forefront of an employer's mind. Why hire them if they will only stick with us for a few months?

In my opinion, as someone who has been habitually unemployed for far too long, those are the real problems facing our marketplace. They're also the problems that no one in government is talking about.

The Wall Government is happy if job numbers rise slightly, even if we lose full-time positions but make it up in part-time positions, simply because the numbers look good as long as no one finds out the full story.

But the problem remains that we are doing nothing to create real innovation in the economic marketplace. We are not laying the foundations for the jobs of tomorrow; for jobs that require a university education or specific trades training. Rather, our government is content for worse jobs taking the place of better jobs.

And that is the true tragedy of the situation. Those who want to work, and have the ability and qualifications to do so, are finding themselves too qualified for minimum wage and not connected enough to get a career in their field.

This is a perfect storm of a situation. I love Saskatchewan, I couldn't imagine leaving my home province...But it is starting to reach the point where I have to consider doing that, just to get a career in my field.

And I guarantee I'm not the only university graduate who feels that way. If Saskatchewan doesn't begin to step up and truly provide jobs for our university graduates, we're going to experience a brain drain the likes of which this province hasn't seen before. And judging by the past, it will take decades to lure those professionals back.

Summer Time Notice

2011-07-17T00:24:00.002-06:00

Well, with summer being what it is, from time to time I find myself torn away from the computer and not giving the blog the time it deserves. From camping trips to regular trips back home, I often find myself away from the computer for a length of time.

However, despite summer being a slow down period for me and the blog, I shall do my best to contribute posts when the opportunity arises.

I drove back from my parents house today, partner in tow, and we had the most edifying conversation about numerous subjects on the way back to Saskatoon. As such, rather than attempt to talk about some of the news events going on in Canadian and Saskatchewan politics, I think I shall attempt to further that discussion here on the blog.

During our drive, we came to the sad conclusion that democracy is in a sorry state. Not just in Canada, but world wide. In fact, I began to think that perhaps democracy never worked in the first place.

Allow me to expand on that thought.

Democracy is a political system which operates on the foundation that society is a marketplace of ideas. That as we grow and mature, new ideas and thoughts enter the political marketplace and must be implemented or passed on.

However, in many democracies the marketplace of ideas is dying. I say this because of how the landscape of political parties is changing in our century. As it stands now, many parties know this phrase: Crowd the centre.

Centrist voters are forming the largest chunk of voters in modern times, people who do not see themselves as 'left' or 'right' but rather 'sensible'; and want a 'sensible' government to represent their views.

As such, political parties have begun to abandon positions and differences and even morals to 'crowd the centre' in an attempt to sway these voters to their party. As such, when many say they see no real difference between Party A or Party B, they're actually quite right in saying so.

But there is a bigger problem than the crowding of the centre; rather, there is the problem of the stunting of debate.

As time goes by, cooperation seems like a dirty word in politics. This is because of the nature of competition that is spawned by the democratic process. We elected parties, who have positions and views, and as such it is important that they stand by those positions and views...Unless they feel the need to court centrist voters.

As such, in a democracy, you always have a government and a government-in-waiting. In order to go from government-in-waiting to government you need one of two things:

1.) The current government to so successfully implode in public opinion that nothing you say or do can harm your chances (See the Conservative Party in the UK in the last election, or the Canadian Conservative Party in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal)

OR

2.) In the previous legislative session, clearly define the differences between your party and the current government (usually through a wedge issue or buzz word) and let that carry you to victory.

The problem with the second scenario, at least, is that it dumbs down the exchange of ideas in the marketplace.

For example, the use of wedge issues often forces voters to vote against their best interests. There are environmental conscious Conservatives, for example, who may disagree with the Conservative environmental policy...BUT vote for them time after time simply because no other party represents an issue they consider more important: such as Abortion, or tax cuts, etc.

As such, political parties are becoming parties of wedge issues. They foster an atmosphere where one or two issues become major talking points while all others are avoided until they need to be dealt with years down the road.

This restricts the conversation and defines an election through a very narrow lens. But the fact of the matter is most parties prefer it this way. By narrowing the focus of an election, or even democratic debate, parties are better able to control not only the message but the answers.

By which I mean, parties are able to present themselves as having the best answer to the problem that they continue to mention. But by repeatedly slamming our heads against a single message, Canadians are being short changed on the full discussion and exchange of ideas.

I'd like to come back to cooperation, as I feel I left it dangling a little earlier. Cooperation is quickly becoming impossible in politics because of the nature of competition that democracy installs. Party A can't cooperate with Party B because if they do, come election time Party B will stay in opposition as opposed to becoming government.

After all, it's easier to oppose and criticize then it is to come up with alternatives. By obstructing government and opposing cooperation, opposition parties better their own chances of forming government in the next election. After all, why propose your own ideas and have them compromised with the sitting government to form effective legislation when you can use it as a party policy come election time?

So, clearly democracy is in trouble because of the competition that is fosters. We do not value honest debate, or wide discussion of the problems anymore. Rather, we now live in the era of the 'soundbyte' and wedge issue.

Furthermore, our idea of debate has now become "I yell louder than you, therefore my argument has more merit." This is in part thanks to pundits and spin doctors, both inside and outside of the political machine.

I can hear you asking, what does all this mean?

To be personally honest, and perhaps a little pessimistic, I am beginning to believe that democracy might be on its knees and waiting for the blow to the neck that finally kills it. Democracy, if we ever truly had it, is no longer working given how the rules of the game have changed.

Political parties have contributed to the decline of political discourse, but we the people also have our own role in this. In a recent CBC study, reflecting on the last election, the majority of respondents who admitted to not voting said they did so simply because they didn't care.

Democracy doesn't work when the public becomes lethargic. Instead, when the public loses interest, we essentially become a nation of mob rule. Where those who do care, vote only for their interests, and not the best interest.

If this trend continues, I fear we'll see what is already happening in the USA: The rise of an oligarchy of wealthy individuals who wield more power in the political system than the average citizen. After all, keep in mind, corporations in the US can now contribute an unlimited amount of money to a political campaign.

Democracy doesn't work when the wealthiest among us control the message and those in power; it only works when it is truly a system of one citizen, one vote.

A ballot is perhaps the most priceless object a citizen can have, yet many of us are choosing to look at it as worthless. And when we throw away our right to vote, we shouldn't be surprised when those who do value their ballots dictate how the rest of us lead our lives.

Democracy needs an active and engaged citizenry to function; look at the nations full of tyrants across our world, where citizens are fighting and dying for the right to have a voice in how their government is formed and what it does. How can they have such passion for something they've never done (cast a ballot) whereas we in the western world would be content with a 'benevolent dictatorship' so long as it meant never having to stand in line for 10 minutes or more to cast a ballot ever again.

As with everything, be careful what you wish for, because one day we might just get it...And it will be hell to fight to get back what we lost.

What Wrath We Have Brought

2011-06-27T17:15:00.002-06:00

There's no sources for today, if only because everyone should be aware of the situation without the need for a news report summarizing and talking about the issue.

What I would like to talk about today is the status of unions in Canadian society. I'm going to admit something shocking; growing up, I was always under the impression that unions were the bad guys. From everything I'd seen in television and movies, and from the occasional complaints of people like my dad, I was under the impression that unions were a 'force for evil'.

That unions protected lazy workers from being fired; that they would throw down a strike notice at the flip of a switch; and that above all else, they wanted more money for doing less work.

Of course, as I got older, I began to do my own 'research' into the idea of unions. This of course was hindered slightly as I've only ever worked one job where I was a member of a union...And even then, there was never cause to worry much about it.

And there is something that I have discovered: Contrary to popular (or is it just Conservative) opinion, unions are not the bad guys. In fact, unions tend to be the ones fighting the bad guys.

Allow me to take this out of morality terms and make it a bit clearer: Unions are the little guys; corporations are the big guys. In a sense, unions are the underdogs and are fighting to ensure that workers rights are not crushed by the corporate machine in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Let's look at the key difference:

Unions exist to protect workers; whereas corporations exist to create profit. Unions are formed by the people who are DOING the work, which creates the profit, in order to ensure that they are not only compensated fairly for their time and effort, but that they also have safe working conditions.

Back in the day, before unions, workers had no rights in the workplace. They were often working long hours, for little pay, and in dangerous conditions. Think back to the time of the Industrial Revolution; where it was cheaper to hire and train a new worker, then it was to give a raise to someone who worked there for years.

While safety improved, slightly, since the time of the Industrial Revolution and into the late 1900s; the corporate mindset did not. In many ways, the corporate mindset continues to exist in the Industrial Revolution. After all, the person who owns the company or the factory or whatever, often does not work there themselves...Yet, they see remarkable profit from the work done in the factory.

This is as true now, as it was in the late 1800s.

Now, I could stand up here and talk about Marx and Engels and the means of production...But, then you'd all just call me a 'communist' and walk away. I can assure you, I'm not a communist. (I might have been briefly in high school, but we all did silly things in high school.)

Back to the point: Unions were created out of necessity. Workers were not being adequately compensated for their time and their work, and safety conditions were still questionable. As such, the workers did the only thing they could: They came together and stood up to the corporations.

They arranged sit downs in factories, pickets, job actions, all the same things that we see from modern unions. And in the end, they actually won (in most cases).

Flash forward to today: In the USA, in various states, governors are openly declaring war against unions, removing the rights to collective bargaining and job action and numerous other methods of action that unions have.

Despite the USA battle being more prominent to some, Saskatchewan has been at war with unions since the election of the Saskatchewan Party and Brad Wall. Wall's government introduce essential services legislation, despite calling it unnecessary during the election, and has made some use of this legislation.

Furthermore, they were willing to call the Legislature back into session in order to approve back to work legislation on crop insurance evaluators, who were without a contract for two years. Let me expand on that.

The crop insurance evaluators were without a contract for TWO YEARS. I highlight that fact because they are not in a unique situation. Other government employees, from Sasktel to Doctors to Nurses to Teachers, are finding TWO YEARS to be the new minimum for attention from the Wall Government.

Many of our government employees have been without a contract for two years, or more in some cases. Yet, when job action is threatened, the Wall Government invokes the shadow of the essential services legislation (which is so intentionally vague that it could be applied to a dog walker) or back-to-work legislation.

There is a storm brewing in this province. The disdain that the Wall Government has shown for workers only proves that they are putting profits and corporations ahead of the rights of workers. This is further exampled by the fact that the Wall Government has cut programs which stress safer worker places, and Saskatchewan has seen some fairly high numbers of both worker injury and worker deaths since the Wall Government came to office.

However, the war on organized labour doesn't stop at the Saskatchewan-Alberta or Saskatchewan-Manitoba borders...It goes right to the Federal Government, as evidenced by the latest Canada Post strike.

As you all should be aware, Canada Post went on strike over a variety of issues that they just could not come to an agreement on with their employer. Chief among these complaints were payments reflecting the inflated cost of living within Canada, along with concerns over pensions and other benefits.

With the strike moving from rotating strikes to nation wide, the Conservative Harper Government made no short time in preparing back to work legislation for Canada Post. Despite efforts by the NDP to modify, and block, the bill it was passed and rushed through the Senate and approved by the Governor General on Sunday.

Now, to some people, this isn't a bad thing. After all, Canada Post gets a new contract and goes back to work with further disputes being sent to an arbitrator. However, the fine print says otherwise.

The union was asking for a raise based on the percentage required to match inflation. Canada Post countered the union with a lower offer, as corporations are inclined to do. But the Harper Government took it a step further, by including a provision that would increase pay LOWER than the offer made by Canada Post.

Let me try and put this in simpler terms: Let's say you ask your boss for a raise. You ask for a simple, let's say 3% raise. He counters with an offer of 2%. After some argument, your boss's boss agrees to give you a raise but at the rate of 1%.

That's more or less the case here. Despite Canada Post being willing to compromise and give their workers a slightly better, but not what they were asking for pay raise, the Harper Government undercut that offer and forced the workers into a contract that no one asked for and no one approved of.

Now, I've already mentioned the brewing storm of angry labour in Saskatchewan, but there is much more to this. If unions are stripped of the ability to defend their workers, and seek fair pay, then unions become obsolete. And if unions are gone, the economic landscape of Canada would look vastly different.

Right now the war is against public sector unions, under the guise of them being a waste of taxpayer dollars. But, if that conflict ends with the unions busted it is only a matter of time before private unions meet the same fate. Effectively, we are in a conflict between the rights of workers and the bottom line.

And I don't know about you, but for me people come before profits. This is not the 1800s; workers and people have rights, and no matter how hard people try, rights cannot be taken away.

We have a duty to stand with those who are fighting for the right cause; because if we fail to do nothing now, simply because we aren't in that union or any union, we will share in the defeat in the years to come.

As such, on the topic of solidarity, I'd like to end this post with a well known statement by Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."

Shall They or Shant They?

2011-06-16T00:34:00.002-06:00

Source: CTV News: Senate Reform Ruffles Some Conservative Feathers

Well, there's a lot to talk about. We could sit here and discuss the Conservatives' quick action on legislating Canada Post back to work. We could talk about Libya and Canada's expanding role with NATO in the region. We could even talk about Jack Layton humbly moving into Stornoway...

But what we will talk about is an issue that has been brought up since the Conservatives were first elected: Senate Reform.

The issue of Senate Reform has been a hot button issue since the re-elected Conservative Majority was quick to place Larry Craig and Fabien Manning back into the Senate after they had made runs to become Members of the House of Commons but were defeated in the election. Harper also appointed a former Quebec Tory to the upper chamber as well, in the wake of the NDP sweep in the province.

Some pundits suggested that Harper was attempting to invoke anger in Canadians through these appointments by urging Canadians to push for Senate reform, in an attempt perhaps to get provincial governments on side with the potential constitutional reform problem. But that seems to have failed, given Ontario and Quebec's opposition to Senate Reform.

Even now, Harper seems to be telling Senators that if they do not back reform he will move to abolish the Senate. This would be a move that Ontario and Quebec would support, but it's doubtful that Alberta and other provinces would support it. Why you ask?

The Senate was meant to exist as the voice of the provinces on a Federal level; a purpose which has more or less died thanks to partisanship and patronage appointments...Not that it ever fulfilled that purpose in the past when it was first created, mind you.

As such, it is supposed to give equal sway to regions of the country to support or oppose legislation that could be detrimental to their region. With the Senate abolished, provinces lose Federal representation. As such, provinces which have always felt snubbed by Ottawa will be less quick to support taking away an institution that gives them a voice on the Federal scene...Though they would be quick to reform it.

As such, Harper's supposed threat of abolishing the senate if they don't reform is a moot point, as he can't do this unilaterally and will need the support of the provinces, which he likely won't have. Furthermore, no one is sure whether or not this reform will even be adapted. Quebec has threatened to launch a court challenge to the constitutionality of the House of Commons and the Senate reforming themselves without the consent of the provinces.

Which brings us to the proposed reforms: The two that have come out is an elected senate with a nine year term limit for Senators. As opposed to appointed Senators, who serve until the age of 75.

Now, I've mentioned many times on this blog that I support Senate Reform has opposed to Senate abolishing. So, if you want my suggestions on how to reform the Senate, go back or search the blog for them because there's no point in mentioning them for a 3rd or 4th time on the blog.

What I can say is that Harper's reforms don't go far enough, and at the same time pose problems.

The problem is mostly one of politics. As mentioned, the Senate is already incredibly partisan due to the appointment process. But under an elected system, the Senate would only get worse. Allow me to attempt to explain.

The Bloc Quebecois was an oddity on the Federal level, given that it was more or less a provincial party. Direct Senate elections will likely lead to the same thing, with established parties vying for support in elections BUT could also lead to the rise of provincial local parties that could become the norm.

After all, why vote for the 'established' parties when you can vote for a provincial party that will represent your views better on the Federal level, as they answer to the people not the political machine in Ottawa.

Why this sounds like a victory for electors, it's not.

I say that because a fractured Senate dominated by regional parties would be the worst thing for Canada than the Senate we have now. This is simply due to the game of numbers:

Alberta, Ontario and Quebec combined have 54 seats in the current Senate. Every other province has a combined total of 51. That means that these three provinces would effectively decide which bills pass and which bills fail by simply supporting or opposing them.

Now, under a normal party system, this isn't a problem as the party with the most seats would be beholden to their party to support the legislation being brought forward. But if regional parties dominate the Senate, all hell breaks loose for the rest of Canada.

I say so because a triumvirate of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec would dominate the legislative agenda. Picture a Federal Budget in these conditions. Those three provinces would be able to oppose the budget if they did not feel that their province was getting a fair shake compared to others.

As such, they could simply defeat the budget by agreeing to vote it down until they were appeased. Traditionally, the Senate doesn't defeat money bills: But reforming the Senate makes them accountable, which in turn removes the tradition of why they didn't defeat money bills, so this scenario is indeed plausible.

Furthermore, the existence (though now limited one) of the Bloc Quebecois shows that regional parties could become a dominant force in federal politics provided they produce results for the province that they represent.

So, while this is all conjecture and speculation, it is worth thinking about before the Senate is reformed.

With the problems of Senate reform, especially elected Senate Reform, covered we can now talk about why Harper's attempt will end in failure.

Conservative Senators seem to be cool to the idea. Despite Senators being appointed like crazy to give the Conservatives a majority in the Senate, quite a few seem unwilling to destroy their own jobs.

After all, if you were making six figures with massive benefits, would you really tell your boss that you don't want your job anymore? I don't think anyone in the world is THAT noble, despite what they might say in public. Hell, I'll even admit that I would have serious pause about destroying my own career if I sat in the Senate...Though if the right reform was proposed, I would support it.

And now Harper is realizing the folly of his actions: He appointed a bunch of people to a plush job that they don't want to give up. I'm sure a number of his Senators will support the legislation, but there's a number who will likely find something wrong with the bill and vote it down if only to get that corrected.

In other words, it might be a continual back and forth between the House and Senate in legislative hell.

In the end, we'll see if the 'principled' people Harper appointed to the Senate to destroy it from within retain their loyalty to the Conservative Party; or to their own pocketbooks.

The Federal Budget

2011-06-06T15:16:00.003-06:00

Source: CTV News: Highlights of the Federal Budget
Source: CBC News: Flaherty Sticks to Deficit Pledge, But Adds No Details

Again, I'm still on the mend, so getting here to post isn't always a priority at the moment. However, I've found some time and a comfortable sitting position, so let's begin.

The House of Commons in back in session, for the first phase of the first Harper Conservative Majority government. Andrew Scheer was elected by his peers to serve as Speaker of the House, making him the youngest Speaker in the history of the Commons at 32 years old. The Throne Speech was handed down last Friday, during which a Senate Page engaged in some civil disobedience by holding up a sign saying 'Stop Harper' during the reading of the speech.

The page of course was fired from her position, but she seems to have entered the spotlight well enough that I don't think finding future employment will be too hard for her. Most of the parties have condemned her actions, or at least her methods.

And that brings us to budget day. I haven't had a chance to read through the whole budget text yet, but from what I'm reading in the highlights...It's more or less what we've expected. A re-hash of the failed budget from before the election, but with a few new goodies for a select few in it.

Primarily, Harper's Government has added the $2.2 billion dollar payment to Quebec to the budget; a move they would not add for the Bloc Quebecois for their support prior to the non-confidence vote that brought the government down.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20; but this is clearly nothing more than an attempt by the Harper Government to bolster their fortunes in Quebec. With the Bloc Quebecois decimated by the NDP in the election, the Conservatives are now hoping to replace the NDP as the first choice of Quebec voters.

After all, the Conservatives also took a number of wallops in Quebec as well, as several prominent Cabinet Ministers were relieved of their jobs and seats in the election. It's speculative, but I don't believe we'd have seen this measure in the budget had the Bloc Quebecois maintained their seat count, or if the Conservatives had surpassed the NDP in the province.

So, the budget so far contains an attempt to buy Quebec voters to the Conservative Party with tax dollars. What else does it have?

Despite it becoming a major talking point in the Maritimes, there is no mention of Federal support for a power project in Lower Churchill. This could also be tied to the idea of bolstering support for the Conservatives in Quebec, as Premier Jean Charest and others balked the idea as it would be harmful to Quebec's hydroelectric power providers.

Whether or not that is the reason why the Conservatives have put off the Lower Churchill project, despite being the first party to pledge support during the election, remains to be seen.

And finally, depending on who you believe, the talk of the deficit continues.

During the election, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper began to throw out numbers on when the deficit would be rolled back. Despite a budget saying it wouldn't happen until 2014 - 2015, I recall them coming out and saying a Conservative majority could roll back the deficit by 2013.

Despite this claim that the deficit could be rolled back years ahead, Flaherty's budget contains the same numbers as before, without the election time calculation. In fact, a year has been ADDED to the budget deficit numbers, with Flaherty's own projections suggesting that the deficit will be gone by 2015 - 2016.

And of course, Flaherty touts programs cuts and government spending cuts as the primary means of achieving the reduction of the deficit.

So, we have 2 broken promises (deficit reduction by 2013, Lower Churchill Federal support) and a massive payout to Quebec at a time when austerity is being preached and ways to save money within the government are being talked about. And that brings us to one promise they did keep: the promise to remove political per vote subsidies.

Now, I've talked about this issue before. Political subsidies allow parties to be able to share their message with Canadians, while decreasing the influence of powerful interests behind the scenes. While there are caps on how much a person can contribute to a political party, and bans on corporations and unions and other groups from contributing at all, the subsidies ensured that parties stood on equal footing compared to their support.

By removing the subsidies, we are allowing ONE PARTY to control the message. One party that is able to raise more money will be able to buy more air time, buy more advertising in papers and billboards, and be able to get their message out louder and more often than the other parties.

That is not democracy, that's oligarchy.

In order for democracy to work, political parties must stand on an equal footing and be able to get their messages across to voters. We cannot allow those with the most money to simply control the agenda and the message, to decide what is and is not important and what does and does not have merit in discussing. If we do that, then one party will always control the message and the medium and will clobber the electorate over the head into believing their spin and their bias, not the truth.

Democracy must be fair and balanced and removing these subsidies will only tip the scales and allow the Conservatives to control the message and the debate. Democracy thrives on debate and the free exchange of ideas, and this removal of subsidies will only foster the destruction of these ideals.

All in all, a budget that addresses nothing more than the Conservative desire to attract more voters and increase their own political fortunes.

Austerity Hypocrisy

2011-05-23T01:27:00.002-06:00

Source: CTV News: Cabinet Costs Soar, New Salaries and Perks Total $9M

With the economy still being touted as one of the major issues that emerged from the election, the Conservatives have made some interesting announcements in the weeks building up to the return of Parliament on June 2nd.

Throughout the election the Conservatives talked of balancing the budget, years ahead of their initial expectations, without cutting budgets. Instead there was talks of 'attrition' and 'better budgeting practices'. And yet, newly minted Treasury Board President Tony Clement has refused to rule out cuts as a means of achieving a balanced budget.

Of course, Clement has defended this stance by suggesting that programs that were important 30 or 40 years ago may no longer be important or needed, and that programs like this could be cut or completely removed as a means of plugging budgetary holes.

But what exactly does that mean?

When the Conservatives came to power, payments were stunted to the Status of Women organization; given that pay inequality and other issues still exist in our society, I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue an organization that advances the rights of women is out dated and does not deserve to be funded anymore.

Given that we've seen the Conservatives cut programs that ARE NOT outdated, can we really trust Clement to only take the razor to programs, departments, and expenditures that are no longer needed?

I think the answer, clearly, is we cannot.

And then comes the news of the Cabinet...And the fact that Harper's 'Conservative' cabinet has tied fellow Conservative Brian Mulroney for the largest cabinet in Canadian history with 39 ministers. CTV News reports that the cost of this cabinet amounts to around $9 million dollars; which (also according to CTV) beats Mulroney and is the largest payout amount to minsters in Canadian history.

Those figures include the extra payments that are given to Ministers and Ministers of State; as well as vehicle allotment for Ministers. Add to this to the fact that the Conservatives had changed the payment structure for staffers prior to the election, allowing staffers to circumvent conventions that tied the payment of staffers to that of civil servants; AND the creation of severance packages that rival anything found in the private sector for staffers who lost their job in the wake of the election.

All of this from a government who has tried everything to paint themselves as sound financial managers.

Now, I'm not saying that some of these costs aren't justified. It's well known that staffers, the civil service, and even our Members of Parliament are in cases underpaid for the work that is expected of them. MPs, and their staff, work hard (we hope) and often sacrifice a lot of their personal life and time in order to do their jobs (on a level not found in the private sector.)

As such, I think those who commit themselves to serving in government (whatever capacity) deserve to be properly remunerated for their work and commitment.

But at the same time, I think a government cannot talk about cutting programs and departments while inflating the benefits to themselves. Harper has appointed Canada's largest cabinet, citing provincial representation and other lame excuses for the size of his cabinet, which in turn has increased the paycheques of those Conservative MPs lucky enough to sit in the cabinet.

Now, Canada is a large country...But look at the UK, our fellow parliamentary democracy. Right now, in a coalition government, the UK has only 22 Cabinet members. The UK has a larger population than Canada, yet is able to represent all of these people with fewer cabinet members. The math just doesn't add up when 22 people in the UK are able to do the same jobs as 39 people here in Canada.

Effectively, Canada's cabinet (at a time of financial uncertainty, as the Conservatives would say) should be streamlined to reflect the need to save money throughout the government. How can we expect the Harper Government to truly act within the best interest of Canadians when they eviscerate the civil service in the name of saving money (slashing jobs through 'attrition' and likely other means as well) but at the same time create more cabinet jobs than any other point in Canadian history?

The answer, of course, is we cannot. This is simply yet another move, by Harper and his party, to show to Canadians that the Conservative Party of Canada comes first. That rewarding party cronies, and long time MPs with a larger paycheque, is more important than reeling in spending.

Even Losers are Winners

2011-05-19T01:31:00.002-06:00

Source: CTV News: Harper Appoints 3 Defeated Candidates to Senate

On a day when a new cabinet was selected, which should have been the major political issue of the day, Stephen Harper has sparked off a different conversation by appointing three 'new' Senators, from his roster of defeated Conservatives candidates.

Larry Smith and Fabian Manning were former Senators, both of whom resigned their seats in the Senate in order to make runs for seats in the House of Commons. Both were also soundly defeated in their attempts to win seats in the Commons. Then you have Josee Verner, a former cabinet minister taken out by the NDP in the election, who was also appointed to the Senate.

Needless to say, numerous people have taken objection to these appointments, most notably members of the NDP opposition.

Harper is defending the appointment by using his usual stance of saying he needs to stack the Senate in order to reform it. Yet the Conservatives have had a majority in the Senate for awhile now and there has been no moves to reform the upper chamber. Why?

Well, who would step forward and take steps that would eliminate their own job? Chances are the Liberals in the Senate will not support reform, and a few of the older Conservatives won't as well. Not to mention a few of the newer Conservatives who hope to sit long enough to develop a strong pension plan for when they retire from the Senate.

Effectively, you can't expect the Senate to want to reform itself given that any vote for reform means costing the current senators money and benefits that they currently enjoy and would lose to the reform.

Furthermore, we come to the issue of the appointments themselves. All three of these appointments are defeated candidates. That means that Canadians had a chance to elect them to our democratic process, but they were rejected from the opportunity to serve. As such, for Harper to then turn around and appoint them to the Senate is (as some NDPers have said) a slap in the face to Canadians.

We may not directly elect Senators, but given that these are candidates who were defeated in a general election, I think it's clear that Canadians don't want these three people playing a role in the governance of Canada. For a Prime Minister who kicked up a storm about respecting the will and votes of the people during the election campaign, Harper is showing his hypocritical roots with this move.

Add to that the fact that two of these 'new' Senators were former Senators who resigned before the election...And well, there's questions that need to be asked. Clearly, these two people knew that they could run an electoral campaign and lose yet still retain a job in Ottawa. If Harper truly respected Canadians, he would not have invited these two back to the Senate.

An argument for experience can be made, at least in the case of Fabian Manning, but Larry Smith only served as a senator for a number of months and as such does not really have the experience argument supporting him. However, there is a potential silver lining: These two are now political dead weight.

Smith and Manning, who clearly have ambitions to sit in the House of Commons, have shot themselves in the foot by accepting a return to the Senate. Come the next election, it would be unlikely that Canadians would elect either of them as candidates; given that all of us know that if they resign again to run for the Commons, they'll simply end up back in the Senate if they lose.

The other silver lining is this type of appointment could make Canadians consider senate reform more seriously. Many have suggested that this will provide fuel for the NDP argument to abolish the Senate; while Harper himself suggests that it will allow him to push through the idea of a Triple-E senate and other reforms.

Either way, Canadians should be asking questions and we might be able to start a real debate on an issue that seriously needs to be addressed.

Overdue Post

2011-05-12T11:12:00.000-06:00

My apologize for the lateness of this post...As previously mentioned, I was going to be indisposed for sometime after the election (light surgery, and I'm fine in case anyone is worried) and this is the first chance I've had to really sit down and get back to the blog.

Now, there's a lot that's worth talking about. There's the issues surrounding NDP Quebec MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau; there's the rising gas prices; there's Flaherty's vow that he will balance the budget on schedule; and there's ton of post election recapping on the conditions that allowed Harper to beat the pollsters and get a majority government (Here's a hint: It was less about the NDP surge, and more about 'Blue Grits' and 'Red Tories' throwing their weight behind Harper over Liberal candidates...After all, there's a reason why the Liberals did worse than polls suggested they would, and it actually has little to do with the NDP).

So, what issue am I going to talk about?

Well, it's one that hasn't gone away since election day: Coalition. But more than coalition, we're now throwing the M word about: Merger.

In the wake of the Liberals' worst electoral showing in their history, many Liberals began to suggest that the holes in the hull of their ship could be plugged by getting the NDP on board. That the only way to defeat Harper in the next election would be to 'unite the left' much in the same way that the Harper united the right.

This has been a topic that has come up time and time again, but mostly from disgruntled NDPers who were tired of seeing their party lose out to Liberals in certain ridings...But of course, now the shoe is on the other foot and it's now Liberals who are pondering whether or not to merge with the NDP to create a new party that could defeat the Tories.

News media have suggested that some big names have already chimed in on the notion of whether or not a merger should happen; like Jean Chretien and John Manley (if you can still call Manley a big name...)

However, there is a major problem with this. A merger between the NDP and the Liberals suggests that the two parties share the same core values and want to seek similar if not the same course of action to address problems that exist in our country. But this is not the reality that we live in.

The Liberal Party of Canada has never been a 'leftist' party, as they've always tried to market themselves as the 'centrist' choice for Canadians. Socially progressive while being fiscally conservative. Whereas the NDP has never stood in the centre and has always chosen to clearly mark their positions to the left of the political spectrum.

There's problem number one, the ideologies of the parties just don't mesh well beyond social issues. While there is common ground in some social issues (do keep in mind a few Liberals voted against same-sex marriage), it would be a nightmare for the two groups to agree on fiscal policy. The NDP would prefer more leftist economic reform and action, while the Liberals would continue to preach almost conservative like economic action.

The second problem lies in the membership issue. I'm an NDPer, and while we have a very active and dedicated membership, we also have to admit that we have a smaller membership then the Liberals on a national level. While that could change over the next few years, thanks to being in opposition and the increase of youth voting NDP, as it stands now a merger would benefit the Liberals while destroying the NDP.

I say it would destroy the NDP because policy would be dictated by party convention, and if there were more former Liberals than former NDPers in the room, the NDPers are going to lose out on helping to guide party policy. As such, what we would have from a NDP - Liberal merger would not be a new 'leftist' party, but a new centre-left party where the remaining old Liberal supporters run roughshod over the old NDP supporters due to higher numbers.

Effectively, as it stands, a NDP - Liberal merger would simply return the Liberals to a prominent place in Canadian politics without having to do any of the work. After all, if they perform badly in the next election and the NDP performs as well or better, and a merger is approved...All the old Liberals are suddenly returned to a place of power without the voters giving them that right.

Now, given that I was in favour of a NDP - Liberal coalition, this might sound hypocritical...So allow me to explain.

A coalition is not a merger. Both parties maintain their own respective party processes and individuals who work behind the scenes, but they agree to come together to form government and compromise on issues that they can pass with one another. Whereas a merger would destroy these two party machines and replace it with a single one that would be guided by those at the top.

And given the larger number of Liberals in Canada, at least according to party membership, they would dictate party policy with a few compromises that would essentially re-create the Liberal Party of Canada with a light NDP flavouring. Effectively, I don't support a merger because I believe that it would destroy my party. And, given the Liberal track record, I'd be left out in the political wilderness in such an event because I don't believe a party dominated by Liberals in the party machine but driven by mostly former NDP MPs in the House of Commons would even reflect anything close to the NDP now.

As stated this is not an attempt to defeat Harper or an attempt to bring two similar parties together. Rather, it is an attempt for the dying Liberal brand to save itself by taking over another party and slowly (but efficiently if their membership is high enough) replace NDP values with Liberal ones to create a new and stronger Liberal Party of Canada.

A merger with the NDP is the breath of life for the Liberals, but it is the kiss of death for the NDP.

However, Liberals surprisingly have begun to back away from this idea. All signs point to the interim leader of the party vowing to step away from any progress or steps that would make a merger with the NDP possible. Whether the next actual leader will also be confined by this rule remains to be seen.

So, what is next for the Liberal Party of Canada?

I think, if they do not successfully rebuild, they will continue to anguish in third party status until they collapse in the way the Progressive Conservatives did in 1993. Then all talks of a merger will be put aside, and the few remaining Liberals will likely cross the floor to the party that reflects them best.

Surprisingly, I think a Conservative-Liberal non-merger is more likely. Given that it was Liberal supporters who flocked to Harper in Toronto and Ontario, an action which handed him his majority government, it seems more plausible that fiscal conservative Grits will jump ship to the Tories, while the centrists stand around and wonder whether they should attempt to salvage their party...Or if they should accept defeat and join the NDP, without a merging of the two parties.

For a long time Stephen Harper has wanted to see the Liberal Party of Canada destroyed, he's made no qualms about it; but its starting to look like he might actually be the Prime Minister that sees that happen.

Whether that is for good or for ill is too early to ascertain. But what I can say is that Canadians are starting to question the political status quo in Canada, hence the spectacular failure of the Liberals in this election. And who knows where this soul searching may lead.

Election Night Thoughts

2011-05-02T22:17:00.002-06:00

Well, as it stands now most of the polls are counted and candidates are elected nation wide. As a blogger, and a responsible one at that, there comes a time when I have to take responsibility for the things I've said on this blog in the pre-election period. Clearly, some of the predictions made on this blog did not come to pass.

While responsibility can be laid on the access to information I had, polling numbers and so forth, ultimately I write the blog and any fault in it lies with me and me alone. Obviously, I'm talking about dismissing the idea of a Conservative Majority and that being the result that Canadians have ended up with.

In fairness, polling numbers suggested a lower level of support for the Conservatives, and the electoral turnout shows that the Conservatives seemed to have about 3 - 4% higher support than most of the polls were giving them.

As such, it seemed a lock to suggest that the Conservatives were going to lose seats in this election...But I suppose this just goes to suggest that polling numbers continue to be questionable in terms of actual predictions.

But, enough about my faults in the pre-election period...Let's focus on what actually happened in this election.

As predicted, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois imploded at the poles. Duceppe was defeated, but no one saw the defeat of Michael Ignatieff in his riding coming. Further more, no one saw that the Liberals would end up with half of the seats they were predicted to win in the polls (most polls had them in the 60s, but they ended up in the 30s).

Few thought the NDP would hit above the 100 mark, but it seems that they have pulled that off. And of course that brings us to the Conservatives, who performed better than expected and have won the majority government that they've sought for years...Though at the cost of some prominent cabinet ministers and a loss of ground in Quebec.

So, that brings us to what we can expect from a Conservative Majority...

I've speculated on the social conservative issues we'll see pushed forward by backbench MPs who will see this majority as a chance to push social issues without the full blessing of the party through private members bills.

Economically...

I'm not sure. Conservatives have claimed credit for protecting the Canadian economy...but let's not forget that it was the Liberals who established regulations and policies that helped our banks survive the recession.

Let's not forget that Harper and his top cabinet members denied that a recession was even coming, and only agreed to stimulus spending once opposition parties more or less pushed the measure or threatened a non-confidence measure against the government.

As such, if a crisis approaches Canada in the future, who knows how a Conservative majority will react.

Finally, this is my prediction for the next four years: The emphasis will be on the deficit. The Conservatives have vowed to slash it by 2014, and if they fail to do this, they will likely not get re-elected.

After all, the bulk of their campaign platform needs a balanced budget...So, if the Conservatives fail to slash the deficit (which I believe they will fail to do, given that taxing less and spending the same or more never works to cut spending) the next election will reflect that Canadians don't trust them to slash the deficit again.

Hopefully, Canadians have made the right choice in this election. I have grave misgivings, given that this government has proven itself untrustworthy, but Canadians have decided to give them a chance and we must respect that.

But hopefully, we won't regret it in the years to come...

Once More Unto the Breach

2011-05-01T19:28:00.002-06:00

This will be the last post before election results begin to bombard us, so let's take some time to reflect and look back.

Tomorrow, Canadians will get to cast their ballots and make a choice over what party they trust to lead Canada for the next few years. It has been a hard fought campaign, with a few surprises along the way, and it seems as though Canada is about to undergo a seismic shift in our political landscape.

Yet, despite polling indications and the confessions of some party insiders, some people refuse to admit the winds of change that are sweeping across Canada. Some pollsters continue to suggest that a Harper Majority is still in play; that vote splitting between the Liberals and the NDP could create this scenario.

At the same time, though, they seem to forget that vote splitting suggests that the Liberals and the NDP are neck in neck in certain areas. That the gap between them is insignificant in polling numbers to the point where the vote can be split. This is simply not the case in this election, as the the NDP is firmly ahead and seems to be at the cost of the Liberals.

Quite simply, the high polling numbers of the NDP suggest that the potential for vote splitting is low. I have some Liberal friends, who have openly admitted that they have to vote NDP if they want a chance of defeating the Conservative candidate in their ridings. That is a conversation that is happening across Canada.

It's the reverse of the conversation in 2004; where NDP voters handed Paul Martin a minority government in the hopes of keeping Stephen Harper from power. In 2004, light NDP supporters voted Liberal; and now the chickens have come home to roost and light Liberals (and some staunch ones) are coming out to vote NDP in hopes of keeping Harper away from a majority.

So, why are pollsters still pushing the idea of a Conservative majority?

Well, the cynic in me would suggest that these are pollsters with a clear Conservative bias who want people to think that their vote is not going to matter. That even if we all come out and vote en masse for the NDP, the Conservatives are going to win and win a majority.

I assure you that is not the case. If Canadians turn out in heavy numbers, and given the high advance poll turn out it seems likely, and vote for change in governance there is no way the Harper Conservatives will be handed the majority they've coveted since the creation of Canada's Conservative Party.

Furthermore, this election is less about the future of our country and the future of our political leaders.

Everyone has speculated about the future of political leaders come the finish line of this election. Effectively, we've all agreed, that at the beginning of the campaign no party leader was safe. Harper had the best odds of remaining at the helm of his party, but only if the Conservatives increased their seat totals. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Ignatieff had the worst odds of remaining at the helm of the Liberal Party and still has overwhelming odds against him.

Duceppe was considered mostly safe, and Layton could have gone either way considering his health.

Now, the only safe leader is Layton.

Effectively, this election stands the odds of destroying three party leaders. Ignatieff was meant to rebuild the Liberal brand after the Dion years, and as it stands he has failed to do this. In fact, it looks as though the Liberals are going to lose seats and beat their former worst electoral showing in 2008.

As such, Ignatieff is going to have a tough time convincing his party that he can do better in the next election. He'll have to convince his party that he can undue the damage done by the years of Harper attack ads, and rebuild the party in the wake of the NDP rising, but odds are good that Ignatieff won't be able to convince his party to let him stay on.

At least, if he's not a major player in a coalition agreement, Ignatieff won't have a chance of remaining at the helm. Which is one good reason why the Liberals might be quick to support a minority NDP government...

That brings us to Gilles Duceppe. Duceppe, for one reason or another, is well regarded as a politician. Partially because he speaks his mind, regardless of how blunt it may be, and that he's been around the House of Commons a bit longer than any of the other leaders.

But the NDP surge threatens him the most. The Bloc has suffered at the hands of the NDP and looks to be on the verge of their worst electoral showing as well. There are even concerns that Duceppe himself could lose his seat to the NDP.

Duceppe, of course, stepped aside a few years ago (briefly) to make a run for PQ leadership. Of course, he stepped aside in favour of the current PQ leader Pauline Marois, and then quickly asked the Bloc to reverse his resignation and let him take his old job back. That soured a few people in the BQ over the leader, and no doubt a major loss for the Bloc will only further lead to a push for Duceppe's ousting.

Especially if Duceppe fails to hold on to his own riding. Effectively, if the Bloc is as destroyed as the poll numbers suggest, Duceppe will be out as leader and one of the few remaining Bloc MPs will have their chance to rebuild the party.

That brings us to Stephen Harper. Now, I have long since made the case as to why Stephen Harper's political future is fully banked on this election. But with the NDP surge, the case is only stronger.

If poll numbers are true, the Conservatives are actually going to lose seats instead of gain them in this election. And this is at a time when the NDP will be biting at the heels of the Conservatives. As such, that will make Harper the first Conservative (and Prime Minister) to lose ground to the NDP.

That's not a good legacy for Harper, and not the one he'd like to be remembered for, which likely means that there will be some push for Harper to step down. After all, this is attempt number four to win an election, and get a majority. Even with an incredibly weakened Liberal Party in 3 consecutive elections (and now a fourth), Harper has been unable to seal the deal with the electorate for his party.

And an election that sees the NDP gain ground, and the Conservatives lose some, is only going to reinforce the idea to his party that Harper is not the man who will lead them to their ultimate electoral victory. Even before the NDP surge, Harper's leadership was facing questions due to his inability to win a majority.

The NDP surge simply makes it a certainty that if Harper loses seats, and if he does form a minority which then loses power on a vote of non-confidence, Harper will lose more than his government but he'll lose his leadership.

And finally, Jack Layton. At the beginning of the campaign, with Layton's health, there were doubts over whether or not he could run a good campaign and whether or not he'd stay around as leader after election day. No one was more vocal about this then Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, who went as far as to suggest that it was backbencher NDPers who 'forced' Layton into voting against the budget. (Since Duffy believed Layton was ready to support the budget and concessions made in it.)

But, keep in mind, the government fell from contempt not the budget...So Duffy's statement really makes no sense when you keep reality in mind.

And yet, despite the concern, Layton has ran a great campaign. He's been energetic, enthusiastic, and entertaining. He's taken his cane, which some were worried could have been a symbol of his weakness, and turned it into a prop showing his strengths and his willingness to keep fighting the good fight regardless of whatever shape he might be in.

In fact, it's Layton's energy and persona which accounts for a lot of the NDP surge. It's partially people finally waking up and recognizing the various different things both the Liberals and Conservatives have done over the years and why they shouldn't form government, but it's also Layton's personality as well.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Layton has been the major winner of this campaign, and we could see a major shakeup tomorrow when the votes are totaled. This election is going to be a lot closer than Conservatives are prepared to admit, and that is why it is more important than ever that Canadians make an effort to get out to the polls and vote.

We don't need to listen to pollsters who tell us that we can't change our government. We don't need to listen to people who tell us that the NDP will never form government. We don't need to listen to the naysayers who tell us that voting NDP will result in vote splitting and electing a Harper Majority.

This campaign has proven that those statements don't apply anymore. That the electorate has already created change before election day. And that come election day, we have the power to change Ottawa for the better.

And now it's time for my personal appeal. I do not understand how anyone can support this Conservative Party. This is a party that has nothing but contempt for Canada, for our political process, and for our citizens.

This is a government that was found in contempt of Parliament. That means that this is a government which lied, or subverted, Parliament. That means this is a government that lied, and subverted, the Canadian people. This is not about political games, this is not about one party being better than another; but it is about a party that has lied directly to the Canadian people and has continued to lie to the Canadian people throughout the election campaign.

They have bemoaned the idea of a coalition government; calling it unconstitutional and tantamount to treason...When in reality coalition governments are constitutional and legal. Coalitions have existed within Canada, in both official and unofficial capacities and have had major impacts on Canadian society.

After all, it was the Liberal minority of Lester B. Pearson (supported by Tommy Douglas and the NDP) that worked together and created health care, a national pension plan, and our beloved Maple Leaf flag.

That alone should be the greatest example as to why cooperation within the House of Commons should be stressed. Great things have been accomplished when two parties have come together in the past, and great things can continue to be accomplished if two parties could come together in the future. And as it stands, the NDP is the only party committed to working with other parties instead of steamrolling an agenda over the others and daring them to defeat them and cause an election.

As such, Canadians deserve to elect a government that we can be proud of. A government that is actually working towards the best interests of Canadians, and that means working together with other parties to compromise and create the best plan for the future. And for Canadians to get that government, we must vote NDP and we must elect the NDP.

This is an election that will decide the fate of our country for years to come, but also the fate of three party leaders. And that alone should be enough to get Canadians, who cannot support these leaders and their tactics, to vote en masse to show their dissatisfaction with the way politics is currently being run in Ottawa.

We have a chance to change our political process for the better. To elect a government that we can trust. A government that will work with all parties, and all Canadians, and who will ensure that the average Canadian reaps benefits not just those who are already well off.

Change is coming, and almost everyone can see that now.

So, I will close with a simple plea:

Be the change that you want to see; go out and vote. It's our world, and our Canada, let's change it for the better.

Those Will Be The Days...

2011-04-29T00:04:00.002-06:00

As I'm writing this, a funny thing is happening across our nation. When this election campaign started, the Conservatives held an insurmountable lead in public opinion and flirted with majority territory for a period of time. Harper even courted the majority vote, openly asking Canadians to give him and his party the majority they have long sought after since 2004; and some would argue back further when the party was still split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform/Canadian Alliance.

And then something happened. With all the talk of the 'two great leaders' (Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff) telling Canadians that the choice was either a Liberal Government or a Conservative Government, Canadians seemed to wake up and realize that they weren't being told the whole truth.

And with that, the NDP has seen a meteoric rise in public support numbers. For the first time in history, the NDP is beating the Bloc Quebecois and the other parties as the number one choice within Quebec.

For the first time in history, the NDP is beating the Liberals by a staggering 8 percentage points and cementing themselves as the second place party.

But is it stopping there?

The Conservatives started this campaign with about 39% of the popular support, in some polls that number was even higher; but recent polls suggest that they have plummeted down as low as 33 - 36%. That's within striking distance of the NDP wave that is moving across this country that saw the NDP rise from a campaign low of around 15% to a new high of 30%.

Throughout the election speculation in Canada, people have hummed and hawed and mused over what the outcome of the looming federal election would be. Even I did this awhile back, where I outlined 3 possible outcomes.

The first outcome was a Conservative majority, before the contempt and fighter jets really began to raise their heads, but that option seems all but impossible now; rumour has it even some Tory insiders are beginning to admit this.

The second outcome was another Conservative minority, propped up yet again by a weakened Liberal Party. As the polls stand, this is still the option that seems the most likely. At least, in the beginning.

The third option was a Liberal-NDP coalition; though the poll numbers now suggest it would be a NDP-Liberal coalition.

So, what is going to happen come election day?

Right now, there is a chance that Canadians may continue their exodus from the 'major' political parties and find themselves giving the NDP a chance to change the way things work in Ottawa. As such, the possibility of a minority NDP Government being elected flat out does exist, but it is a long shot as it stands.

Even as a die-hard NDP supporter, I never foresaw myself typing that sentence in this election. Don't get me wrong, it's a sentence I am more than glad to type.

But, let's assume for a moment that the Conservatives manage to hold onto their 3 - 6 point lead over the NDP. That means another Conservative minority government will be elected, but it will be one that has LOST seats, rather than gained them.

While Conservatives are looking to pick up some seats, they're also looking to lose others. And the result will be a net loss, as opposed to a net gain, with them likely having somewhere between 130 - 135 seats. (-13 to -8 seats).

The Bloc will have the most spectacular loss out of all the parties, with estimates saying they could be decimated to just 14 seats in the House of Commons, a loss of 35 seats. While the Liberals are estimated to be in the low 60s, a loss of around 14 seats or so.

So, what does this implication mean?

There's going to be a shake up, no doubt about it. Duceppe, who briefly left the BQ to attempt a PQ leadership bid, will likely be turfed as a leader over the miserable performance of the Bloc in this election. A loss of 35 seats, or more, could not be defended and the Bloc leader will likely find himself stepping down, for real this time.

The Liberals will face this problem as well. After Dion led them to their worst electoral showing in decades, he barely survived a few months as leader before effectively stepping down and being thrown to the side at the same time. Ignatieff may face the same call to step aside, with surviving Liberal members looking around to see who is still in the House from previous leadership bids...

Or there could be the unelected factor (high profile Liberals like Frank McKenna) finally coming out of their self-imposed exile in politics to champion themselves as the next great leader of the party.

However, there's also a chance that Ignatieff could stay on a Liberal Leader. After all, a Liberal campaign against a NDP government would be to suggest that they would stay on similar social terms, but find more 'cost effective' measures of putting these programs forward. (It's a false tag line, but it's one the Liberals are using as I type this.)

Without Harper's focus of character assassination on Ignatieff come the next election, the Liberal leader will actually have a chance to spend time defining himself and his vision of Canada. As such, Ignatieff may simply survive as a leader because the party would see it as a chance to do some rebuilding while the Conservatives focus all of their vitriol against the NDP.

And then we come to the NDP.

Truth be told, I had expected a shake up in the NDP leadership after this election. But I think that's out of the cards now. Layton has achieved what many people have said was unachievable for the NDP, a complete surge in the polls that could continue until the party finds themselves in first place.

As such, Layton's not going to stand down and deliver the NDP to new hands after the hard work he's put in. And rightfully so, as he does deserve the credit and the boons for getting the NDP to these historic highs.

Now, these are the 3 scenarios:

1.) A reduced Conservative minority: The Conservatives will lose their 8 - 13 seats, and be left licking their wounds after election day. Harper may put off calling Parliament to session longer than usual as a battle plan is forged.

That battle plan will be one of two things:
1.) Harper will step down as leader and Prime Minister; this is a potential plan because we all know Harper is one of the main reasons why the Conservatives can't cede any ground or form any compromise with the other parties in the House of Commons. As such, there may be push within the party to get Harper out in order to keep the Conservatives in power.

2.) Harper will woo the Liberals into an unofficial coalition; much like he's done since 2006. The Liberals lost their backbone in 2006, and a dismal result here will likely dishearten them again. So we'll see more Liberal abstentions, approval and plain just not showing up to allow government bills to pass through the House of Commons.

Now the problems.

Situation one suggests that Harper would give up power in order for his party to stay in power, but that doesn't sound like the Harper we've come to know. This option is not likely unless the push to remove Harper comes from within his own caucus (by MPs with leadership ambitions like Peter McKay or Tony Clement). The daggers are out there, but whether or not they're ready to be pushed in is another thing.

The second situation is a problem because it would be the last death knell of the Liberal Party. With Ignatieff spending two-thirds of the campaign focusing on the contrast between Conservative and Liberal, the Liberals would lose a lot of face to turn around after election day and then throw support to a Conservative minority.

Since a deal with the devil would destroy the Liberal Party, it is unlikely that the Liberals could afford to prop up a Conservative minority.

2.) A NDP - Liberal Coalition: The NDP and Liberals could have 160+ seats between them, and a coalition could create a lasting government. Furthermore, by the decimation of the Bloc, the 'separatists' (as Harper likes to call them) would not have their hands on any of the reigns of power.

This option is likely, especially if the Harper Government falls early or fails to gain the confidence of the House of Commons with the throne speech. The main reason why its a boon is that it actually helps both parties. The Liberals have attacked the NDP as inexperienced (which is not true, but hey, let them believe what they like) and by having Liberal members in Cabinet that claim is suddenly gone.

And secondly, by having a stable government, the Liberals have more time to rebuild their party. It's a bit of a win-win for them, given that they'll have some power and also be able to take some credit for good programs under a NDP-Liberal government.

The problem with this though is sour grapes. My gut reaction to a NDP-Liberal coalition is one where the Liberals try to punch above their weight and demand more than they deserve out of a coalition deal. By which I mean, they will demand a better share or full split of Cabinet placement and demand that at least one or two high profile ministries fall under their purview.

(Such as demanding that a Liberal be Finance Minister and Health Minister, etc.)

This arrogance could lead to a coalition being a non-starter, especially if the Liberals think they are entitled to hold the more 'important' cabinet positions because some of their members have held those posts before and would not be happy with becoming a junior minister within the department.

And finally the third option, a NDP minority government with no coalition deal.

This is the hardest press of the options. The Liberals and Bloc are going to have some sore words for the NDP, given that their losses came at the NDP's gain. As such, there's a chance that the Liberals and Bloc will be resistant to bring down a Conservative minority simply because they want to keep the NDP from power.

But if the NDP, it could happen, actually forges ahead of the Conservatives and gets the first crack at forming government...There's a chance the opposition will defeat them in much the same way it seems the opposition would defeat a re-elected Harper Government.

In my opinion, those are the situations we're looking at. I do believe that if the Conservatives are re-elected, they will be defeated and the NDP will be asked to form the first Federal NDP Government in Canadian history, even if it relies on a coalition with the Liberals.

The Liberals could take that opportunity to rebuild and rebrand themselves, not to mention give themselves a way to weasel in on good measures passed by the NDP Government, while blaming the NDP faction for any problems of the coalition. It's a win, but also a potential loss for the Liberals, as the people may very well open up to continuing voting NDP in future elections.

These are the questions the parties are going to consider, and ultimately, this election will be decided not by the people of Canada, but by the Liberal Party. They will decide whether they lacklusterly prop up a Conservative minority, but risk destroying what is left of their party to do so. OR to prop up Canada's first NDP government, and risk showing a capable NDP at the reigns of power, firmly establishing them as the alternative to the Liberals for centrist Canadians.

Come On Up For the Rising

2011-04-27T19:07:00.003-06:00

Source: EKOS Politics: Seat Projection April 25th, 2011
Source: Bruce Springsteen - The Rising

For a bit the media has drawn a comparison to Ignatieff's call on Canadians to rise up as being likened to Bruce Springsteen's song the Rising. I've included it at the top, make up your mind as to whether the comparison is fair.

There are few moments in politics that can be referred to as a game changer. Certainly, debates have in the past become electoral game changers, but everyone almost agrees that we did not see that in either of the leader debates of this campaign.

But we have the the 'Orange Wave' ride up and begin to sweep across the nation. I'm speaking off course about the NDP polling numbers that have been steadily on the rise. Everyone knows this kicked off in Quebec, where for the first time ever, the NDP's polling numbers were higher than the Bloc Quebecois.

But now we're seeing NDP support surging in a lot of those key 'battle grounds' that the Conservatives were looking at. Places in mainland British Columbia, places here in Saskatchewan, and more in roads in Ontario. And for the most part, it looks like those in roads are actually working as NDP candidates find themselves being boosted and coming within striking distance of a few Conservatives across the nation.

A recent EKOS poll is showing just how much of a game changer this swift is support could be if the numbers hold come May 2nd.

Here's the overview:

Conservatives: 131 (down 12 seats before dissolution)
Liberals: 62 (down 15 seats before dissolution)
Bloc: 14 (down a whopping 33 seats before dissolution)
NDP: 100 (up a whopping 64 seats before dissolution)

Those numbers are significant if only because they're showing that the NDP is the currently looking like the only party that will gain seats in this election. All the other parties stand to lose seats, as opposed to gain them.

This of course is bad news for Stephen Harper, given that his dreams of a majority government are now more or less completely tossed out the window...And his odds of being able to survive a leadership review from his party after failing to win a majority AND potentially allowing a NDP/Lib coalition to form will also be next to none.

If these numbers hold, not only will the Canadian political landscape have shifted enough to finally convince Canadians that the NDP is a viable option to form government, but it will also cut the last tethers of Stephen Harper's leadership.

Personally, that's a win-win for me.

Which brings me to the speculation.

If these numbers hold, what exactly does it mean for Canada?

Harper will get his chance to form government, there's no doubt of that, but will he be able to hold it? That's where we start to get some interesting possibilities.

The Liberals have damned Harper and his practices for years, so could they form a coalition government with the Conservatives in order to prevent an NDP led coalition? After all, Ignatieff said he'd work with any party, including Mr. Harper's, to make sure parliament could work. So, could we see a Conservative-Liberal coalition for the sole purpose of preventing an NDP one should the government be defeated on the throne speech?

Personally, I don't think this could happen.

Despite the talk of being open to working, Ignatieff has also set his party on such a complete opposition path than the Conservatives. Furthermore, after this campaign and the attacks Ignatieff leveled at Harper, there's no way he could save face by working with Harper after the election.

If Ignatieff attempted to prop up the Harper Conservatives, either through a full coalition or a similar 'loss of backbone' we saw in the last session of the House of Commons, Ignatieff is doing his party more harm than good. After all, they've painted Harper as a the boogyman; and some videos have painted him as Emperor Palpatine.

And while the idea of being Harper's Darth Vader sounds cool in theory, it would be the further death knell towards the Liberal Party I think Ignatieff is hoping to avoid.

So, could the NDP and the Conservatives work together?

This is also doubtful.

The NDP would demand massive changes to the law and order bills, the scrapping of the F-35s, and the billions for prisons; measures the Conservatives would not back down on. And the Conservatives would not go far enough in implementing programs for seniors and students and middle class families.

As such, there can be no deal here.

Which brings us to the only real possibility: the NDP-Liberal Coalition, now Bloc free. If the Bloc is diminished to 14 seats, they are taken out of the equation. Even if the Conservatives wooed the Bloc, they would only have 157 seats compared to the 162 found in the NDP-Lib Coalition.

As such, it seems clear that the major objection to the coalition: Working with 'separatists' has now been removed.

These are the options Canadians will have if polling numbers continue to stay where they are. But of course, things could change. Some parties will go up and others will go down. But a few things are clear:

1.) No party is likely to win a majority government come May 2nd.

2.) The Conservatives seem best suited to win a minority right now, but they have seen poll dropping numbers and we don't know how low they will go. It is doubtful that the NDP could pass them as the first choice party, but we just don't know.

3.) Harper's forth failure (2004 - 2006 - 2008 - 2011) to capture a majority will start the wheel of fortune spinning against his continued leadership; even if he was Prime Minister, his failure to win a majority will show that he's too polarizing a figure to ever get the magical coalition of youth, women, and moderate voters that could hand him a majority. As such, the party will have to look for someone who could pull this off, and it isn't Stephen Harper.

4.)The Liberals still have a lot of work to do, but this decimation of their party, if it continues into this election and the one that comes after it, could lead to a 'unite the left' movement like we saw with the CA - PCs. I'm not sure how successful it would be, given that a bunch of us die-hard NDPers would feel pretty uncomfortable actually merging with the Liberals, but I'm sure there may be a push to try.

But, we'll hopefully have a good last reflection post the day before the election to see which way the winds are blowing.

But with the NDP rolling this high, and to borrow a quote from Bob Dylan, it surely looks like the times they are a changin'.

The Purpose of Planned Parenthood

2011-04-20T21:39:00.002-06:00

Source: CBC News: Tories Defunding Planned Parenthood, MP says

I realize the blog has gone a bit dark as of late, in terms of posting not in terms of content, and I apologize for that. With finals over, I will have a bit more time to throw up posts on the blog. However, I will take an absence after the 2nd of May, due to being indisposed at the time. As such, if you're looking for an election recap and reflections from me, it will be some time after the election is held.

With that small bit of housekeeping taken care of, I shall now get to the purpose of this post. It was announced today that Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost announced to the Saskatchewan ProLife Association that the government was planning to strip Planned Parenthood of their $18 million dollar operating grant from the government, and that it was the petitions signed by people like them that helped make that happen.

Officially, the Conservatives haven't announced anything about funding for Planned Parenthood.

Now, I'm mentioning this topic for a number of reasons. One, since I've moved to Saskatoon, I have been 'represented' (a term I use INCREDIBLY loosely) by Mr. Trost in the House of Commons. Secondly, this is a direct contradiction to what Harper had said weeks ago about letting same-sex marriage and abortion issues lay where they are if his party wins a majority government.

As I mentioned when I talked about that, I said there were a number of backbench MPs I believed existed in the Conservative Party who would not take the leader's advice and would pursue these issues anyways. Brad Trost was my number one choice to raise this banner, given that he's more or less known for abandoning Harper's attempts to appear centrist in order to appease social conservatives.

After all, who could forget when he condemned Diane Ablonczy for funding Toronto's gay pride parade and state that this was the straw that pushed for her to lose control of the tourism and development fund that her department oversaw?

Now, I've more or less stayed out of the abortion debate for as long as I've operated this blog. I think I'm about to wade into it...for better or for worse.

I don't think I would shock anyone if I said that I was pro-choice. Frankly, I'm not a woman and I would never find myself in the situation of considering whether or not to have an abortion. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be in that situation. But the truth of the matter is that there are women who find themselves in that situation every day.

And as someone who hasn't been in the situation, I feel almost hypocritical trying to tell the people who will be in this situation how it should play out. It's a sense of hypocrisy that is apparently lost on Mr. Trost, and other male Conservative MPs.

But, to tell you the truth, I don't think this is an issue over human life at all. While I do believe that there are those in the Conservative campaign who support the so-called 'sanctity of human life', I believe that there are others to whom this is not even the concern. Rather, this is an attempt to do two things:

1.) It is an attempt to reinforce classic patriarchal stereotypes in our society

2.) It is an attempt to control human behaviour

Allow me to expand on both of those points.

Conservatives always talk about the good old days. The days when men were men and 'women' were 'women'. What exactly does that mean anyways?

Well, given that I've known a few people who like the good ole' days, it means returning to a time when women knew their place. When women stayed at home, looked after the house and the children, and made damn sure that husband had a warm meal and a drink waiting for him when he came home from work.

I feel the need to point out a phrase I've heard before, though I can't remember where: The good ole' days were not that good for everyone.

Conservatives will attempt of course to tell you that they have no intention of rolling back the clock on women's liberation and the effect that feminism has had in the 21st Century...But their actions don't really suggest this.

The fact that most of the staunchest anti-abortion Conservatives are men should tell you something. Well, actually it tells you two things. Firstly, that we need more women involved in the political process. And secondly, that these are all men who are attempting to tell women what they can and can't do.

As mentioned, a few of them probably believe that they are protecting human life, but I think the bulk of them just want a return to 'normality' when a woman could be told what was in her best interest by powerful men in their lives.

The Conservatives have even attempted to claim this argument to their side, suggesting that the majority of women who have abortions are pressured into them by the father or their father or other dominant men in their lives. But by having a bunch of middle age men telling women that abortion needs to be outlawed is no better. It is restricting the choice of women to decide what is right for them and their situation.

It is another case of men forcing women into a position simply for the man to feel like the man.

Which brings us to my second point. I've already touched a bit about how Conservatives are trying to force women back into a patriarchal system where their choices are limited, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Conservatives, despite their idea that their should be social freedom to do as one pleases without the government stepping in, are hellbent on controlling the lives of Canadians. Allow me to explain.

This is a government that set the topic of women's and maternal health as a key issue during the G8/G20, and were lambasted by the international community for refusing to acknowledge contraception and abortion within these issues.

So, Conservatives are against abortion...But they're also against contraception. What does that tell us?

It tells us that what Conservatives are really against is an issue as old as time: sex as pleasure.

Another staple of them 'good ole' days' the Conservatives seem to want to return us to is a time of simpler morals and virtues. Like when Ricky Ricardo couldn't say Lucy was 'pregnant', she was 'expecting'. A time when mom and dad didn't share a bed on television, but had two beds in the same room.

Effectively, the Conservatives are against sexual expression. Their opposition to homosexuality should be enough proof of this, but apparently we need more to conclude this. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present this as my argument:

Planned Parenthood provides more than just 'abortion services'. In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide abortions. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides information for women who are seeking abortions. They can arrange for contact with a doctor who can perform the operation, and provide counseling both before and after the procedure.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood provides more than just these services. They provide counseling on HIV, on safe sex, on adoption, and on family planning services as well. Planned Parenthood is designed to ensure that a person, mostly young women, are ready to start a family and have the information they need to make the best choice for themselves.

But accepting Planned Parenthood as an organization seems to accept a concept that the Conservatives want to refuse: (You may want to avert your eyes) Teenagers are having sex.

Shocking, I know.

Effectively, in my humble opinion, the Conservative rejection of Planned Parenthood is an attempt to legislate the behaviour of teenagers and force them to avoid pre-marital sex. After all, even if Planned Parenthood didn't provide abortion services, the Conservatives would still attack them for providing contraception and details on how to have safe sex.

The fact of the matter is, I don't think we've ever had a world where teenagers weren't engaging in some form of sexual relations. For the better of part of a few centuries, we were marrying off women as young as 13 for the sake of political alliances after all...

The only thing that has changed is that now it is the children themselves deciding to engage in these actions. And the fact that all of us over the age of 18 have to accept is that children are going to do what they're going to do. The best thing we can do is explain the risks, provide the facts, and encourage them to do the right thing.

That's what Planned Parenthood does. They accept that we can't control what children and teenagers are going to do; but they acknowledge that we have a responsibility to arm them with information to make the right choices. Yes, it would perhaps be ideal if our children waited until they were in love before having sexual relations...But how many of us can say that that was the situation we experienced?

I'm sure less than half of those espousing these views can make that claim.

The fact of the matter is this: The Conservative war against Planned Parenthood is two-fold. One, it is an attempt to restrict the choices of women in favour of patriarchy. Two, it is an attempt to control the actions of teenagers and others throughout the nation, despite preaching about individual freedom and liberty.

By robbing today's youth of information that can prevent abortions and higher rates of STI infection, the Conservatives are choosing to ignore the root of the problem. They're not seeing the forest for the trees, if you will.

People are going to have sex, regardless of whether or not their parents want them to. And as I've said, the best thing we can do is promote organizations that encourage those who are engaging in sexual relations to do so in a safe and smart manner.

Given that Saskatoon's HIV rate exploded this last year, and there is still no real strategy from the Federal or Provincial Government to combat this, the dismantling of Planned Parenthood is only going to contribute to higher rates of HIV infection. And higher rates of HIV infection impact us all, if only because it increases the strain on the health care system. Therefore, it's better for us to be proactive than reactive.

And that brings me to the conclusion of this post...I'm worried I may have rambled too much and not made enough sense in the above paragraphs. I hope that isn't the case, but time will tell. Which is why I'm going to carefully choose my closing.

There was a movie released a few years ago now called Vera Drake. It dealt with England early in the 20th Century, at a time when abortions were still illegal in the UK. Despite this, a housewife named Vera Drake provided abortions to women. 'Helping girls out' she called it. Of course, one of the girls she helps dies because of the unsafe practice Mrs. Drake used in the process.

Why do I mention this?

I mention it because the outlawing of something does not make it disappear. In fact, it makes the problem that much worse. Illegal drugs have been outlawed for years, yet they continue to find their way onto the streets. In many cases, these drugs are poorly mixed or 'cut' and pose a significant health risk to the person who uses them.

The same will be true of abortion. Women who want or need an abortion are still going to find ways to get them.

Yorkton-Melville MP Garry Breitkreuz liked to tell me about how he introduced a bill that would be 'a right to know'; that would detail the complications abortion could have on a woman years after having one. So, Conservatives it seem admit that there's a risk in abortions. Imagine the risk when it's performed by someone with no medical knowledge in a back alley or a van or a hotel room or god knows where instead of an operating room.

Well, with Planned Parenthood gone the odds of that happening increase. And with a Conservative Majority, and the likes of Trost and Breitkreuz, a woman's right to choose will disappear; but abortions will not, and who knows what the consequences will be.

Conspiracy Theories...

2011-04-14T15:39:00.002-06:00

Now, I'm not usually the type of dwell on these types of thoughts and speculations; mainly because there's no strong proof one way or the other that will substantiate the debate. But, it's something that has been on my mind, and was recently discussed (briefly) in the main stream media, so I'll take the time to explore it here and provide my thoughts.

The issue was brought up on Powers & Politics on the CBC, by commentator Scott Reid. During a discussion on the Auditor General's report, Reid was quick to point out that Canadians will likely not get to see the report before the election. He also pointed out how this may have been planned by the sitting government.

Allow me to explain.

Reid suggested that the Harper Government, who apparently has people in the PMO and PCO who have seen the final report, orchestrated the means for the government to fall before the report would be released because of damning information against them.

Reid was also quick to point out that Paul Martin faced a similar situation when news of the Sponsorship Scandal was about to break, but he allowed the report to be released before calling an election as opposed to squashing it by calling an early one.

Now, what are the strengths in Reid's argument?

Clearly, the fact that the PMO and PCO have seen the report is blow number one in favour of such a theory. Secondly, though unrelated, this election has also cast doubt on whether documents related to the treatment of Afghan detainees will be released. Both of these issues are expected to reflect badly on the Harper Government, though there is a chance they won't, and undoubtedly Harper knew his odds of re-election would be slim to none after both of these were released.

Given that he knew the dates for the release, it would be in his favour to call an election before the release in hopes of securing a majority government to less the impact the fallout would have on him, his ministers, and his government.

But of course, Harper couldn't dissolve Parliament himself, not if he wanted to blame the opposition for the election. So, his finance minister created a budget that they knew was doomed to fail.

But that brings us to the problem of this theory.

This theory relies on the idea that Harper intentionally brought down his own government, but the fact of the matter is the government was brought down over the matter of contempt, not the budget.

However, one can argue that the budget was likely doomed to failure anyways and that even without the vote of contempt the government would have fallen anyways before the April release dates of the report and the detainee files.

That leaves us with the question: Did Harper mean to bring his own government down before these documents were released?

There is support for this idea, but the proof is mostly circumstantial and they said - we said arguments.

But it is a question that Canadians need to consider, and it cuts to the fundamental question of trust that is playing a role in this campaign. The bottom line is, the fact that we can even suppose Stephen Harper meant to bring down his own government speaks to the fact that Canadians cannot trust Stephen Harper.

And someone we can't trust, shouldn't be given the privilege to form any government, especially a majority one.

Another Day, Another Scandal; & Debate Night Thoughts

2011-04-13T00:16:00.004-06:00

Source: CTV News: Draft Report Questions Conservative G8 Spending
Source: CBC News: Conservatives Apologize in Letter to Fraser
Source: CBC News: Debate a Snooze, Students Say
Source: CBC News: Conservatives Fattened Salaries of Aides: Report
Source: CBC News: Tories Under Fire over Leaked G8 Report
Source: CTV News: AG Office Probing Leak of Draft Reports

I'm still listening to the Debate, so you'll excuse me if I don't spend too much time exploring the ins and outs of what was said during the debate. Though, as we figured, it was the opposition leaders mostly attacking the Harper Government's record, with occasional shots at each other. As for Harper, he continued to duck questions (both from the citizens asking through videos, and the opposition leaders) and rattled off party lines.

Of course, despite the debate, that big issue of the week is revolving around the draft report of the Auditor General's G8/G20 report.

For those not in the know, a draft report came out which suggested that the government 'mislead Parliament' in regards to a $50 million dollar legacy fund for projects within Tony Clement's riding prior and during the G8/G20 summit.

Numerous Conservatives, namely John Baird, have come out and announced that the phrase 'Parliament was mislead' does not exist in the final report (which cannot be released due to the election) and that rather the report is not condemning of the government's spending during the G8/G20.

Despite the problem with this alone, the plot thickened when it was announced that the Conservatives also misquoted Auditor General Shelia Fraser to a commons committee revolving around the G8/G20 spending. The quote applauded the government for their spending, commending them on a job well done in regards to the spending; but it turns out that the quote was actually spoken in regards to government spending in 2001, by the Chretien Government, in regards to security spending after 9/11.

Talk about adding fuel to the fire.

The Conservatives have since, through outgoing Treasury Board President Stockwell Day, issued an apology to Fraser for misquoting her. Furthermore, the Conservatives have also called on Fraser to release the report, along with the leaders of the other opposition parties, despite Parliament not being in session.

Two drafts of the report, one of which does not contain the idea that Parliament was misled, still suggests that the $50 million dollar spending in Clement's riding was of questionable relevance to the G8/G20 summit.

Fraser, of course, is holding her ground on the issue and refusing to release the report because she answers to Parliament, which is not sitting. Furthermore, the AG's Office is looking into the leak of the draft reports. Fraser has said that the draft report should be considered with caution, but has neither confirmed nor denied the accusations that are supposedly within the report.

Whether or not the report gets released, there's a chance that this could be the weight around Harper's neck that sinks his government. I follow comment boards and other news outlets regularly, and the common Conservative defense is that "Well, Remember ADSCAM? At least the Conservatives haven't stolen taxpayer money and given it to friends of their party."

Well, that defense is now out the window as it appears that the Conservatives have taken money from taxpayers and spent it within a Conservative riding; with numerous suggestions that Clement met with the Mayor of Huntsville and a prominent business resort owner before the money was spent.

Of course, all of this is speculation until we get the final report. Which, judging by Fraser's refusal to budge, will not occur until it is tabled in the next sitting of Parliament.

In a previous post on this blog, I talked about how the Harper Government was promising to balance the budget by cutting back on the civil service (they say through 'operations costs' and not rehiring positions where people retire; though I argue this won't be the case) and now another small scandal has come out regarding the payments being given to staffers within the government.

Staffers are to have their salaries tied to the rates paid to civil servants, yet it appears that there are cases where this was not being followed.

Staffers are only to be paid more than this level in the face of extraordinary circumstances, yet it appears that the Harper Government was paying more to staffers regardless. In addition to these enhanced payments to staffers, (ranging as high as $190,000 when standard pay is around $125,000) the Harper Government increased the cap on maximum salaries for staffers and increased the amount of 'separation pay' (effectively, payments made to a staffer who loses their job on top of severance pay) from four months to six.

Let me repeat that: A staffer who loses their job will be paid their wage for six months after losing their job.

Now, I've defended the civil service in the past; and staffers, while separate from the civil service, are an integral part of our government. These people work hard, and they do deserve to be properly reimbursed for their work.

The problem is two-fold:

1.) These payments were not made across the board; a Chief of Staff in one department, despite salary restrictions, made $65,000 more than a Chief of Staff in a different department.

2.) These increases in payments were made during a time of financial austerity, when the government was talking about 'tightening belts' and reigning in spending. Furthermore, these payments were made to effectively partisan workers outside of the civil service, at a time when the rates should have remained tied to the civil service as required.

On top of that, the Treasury Board (in classic Harper Government fashion) was slow to release this information when it was requested. It took seven months, well over the legally mandated time frame for Access to Information requests, and was heavily redacted. Furthermore, of the 51 pages requested, only one page contained any type of information that was not protected under 'Cabinet Privilege'.

At a time when Harper is coming out to talk about 'operational spending shaves', how can he justify these limited increases to certain staffers within his government? The problem is not that the increases occurred, but rather that the increases were not tied to the civil service rates and that the increases were restricted to certain staffers only.

As such, given this information, how can we trust the Conservatives to reduce and defeat the federal deficit without making cuts to programs and services?

At this point in the post, the debate has wrapped up and I'm going to give my thoughts on the points that came across...Sort of.

The main thing I need to come to task with, since it was Harper's battle cry throughout the evening, was the idea of corporate tax cuts as job generators within Canada. I lost count of the times Harper reminded Canadians that the opposition leaders would fund their platforms through raising taxes...

Keep in mind, Harper never once pointed out the difference that tax increases would fall on large corporations NOT individual Canadians. I'm sure this distinction was left out for a reason...

Harper continued to suggest all evening that corporate tax cuts increase jobs in Canada...Yet history and a recent report suggest other wise. A report by the Globe & Mail (link) shows that corporations that receive the most benefit from these tax cuts are simply keeping the increased income they saved within the company as cash reserves.

To put that another way: Companies are sitting on the money they save, NOT investing it into job creation.

Furthermore, in the past couple of weeks news stories have talked about companies that are taking in massive profits while cutting jobs or moving jobs out of Canada. An example of that can be found here in my city of Saskatoon, where Shaw Media closed down a call centre and put 60 people out of work. (link)

Shaw also announced that 500 jobs would be eliminated across Western Canada, in addition to the call centre that was closed down. Shaw currently operates 18 call centres, but they plan to lower than number to 7, putting hundreds out of work.

To put this in perspective, according to Shaw's own report (link) their first quarter results for 2010 were $1.08 billion dollars, 19% higher than the profit they made in the same quarter the year before.

Yet, despite increasing their profits (which the corporate tax rate very much likely helped with), Shaw has turned to laying off employees in favour of their bottom line.

That's strike one against the idea that corporate tax cuts generate jobs for the multi-million dollar companies that receive them.

Effectively, corporate tax cuts do not generate jobs for Canadians. If the recession taught us anything, it's that those who received the most did the least to improve the lives of Canadians. Harper has touted how his government has replaced the jobs lost during the recession; what he doesn't tout is how many of the jobs lost were full time career positions that required specialized training and provided employees with benefits (health coverage, prescription coverage, pension plan, etc.). And that the jobs that took their place were part-time positions in the service industry that offer no benefits to their employees and do not match the level of pay of their former positions.

Furthermore, Statistics Canada has often come out with numbers that challenge the Harper record on job creation. Canadians need to acknowledge this: corporate tax cuts for large businesses do not generate jobs.

That's why, in my opinion, the NDP is dead on with their proposal to extend tax cuts to SMALL businesses, the corporations that actually generate GOOD jobs for average Canadians.

Effectively, Canadians need to wake up to the Stephen Harper message:

Conservatives will not do anything for Canadians, until the books are balanced; but the books won't balance when giant corporations receive tax breaks they don't need for jobs they don't create.

We need a government that is here for the Canadian people; not a government that is here for large, and often non-Canadian, corporations.

A Cut and a Shave...

2011-04-10T14:35:00.002-06:00

Source: CBC News: Harper vows 'Modest' cuts but Offers few Details
Source: CTV News: Harper say Tories can cut Costs, Keep Services

As the election continues, it seems that all the party leaders are talking about cuts to the civil service in one way or another. The Liberals have warned that the Conservatives will cut essential services (like health care) in order to pay for their programs in their platform. The NDP has said that neither the Liberals or Conservatives can be trusted to protect essential services and that both parties would make cuts to services.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, haven't spent much time attacking the others over whether they would cut programs and services; instead, Harper has openly admitted that the Conservative Party, if they form government, would make cuts to balance the budget.

Of course, Harper didn't say the word 'cuts' exactly. Much like Jim Flaherty, who called the finding of the government in contempt 'a procedural motion', Harper is telling the truth without telling the truth.

Harper has referred to the cuts as 'shave[ing] five per cent off [the $80 billion in operating costs the government spends]' and as 'operational savings'.

Of course when pressed for details by the press, Harper refused to provide any real details to the plan of his party. The only thing he has gone on the record for mentioning is that there are 80,000 civil servants expected to retire in the next few years, and that not all of them need to be replaced.

Given the Harper Government's long standing inability to see eye-to-eye with the civil service, I can't help but see this as a bad thing. After all, how many civil servants out there have stood up to the government since Harper came to power in 2006? How many have blown whistles over questionable practices, such as the flagging of access to information requests, and directly challenged the power of not only the government but the Prime Minister's Office?

The fact of the matter is, it's probably a higher number than any of us know. So to hear Harper say he's not going to replace a large number of these people makes me concerned.

After all, 80,000 people is a lot of jobs; I find it impossible to believe that you could eliminate even half or a quarter of those jobs and still have those departments deliver services as they do now. A decrease in the civil service means there will be a slow down in the delivery of government services, there's just no other way around it.

If a department goes from having 30 employees to 10, for example, there is going to be a significant diminishing in the productivity and ability of that department to do their jobs in a timely fashion. Even if those 10 workers were the best of the best and worked around the clock, I doubt they could do the work of 20 others.

This is yet another time when Conservatives are attempting to paint the civil service as a 'boogeyman' that is a black hole of taxpayer money. I've said it many times on this blog, if we want services as a nation we have to pay for them. We can't get something for nothing, life simply doesn't work that way.

A decrease in the civil service, regardless of where the decrease occurs, will lead to decreased services. A + B = C, always has and always will. And this is a case where Harper is trying to tell Canadians that A + B = D, and he's crossing his fingers than none of us are paying close enough attention to see the lie we're being fed.

And there's the flip side to this problem. Harper has said that not everyone will be replaced when the 80,000 retire; but some of them will be.

Given that the Conservatives were caught 'considering' the niece of former PC Premier Bernard Lord, upon his recommendation, for a job at Rights & Democracy, I think we all know how the Conservative hiring process is going to work for those who will be replaced.

I'm not saying the Liberals are any better, mind you. The culture of cronyism that exists in Ottawa has existed under Liberal and Conservative governments alike. Yet Canadians always talk about how they want change in government and Ottawa. Yet Canadians always alternate between two parties which have proven that they are undeserving of the public trust.

To borrow a phrase: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results." In that way, it appears we Canadians have been electorally crazy for years.

Until we re-examine why we vote the way we do, and whether or not the status quo is actually the best thing for Canada, we're simply going to get the same results over and over. And it would be insanity not to make a change for the better.

Contrasting Opinions

2011-04-09T23:21:00.002-06:00

Source: CTV News: Harper Plan Would Eliminate Deficit by 2014

"Parliament hasn't voted on it, the government fell on a procedural matter."- Jim Flaherty, Finance Minister on CTV's Power Play.

When Parliament was dissolved, Stephen Harper walked outside of Rideau Hall and addressed the gathered crowd of reporters. Harper seemed angry in his address, but he was also defiant. Defiant about mentions the reason why his government had fallen from a vote of non confidence. Harper didn't mention the contempt charge against his government, and instead tried to spin a world where the opposition had voted against the budget.

Its become a standard for Conservative message bearers. Lines like "I wish the opposition parties took time to read our budget before they brought our government down" or "Well our DEFEATED budget covered that issue" or "This opposition DEFEATED out budget before they even read it." Have been thrown about by pretty much every Conservative who has given a media interview since the beginning of the election.

Furthermore, our illustrious media (whom I use for my sources constantly) have misconstrued this issue as badly as the Conservatives. CTV News, in two different articles over two days, stated that the budget was defeated; and that it was this that brought the government down.

However, that is simply not true. As we all know, I should hope, the Harper Government was brought down over a vote finding them in contempt of Parliament (the first parliamentary democracy government in commonwealth history to be found in contempt) over their refusal to release costing documents and price tags associated to a variety of bills they had put before the House of Commons.

They were not brought down over the budget, in fact there wasn't even a vote over the budget. Due to debates running over and the schedule of Parliament, a vote on the budget did not occur before the opposition could bring forward their charge of contempt in the government. As such, saying that the budget was defeated is a complete falsehood.

And now, Jim Flaherty has some what admitted to this. On CTV's Power Play, as quoted at the beginning of this post, Flaherty was defending the Conservative Party Platform...Which as many suspected, is basically a rehashed version of the budget that they put forward before the vote of non confidence.

Yet, he dances around the issue, calling it a 'procedural matter'. I guess admitting, and hence reminding Canadians, that your government was found in contempt of Parliament isn't the best vote getter during an election.

But it's one step closer to the truth than the Conservatives, and clearly some in the media, have been thus far in the election campaign.

I've said it before, and others have said this well, but re-electing or giving a majority to the only Parliamentary Democracy party in commonwealth history to be found guilty of contempt of Parliament is a down right shame. If the Harper Conservatives are re-elected, it sends a message that Canadians don't actually care about what their government is doing.

It sends a message that political parties are free to do what they want behind closed doors, to not be held accountable to the people that elect them, and that as long as they aren't caught taking money from the coffers anything else is alright.

But it's not alright.

A breach of trust, is a breach of trust, and the Harper Government was indeed found to be in breach of trust of Parliament: Which in our political system effectively means that Harper's Government was found to have breached the trust of the Canadian people.

In any other system in the world, consequences would have been handed out: Contempt is Canada's version of impeachment, yet Harper is allowed to run as an MP and is able to remain as leader of his party. And should his party win on May 2nd, he'll be allowed to become Prime Minister again.

This is unacceptable and Canadians should not stand for it; and hopefully, before May 2nd, Canadians come to their senses and realize that they can't endorse this behaviour with a vote for a party that OFFICIALLY holds nothing but contempt for the Canadian people and for the political process.

'Charter' a Refresher Course...

2011-04-05T16:34:00.002-06:00

Source: CTV News: Harper Criticized for 'Unfriending' Teen from Rally
Source: Department of Justice Canada: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In keeping with our discussion of Harper's culture of control in Ottawa, news has come out that a number of people have been ejected from Conservative Rallies by members of the RCMP. As previously noted, the Conservatives have been using a screening process before rallies in order to determine who can and cannot attend.

In the two cases that have so far come out, young voters had registered to attend the Conservative rally, and were ejected shortly afterwards. For one, it was his appearance in a rally of student voters outside of the rally that led to his ejection. For the other, it was a Facebook photograph of her and a friend with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Harper's mouthpiece, Dimitri Soudas has said he will apologize to the ejected student, though so far no apology has been reported. According to the ejected student, she had planned on attending Federal Events for all the major parties in order to make a well-informed vote come election day; though this answer seems to have fallen on deaf ears as she was still ejected from the rally.

Now, there has been some scramble over this on the Conservative side. Many Conservatives, including Harper, have denied that they have any say over the organization of events. Rather, Harper suggests that it is campaign staff who set up events and establish screening protocols.

I've worked for a few political campaigns in my time, so allow me to provide some insight.

Harper is telling the truth that campaign staff do a lot of organizing and planning for events, but he is omitting the part that explains who has the final say on decision making. That boils down to two people: the campaign manager and the candidate, or in this case, party leader.

Harper said that his staff organizes events, and this is true, but they are still directed and approved to behave in certain ways. As such, either Harper or the national Conservative campaign manager authorized selective screening for Conservative events. And given Harper's history of top down leadership, I think we clearly know who started the ball rolling on this issue.

Harper may not have ordered the teens to be removed personally, but you can bet that he's responsible for the policy that allowed them to be removed from the event in the first place.

This is just another in a long line of examples of Harper subverting Canadian democracy. Why doesn't Harper want to engage with average Canadians? Why does he want his party to restrict access to events where he will be attending? Why is his party not only forcing people to register for events, but clearly ACTIVELY running background checks (via Facebook and other social media sites) on these people?

These are disturbing questions, and Canadians deserve an answer to them. Access to information is a cornerstone of democracy; and the purpose of gaining information is to know the truth about our representatives and whether or not they are acting in good faith. These two people were attempting to inform themselves, an act all Canadians should undertake in an election, and they were penalized because they were willing to listen to every side before making a decision.

In closing, I'd like to refer Harper to a document that I think he's ignoring in this Election Campaign:

Fundamental Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(d) freedom of association.

Culture of Control

2011-04-04T17:38:00.003-06:00

Source: CBC News: Ignatieff Slams Harper over ex-aide's Convictions
Source: CTV News: PM Wouldn't have Hired Carson if he Knew his Past
Source: CTV News: Harper Says he won't Revisit Abortion, Gay Marriage

I'd like to take a moment today to talk about Stephen Harper; shocking, I know.

There is something that we all know about Stephen Harper, something that all of us have knowing since he became leader of the Conservative Party and since he became Prime Minister: The man does not like to be out of control.

In the 2004 and 2006 Elections, Harper is known to have placed his candidates under 'media gag-orders', but even that didn't stop a few of them from making controversial comments to media and constituents. In government, Harper took this even further, by making press releases and other statements by Conservative MPs subject to screening and approval by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

Harper has exhibited an incredible amount of control over his caucus and government, almost to an authoritarian level. There is no doubt in my mind that Harper effectively pulls the strings and holds all of them when it comes to actions undertaken by the Conservative Party of Canada.

We know Harper is a top-down leader, there is no debating that; which is why it makes it harder and harder to believe that all the scandals that have broken under his watch can't be linked back to him.

All of Canada, even some international citizens, know that Harper prefers to the run the show and ensure that he's always in control of situations. Look to this election campaign, and his '5 question limit' from the media. Look at how the media is cordoned off at Conservative campaign stops.

Look at how Harper isn't making random stops along the campaign, but carefully staged and controlled stops that are guaranteed not to produce a situation that could embarrass the Conservative Leader. After all, we all know how one of the campaign stops thus far included an 'entry list'; where if your name wasn't on the list, you weren't allowed in.

No other leader has done this, to their credit. I mean, even Ignatieff has put himself in crowds of people who have told the media later on that they had no intention of voting Liberal. But Ignatieff still took the risk of embarrassment, or finding himself disagreeing with a citizen in front of the national media. Harper doesn't.

So, how can we believe Harper when he tells us that if he knew about Bruce Carson's fraud convictions and mental health status back when he was first hired, he wouldn't have been hired in the first place?

The simple answer is that we can't.

Carson was hired by Ian Brodie, who if memory serves was a college friend of Stephen Harper in addition to being his chief of staff. Carson has since gone on the record as saying that he was upfront about his past when he was interviewed by Brodie for the job; yet Harper continues to deny that he knew anything about it.

Now, Carson was given 'secret' clearance; which, in addition to the interview, would have meant that he would have undergone a criminal background check. Having done one of these myself, I can tell you that a criminal background check will reveal any convictions or on-going investigations into a person's background.

If Carson had a pardon, there's a chance that these convictions would not be on his record, but Carson nor anyone else has stepped forward to say that he had been pardoned for his prior convictions.

So, that leaves us with two options: Either Harper is lying, or Ian Brodie kept this fact from Harper.

But given that Brodie was not only hand picked by Harper, but also a college friend, I highly doubt Brodie would have kept this information from Harper. After all, friends usually tell friends the truth when there's a chance that concealing it will lead to problems down the line...Especially when that friend is the Prime Minister of Canada.

Of course, there's always the chance that Brodie was a sycophant; a handpicked yes-man by Stephen Harper, who had been told to hire Carson by Harper regardless of what turns up in his background check. Why this would happen, I don't know, but it's a question that Harper does need to be asked.

We know that Harper is rarely not in control of his caucus and the decisions made by the Conservative Government. This is established fact. As such, Harper needs to come out with a stronger defence (namely proof of some sort) that he honestly didn't know about Carson's past; or that he was personally not informed of the past.

Frankly, Carson can jump the gun on this one personally by acknowledging whether or not he had a pardon for his convictions when he was interviewed for the job. Furthermore, anyone can jump the gun with Carson's permission to release the criminal background check form that was returned by the police service who performed it.

And if that document shows Carson's convictions, then there can be no doubt that Harper indeed knew of Carson's convictions but dismissed them and hired him anyways, for some unknown reason.

Throughout the life of the Harper Government, dozens of staffers have been thrown under the bus by numerous ministers and Conservative backbenchers for 'scandals' and so forth. Yet only one of these scandals has ever been more or less linked back to a Minister (Bev Oda VS KAIROS); and none of them have ever found their way back to Stephen Harper.

Even Doug Finley, the current embroiled Senator in the the in-and-out financing scandal, has suggested that people who suggest that Harper knew about it personally, or order for it, is an idiot.

Well, Mr. Finley, I guess I'm an idiot; but I'm an idiot with the proof and power of fact on my side. Which is more than we can say for your side.

As such, I think there is no doubt that Harper can indeed be linked back to EVERYTHING that went wrong during his time as Prime Minister; and his own controlling nature is the proof in the pudding.

Now that we've talked about Harper's controlling nature, I'd like to take a small detour to another topic: Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage.

Harper, while stumping today, announced that a re-elected Conservative Government would not go after either of these issues as government policy. However, Harper was 'mum' on whether or not he would support a private member's bill that would address either of these two issues.

I think, to borrow a phrase, Harper's silence is deafening.

I have no doubt in my mind that a Conservative Majority government would move quickly to pass legislation on these two issues; though, I will concede that they will not be government bills but private members bills.

I can, off the top of my head, name quite a few Conservative backbenchers who would introduce such legislation; but I won't go through the bother of naming them here, we all know who are the social conservatives in the Conservative Party caucus. From Saskatchewan alone, there's at least 4 names that come to mind that would draft and second a bill to repeal same-sex marriage and limit or restrict abortion.

As such, this is the scenario I imagine:

2 of the Conservative backbenchers will introduce and second a bill on these issues, and eventually it will go before a vote in the House of Commons. Stephen Harper, and a key few Cabinet Ministers, will either abstain from voting or vote against the private member's bill.

The few socially conservative members of the Liberal Party, as there are a few, will vote with the bill, and the rest of the Conservative caucus will be left to vote as they please. The bill will either pass or fail, depending on the number of Conservatives elected.

Harper himself will probably address the bill in such a manner:

"It's not a government bill, it's not something that this government supports, but it's a private member's bill. As such, members of the House will examine the bill, consult with their constituents, and decide for themselves whether or not they can support the bill."

Certainly sounds like something Harper would say.

Anyone who says a Conservative Majority would leave this issues alone is only partially right; the government may not bring the issue forward, but there a dozens of social conservatives who would see this as their only chance to roll back the clock on these issues and would take the opportunity to do so.

The only way of stopping it would be for Harper to openly reject the bill, which he might do given that he wouldn't want to alienate centrist voters in the future, but that's not a guarantee that it would happen.

There are enough social conservatives in the Conservative caucus that this needs to be discussed and Harper needs to address the issue of what his government would do in the face of a private member's bill designed to restrict, limit or outlaw either of these social practices. Canadians only have half of the answer to the question, which seems to be a trend with Harper, and we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt until we have both halves.

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow...

2011-04-04T00:29:00.002-06:00

I had a flash of naming this post 'Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Harper Will Love Us Tomorrow..." but that seemed a little too corny, even by my standards.

On a day when the Liberals have released a full party platform, at least for two years of what they would do if elected, Stephen Harper continues to tell Canadians about the tax credits he will offer us...if elected, and once the books are balanced, which they say will happen in 2015.

Given that Harper and Company continue to offer Canadians incentives to vote for them, that won't affect anyone until the books are balanced (which according to Canadian history, suggests won't happen until the next Liberal Government), why would anyone consider voting for them?

And with these little snippets, where is the full Conservative Platform?

In the 2008 Election, the Conservatives pulled the election gun and closed down Parliament in the hopes of forming a majority government in the face of the weakened and unpopular Dion Liberals. Yet despite being the party to know that the election was coming, the party was the last to release their full platform.

Furthermore, the Conservatives released their platform with essentially days left in the election campaign. As such, are Canadians going to see a platform from the Conservatives in this election introduced the way it was in the last?

Many have speculated that the Conservatives will likely take the budget (which Conservative supporters called 'defeated' even though it never came to a vote in the House of Commons) and use that to create the Conservative platform for this election.

However, there are two significant problems with that assumption.

1.) All of the tax breaks and ideas that have been put forward by Harper thus far were not found in the budget that the Conservatives put forward before the government fell.

2.) The budget made concessions to the NDP, hoping to woo them into supporting the budget (though those concessions were barely concessions), and no doubt the Conservatives are looking for ways to roll back those concessions without chasing off the voters that would be impacted; namely seniors.

As such, in my humble opinion, I think the Conservatives are looking at the budget they created and trying to modify it but also weasel out of the programs and spending measure that they didn't want to engage in in the first place.

Conservatives have talked about the way the budget would have benefited senior citizens through guaranteed income supplement payments; but will that survive into the Conservative Party platform, given that it was one concession for the NDP?

Effectively, I think when the Conservatives do release their platform we're going to see a redacted version of the budget with a large number of social spending programs cut from it; or reduced to the point of being mostly useless.

Or else the Conservatives will take a lesson from this campaign and keep those NDP concessions but place future date tags on them, allowing them to tell seniors they will do something for them eventually, some day, maybe.

Canadians need to wake up to the actions of this government and of this party. Not all is well in Canada at the moment, and the Harper Tories have done nothing to help the situation, in fact their reckless spending have only made things worse.

Remember: The Harper Government denied the possibility of a recession; they denied a recession could happen in Canada; they balked at the idea of stimulus spending; and they bowed to pressure from the opposition to acknowledge that Canada was going through harsh economic times.

Had there been a Harper majority, who knows what state Canada's finances would be in right now.

What I'm saying, is that Canadians need to elect a government who has their best interests at heart. We need a government who will do things to improve the lives of average Canadians, and not shrug off that responsibility to a later date.

Canadians need to demand a government that deals with our concerns now; instead of being pandered to Stephen Harper and his belief that 'Tomorrow is only a day away.'

Supporting Our Democracy

2011-04-02T03:12:00.002-06:00

SOURCE: CBC News: Harper Vows to End Party Subsidies

Now, this news should come as no surprise to anyone. After all, Harper attempted to pass legislation to this effect but had to back down when the opposition united to oppose it and him. So of course, Harper is introducing the measure as a campaign promise. And that of course, is the scrapping of vote subsidies to political parties.

But why?

A CBC poll, as done through their Power & Politics program, found the majority opposed scrapping these subsidies. 2,609 people voted in the online poll (a fairly large sample) and a whopping 1,778 or 68% of those who voted were in favour of keeping the subsidies in place.

Allow me to explain:

Voter subsidies were brought into existence in 2004, after the Chretien Government banned corporate/union/organization donations to political parties. Effectively, the subsidies award parties who receive votes in general elections with a tax subsidy equivalent to $2 per vote.

As noted in the last post, the Green Party received almost a million votes in the 2008 Federal Election. As such, they received $2 per each vote, and received just under $2 million dollars.

Harper has attacked this system, claiming that it is an unfair subsidy in that parties are guaranteed it. To quote Dire Straits, Harper is opposed to political parties getting their 'money for nothing.'

The problem is that they are not getting money for nothing.

After all, the amount paid out is equal to the number of national votes received. As such, parties with support across the nation gain much needed funding.

Harper blames this system for the 'unstable' nature of minority governments, given that parties are able to finance themselves immediately after an election because of this subsidy. In the 2008 election, the Conservative Party received 5,209,069 votes across the nation. That means the Conservative Party received $10,418,138 dollars in per vote subsidies.

Now, as far as I know, the Conservative Party has never attempted to give back this money that they consider is an unfair advantage to parties across Canada. They did attempt to return $600,000 in other tax rebates, but we all know that the purpose of that was less about returning the money and more about forcing other parties into the same repayment.

So, if Stephen Harper is against this subsidy, why hasn't his party returned or attempted to return the $10,418,138 dollars they received from the 2008 Campaign?

The fact of the matter is, as with every policy proposed by Harper, this is less about appealing to voters and more about handicapping the opposition.

I've talked in length about democracy and the nature of democracy on this blog before; and one of the most important things about democracy is for those involved to be able to get their message across to Canadians. As such, if we want a democracy and not a periodically elected dictatorship, we need to be able to hear all sides of the political debate.

Now, that might sound hypocritical given my defense of keeping Elizabeth May out of the debates in my last post; but, as I've mentioned, I support May in the debate provided that she is there as a party leader. Since she has said she's focusing on her own riding, she is not really campaigning nationally, and as such has no place at the national debate.

The same argument could be made about the Bloc Quebecois; but that's a complicated argument that I won't even begin to attempt to get into here. Perhaps another post some day.

Getting back on topic.

Democracy is not about those with the most money setting the tone and manipulating the discussion; keeping Canadians from discussing things by framing an election around different issue is not a way to make democracy work. As such, political parties need to be reigned in and prevented from reaching a point where one party becomes dominant over all the others.

Democracy functions through the free-flowing exchange of ideas; and one party having $150,000 in the bank and another having $5 million means that the party with more money frames the debate and prevents other parties from being heard.

Political parties already exist in an unfair playing field where one party does indeed have more money than the other. As such, the one way to ensure that all parties are capable of being heard is ensuring that all parties who receive votes have the means of spreading their message to Canadians.

As such, the vote subsidy is a means of ensuring the Canadians are kept in the loop and kept informed. And that is what Stephen Harper is attempting to remove.

This is not about saving taxpayers' money, it's about stemming the flow of information and choice in Canadian democracy, and allowing those with the means to frame the discussion and the debate.

It's a battle between the haves and the have-nots; only if the haves win this battle, all Canadians will become the have-nots in regards to information, difference of opinion, and a means to help become involved in our democracy.

New Debates, Old Debates...

2011-03-30T16:49:00.002-06:00

I'd like to take the time today to talk a bit about the yet-to-be-announced leaders' debates in this election cycle.

As no real surprise to no one, the consortium of broadcasters decided to exclude Elizabeth May from the debates this year. This was the same decision they made last year, but backed down and allowed her in after massive complaints from the public at large. Complaints continue to appear now, but whether or not they will create the same result remains to be seen.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say something unpopular here: This election, I don't think Elizabeth May should be in the debate.

Allow me to try and justify that before you all start throwing rocks and twigs at me. As the election was beginning, Elizabeth May explained how she would not be undergoing a national campaign as leader of the Green Party in this election; rather, she would focus solely on winning her own riding and being active there.

As such, since she announced this and this is her goal, why would she be included in the national debates?

It is true that her party does receive a fair amount of support across Canada; more than you see with other so called 'fringe parties', and that one day the Greens will likely actually elect a Member of Parliament.

So, as it stands, is it right for the broadcasters to restrict her access to the debates based on the fact that her party had no representation in the House of Commons when the government was dissolved?

It is a tricky question.

After all, there are those other 'fringe parties'. None of them had representation in the House of Commons, but they all have party leaders who I'd imagine would love to get involved in the leaders' debates.

Keep in mind, in 2008 the Green Party received 937,613 total votes across Canada. The next largest 'fringe party', the Christian Heritage Party, received only 26,475. What this suggests is that the Greens are slowly moving from 'fringe party' to viable option in Canadian politics.

So, with that in mind, how can I say that Elizabeth May has no place in the debates this year?

Well, I'm resting most of my argument on her words in that she is more concerned with winning her own riding in this election than on waging a federal campaign. In truth, that's the only reason I'm against her being added to the debates this year. In the last debates, I supported adding May.

But given that a party leader isn't undertaking a national campaign, should they receive national coverage?

There's numerous reasons why a leader wouldn't undertake a national campaign: Lack of funding, for example. But the Green Party's past has shown that they have the funding to send May across Canada to stump for the party; and that they're capable of running a whole slate of candidates.

But May has chosen to exclude herself from the national campaign; as such, it should come as no surprise that the broadcasters have decided to exclude her from the debates as well. Whether or not this decision was reached because of May's comments at the start of the election, I don't know and I doubt we ever will...

But given that she openly stated that she was taking a national backseat, could that not have influenced the broadcasters' decision to leave her out of the debate?

It's possible. But again, I can't offer proof than that other than her words and my opinion.

So, given that May had announced that she was going to focus on her riding; why is she now suddenly infuriated about being left out of the leaders' debates? One would imagine that if she was focusing on her own riding, she was already prepared not to take place in the leadership debates.

So to come out and then condemn the decision, and more or less demand her time at the debate, May is turning her back on her own words at the start of the campaign.

Which leaves us in a bit of a bind:

Either May wants to run a national campaign, which includes stumping for the party and taking part in the debates OR she wants to focus on potentially winning the first seat for her party by shrugging off some of the responsibilities of leadership and focusing solely on her riding.

She set the tone for this herself, and can't have it both ways...But now she is trying to.

And if my opinion can be trusted, I think it can given the facts, that casts a lot of doubt on the Green's message of changing politics and ending government hypocrisy; after all, the Greens have been trying to portray themselves as the antidote to the other parties and the politics as usual message. But if May is expecting her time, despite announcing that she wasn't going to actively campaign nationally, she is showing a Green Party that is hypocritical and is running 'politics as usual'.

She excluded herself at the start of the campaign; and while I would find her exclusion objectionable by the broadcasters if she hadn't made this announcement, I can only say that when you exclude yourself you can't be surprised if others start to exclude you too.

Takin' Care of Business

2011-03-28T17:55:00.003-06:00

Source: CBC News: Ignatieff, Harper Trade Barbs on Taxes, Spending

Well, it's day three of the election campaign, and so far very few actual policy ideas have been brought forward by any of the parties. This is to be expected, given that the first days if not week of an election campaign will be mostly spent setting the tone of the election and developing key themes.

Harper continues to bemoan the coalition lurking over Ottawa; Ignatieff has crossed off forming a coalition; Layton and Duceppe continue to bring up, rightfully, how eager Harper seemed to be in 2004 to form a coalition with the opposition to bring down Paul Martin. Harper and his team have rejected this conclusion, saying instead they were simply forming a 'co-operative effort'.

You say co-operative effort, I say coalition. Semantics, and Canadians deserve better than debating whether or not co-operative effort is Conservative-Speak for coalition; since they can't say coalition now because of the harm they're trying to inflict on the word.

I'm pretty sure I've made my thoughts on a coalition government clear on this blog. I'm for it. It's more democratic, given that more voters are heard, than simply awarding a minority government to the party with the most seats. After all, in the 2008 election, 70% of Canadians voted for non-Conservative candidates.

John Baird said in the House of Commons that the party with the most votes forms government...But the Conservatives, with their 30%, may have had the most single votes but not the most votes over all.

You can't have it both ways fellas, so please, let's just put this issue to rest and all accept that coalition governments are a norm across the world and nothing to be afraid of.

Now, back to the main part of this post.

Harper announced today the first major election promise in the campaign, and it revolves around helping families.

Harper announced that for families with children under the age of 18, the government would restructure the tax code so that parents could income-split to a maximum of $50,000 which he said would save them about $1,300 a year.

Now, I'm not an economist, so I might have the details wrong here (If I do, someone please correct me): Income splitting basically allows the 'breadwinner' in a family to transfer some of the money that they earned to their spouse/partner, which results in the 'breadwinner' paying lower taxes over all.

Now, that sounds like a reasonable idea. After all, families need every dollar they can get now a days...

But there's a catch.

Harper has made this promise on the premise that the Conservatives will only pass such a motion once the deficit is gone and the books are balanced. According to their predictions, while they were in office, that would happen somewhere around 2016. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, the Conservatives had no plan to balance the books when the government fell and paying off the deficit could likely take much longer than 2016.

There's also some other concerns here.

Harper's government had just tabled a budget, yet this idea was no where to be seen in it. So, why the sudden about face to include a measure which should have been included the in the failed budget?

Obviously, the words vote buying come to mind...But the conditions behind this policy also mean that if the Conservatives are re-elected, it won't be in the next budget...Or the budget after that.

So, why even announce this?

Because it sounds good; and Canadians who only pay attention to numbers and small details will hear the positives of this idea, but not the part about it only coming when the books are balanced.

So, let's consider for a moment what a re-elected Harper Government budget would look like:

It would mostly be a rehash of the failed budget, only with the measures to appease the NDP likely taken out or scaled back to such a level that they become insignificant. This policy won't be there, either.

What will be there?

Billions of dollars for building new prisons, while adding nothing for rehabilitative programs.

Billions of dollars for stealth fighter jets, sole-sourced to Lockheed Martin who now has a former lobbyist for them running as a Conservative.

Billions of dollars for corporations in federal corporate tax decreases, while leaving the middle class and lower class waiting for the day the books are balanced.

Canadians deserve a government that actually has their best interests at heart. Harper has shown his disdain for Parliament, being the only Parliamentary leader in Commonwealth history to ever be found in contempt; and now he's showing his disdain for average Canadians by promising they will finally get something, but on a day that will never come while the Harper Conservatives are in power.

If Canadians want a government that is looking out for them, it is not found in the Harper Conservatives.

To borrow a phrase, and modify it, from Bachman Turner Overdrive:
"The Harper Government's been takin' care of business, so Canadians have to work overtime."

*An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified this as being Day Four in the Federal Election campaign. I apologize for the error.

Structuring the Election

2011-03-24T22:55:00.005-06:00

Source: CTV News: Poll says Trust in Conservative Government Falling
Source: CBC News/Opinions: Scott Reid: Whose Fault is it if no one Cares?
Source: Global and Mail: NDP Leads Federal Parties Vying to Capture Quebec Imagination

A few weeks ago, I had a chance to sit down and peruse the news websites, as is my habit. Much by chance, I stumbled across the above mentioned editorial by Scott Reid; a former Liberal party strategist. Reid does an apt job of recounting the recent misfortunes of the Harper Government, the scandals and problems that have gotten them in hot water, yet draws an interesting conclusion:

Reid suggests that Canadians aren't phased by the actions of the Harper Government, or at least the voters likely to give Harper a majority aren't, and poll numbers suggest that Harper's lead will continue. Reid points a few fingers, mainly at the media, and suggests that it will take some strong electoral planning to get Canadians to care about the Harper Government's abuses of power.

Well, it now appears that Mr. Reid may have to eat his hat.

Recent poll numbers, in which the question was how much trust do you have in the current government, have been overwhelming bad for the Harper Government. 41% of Canadians say they have less trust in the government than they did a year ago. Granted, 49% trust it about the same amount, and 6% trust it more.

But, let's look at those numbers before moving on to a few others.

When Harper first came to power in 2006, the question of trust was always at the back of the minds of Canadians. This is partially due to the Liberal, and NDP, suggestions that Harper had a hidden agenda that he wasn't telling Canadians about. Even in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal, Canadians were willing to put some trust in the Liberals and give them a minority rather than trust Harper.

Of course, that changed a few years later, when the outrage over the Sponsorship Scandal hit its high and Canadians voted the corrupt Liberals out of office. But despite the outrage, the suggestion of a hidden agenda continued to plague the Conservatives, and they were only given a minority government.

Now, we all know this, so why am I mentioning it? I'm mentioning it because 49% of Canadians saying they trust the Harper Government the same amount doesn't tell the full story. After all, what if some Canadians started off not trusting the Harper Government? As such, they would continue to not trust the Harper Government the same amount...

See what I'm getting at? The phrasing of the question is just as important as the answers. And while 49% saying they trust the government the same might sound like an endorsement for the government, if you consider the paragraph above, the seeds of doubt begin to show. So, 49% trust the Harper Government the same amount; effectively, that doesn't really mean a thing.

Now, I said we would look at some other numbers, so let's go to that.

Perhaps the most damming part of the poll, at least if you're a Conservative, is that 49.1% of respondents in Quebec said they trusted the government less. Brian Mulroney learned that key to a majority government is found in Quebec. As such, it's been no surprise that Harper has been trying since 2006 to increase Conservative fortunes in Quebec; but it seems that the support he needs will continue to elude him.

In fact, those numbers are flocking to a surprising solution: The NDP. In a recent poll, the NDP was the second choice of voters, but the first choice of Federalist parties, beating the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Now, a lot of people are saying these numbers are not likely to translate into too many seats for the NDP in Quebec; but who knows what will happen come election day if Quebecois voters distrustful of both the Liberals and Conservatives...But, that's subjective predicting and not really my forte, so we'll leave that alone.

So, what's the most important part of this poll?

Obviously, it is the stage setter. Mr. Reid suggested that Canadians have yet to care about Harper's indiscretions, which is what the Conservatives are hoping for. After all, they think they can win an election based on economic factors...

Though, in reality, there's a lot of holes in their economic 'sound' management. $15...or was it $20...or was it $30 billion for fighter jets, will become a very popular retort to 'sound financial management'. Especially the bit about it being sole-sourced/contracted.

But, back to the point I was making.

The opposition is clearly hoping to fight on the moral high road, by reminding Canadians about Harper's own scandals and his flaunting of Parliamentary power despite being elected to clean up Ottawa in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal.

I dare say, even the Liberals could pick up seats by reminding Canadians that they were tossed out because of the Sponsorship Scandal, and now it's time to do the same to the Conservatives. Though clearly, this argument works best for the NDP: We have two parties who have held the faith and trust of the Canadian people, both in the past and at this present moment, let's not give them a future chance to mislead us and let us down.

This is a message the NDP can pick up and run with. Canadians know what they will get from the Liberals and the Conservatives, more of the same. It's a message that the Greens are attempting to use, but history shows Green support begins to evaporate come Election Day.

Some Canadians continue to cite Bob Rae as their reason for not voting NDP, and despite my best efforts to make the 'He did the job he was given with the conditions that existed at the time' argument, some people refuse to be swayed.

To that I say: Keep in mind that a report from the civil service shows that provincially speaking the NDP has the best track record of balanced budgets and running surpluses.

We're all victims of the past, in that we're beholden not only to our own choices but the choices of those who came before us. As such, some of Bob Rae's record is Bob Rae's fault; but some of it can be found in the governments who came before him.

This is also true of good things: Our economy has done so well in the face of global recession because of the work of the Liberal Governments, and even some Progressive Conservative ones, who placed regulations on our banks and developed other financial policies that created a strong economy for Canada. Yet, the Harper Government would have you believe they've done this all on their own.

And besides, federally speaking Bob Rae is a Liberal now, so saying he's the reason you can't vote NDP is like me saying Alexander Mackenzie is the reason I can't vote Liberal; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Now, I've strayed a bit so let me reel this post back in line.

As it stands, the coming election is going to be an election of priorities. Instead of the staples such as health care, provincial transfer payments, the environment, and other social issues; this will instead be an election where morality is going to be weighed against financial issues. Now, I'm not saying the Conservatives have the answers for the economy, clearly I don't believe they do, but it will be the framework they will operate under.

And Canadians will have to decide whether the Conservatives actually are sound financial managers. As such, the opposition (in this blogger's humble opinion) have two things to prove to Canadians:

1.) That the Harper Government's financial record is not as iron-proof as they want Canadians to believe.

That means reminding Canadians about their calls for 'austerity' while spending $1 billion dollars on a G8 summit for a weekend; more than any other G8 and G20 summit ever held.

That means reminding Canadians that as they are scrapping stimulus measures, cutting funding to various groups (Status of Women), they went out and will spend between $15 - $30 billion dollars on stealth fighter jets; jets which were not put up for tender, or contracted through a bidding process, but were immediately awarded to Lockheed Martin.

That means reminding Canadians that they will spend untold billions on new prisons; while at the same time scrapping programs, such as the farm work program, that served as rehabilitation for the inmates contained in prisons.

And finally, by reminding Canadians that it was the work of the previous Liberal Government who helped put in the regulations and safeguards that helped prevent Canada from falling deeply into the global recession; and that while the Conservatives touted these regulations to the world, they were beginning to roll back certain regulations.

And:

2.) That the mistrust over the Harper Government's moral issues, also goes to show that we can't trust them on financial issues either.

This is simple enough to prove as well, given the scandals, but also helped along by pointing to previous Conservative promises on spending that never came to fruition. After all, how long ago was it that the Conservatives promised to create a children's art program tax credit? And I doubt it's coincidence that it was finally included in a budget that everyone knew was dead on arrival...

After all, there's a plethora of things the Conservatives promised that they didn't deliver on, and I'm sure a lot of it will go to show just how untrustworthy the Conservatives are.

Perhaps the most exciting idea to come out of this election is the possibility of the moral highroad being the primary ballot box question. If the Harper Conservatives are re-elected, minority or majority, it is an implicit approval of the methods used by this government to circumvent the laws and procedure of Parliament, and the will of Canadians.

As such, this election could set a precedent either way: By letting politicians know just what Canadians will and will not put up with by those they put in power to represent them.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble...Well, Electorally Speaking.

2011-03-24T01:21:00.002-06:00

So much news, so little time.

Obviously, we've had two budgets: The Federal one, which has a snowball's chance in (well, you know where) of passing...Or even making it to a vote before the Opposition bring forward a non-confidence motion.

And a provincial one, which I'm still combing through myself. Once I have a bit more time, I'll maybe do a nice little post on the provincial budget, but no promises.

And then we have Brad Wall's nice little scandal here in Saskatchewan over the Saskatchewan Party's $1,000 Enterprise Club.

For those who haven't heard, the Premier and a few other Sask Party MLAs (Cabinet Ministers too) were having private get togethers with members of their party who contributed $1,000 or more in donations. Wall and the others deny that any lobbying went on at these meetings, but the letters sent out to members and the actions of a few of those in attendance suggest otherwise.

All I'll say about it is this: Yes, politicians need to meet with their supporters and the general public at large. Yes, politicians have always thrown galas and meetings where supporters pay a bit of money and people get to hob-nob with the political powerhouses of the province.

The problem comes when: these meetings are kept secret; an insanely large amount of money changes hands and then is not declared properly to Elections Saskatchewan; and when the Premier is involved.

I think a Premier needs to be aware of what sort of situations they find themselves in; and I can't help but think that anyone would see the potential conflict of interest that exists in a private $1,000 a head meeting with party supporters. But, apparently, Brad Wall thought this was acceptable.

The fact of the matter is, Premier Wall only put a stop to this once it came to light. If the events that brought about the revelation of this 'Enterprise Group' didn't occur, chances are Wall and his buddies would still be throwing their meetings every couple of months and thinking there was nothing wrong with this.

Hopefully, the people of Saskatchewan get some answers about who attended these meetings and what was discussed there; either way, there's going to be some serious questions for Premier Wall, and I doubt he'll answer them willingly.

And as you should all be aware, the Federal Budget has come down and is likely to fall down along with the Harper Government by the end of this week.

The opposition, mainly the Liberals, have already put forward a non-confidence motion in the government and come Friday it seems likely that it will pass and the nation will be cast into an election.

In my last post, I spoke about how the Conservatives like to suggest that this election is unnecessary. And again, I will say, an election is never unnecessary. Any politician in a democracy who utters such a phrase needs to give their head a good shake, because they're questioning the very basis of our political system by making such a statement.

But on top of this, the finger pointing has begun.

The opposition parties are blaming the government; while the government is blaming the opposition.

So, who is really at fault?

Perhaps it's my own personal bias, but clearly the government is in fault. After all, they have been found in contempt of Parliament. And they have been found in contempt of Parliament because they have repeated run roughshod over the rules and procedures by refusing to release information to Members of Parliament that sit on the opposition side.

Furthermore, the government is refusing to accept any amendments to the budget.

And despite it all, Stephen Harper has the audacity to still say that opposition parties should be working with the government to make Parliament work.

Mr. Harper, to that I must say, in a minority parliament it is up to the government to reach out to the opposition to make Parliament work, and you have failed massively on that front. The opposition does indeed play a role in making Parliament work, but compromise is a two-way street; not the Harper Highway which suggests that it is our way or no way at all.

Despite this, some Canadians continue to believe that it is the opposition's fault that we shall be having an election. Again, elections are not a bad thing, and I don't understand why some people are so opposed to one occurring, but I've talked at length about this already...

When the truth of the matter is, that this election falls clearly at the feet of Stephen Harper, the Harper Government, and the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is their decisions, their actions, and their refusal to work with the opposition that is forcing an election. They can paint the opposition as turncoats, or obstructionists, all they want; but the truth is that this government has never been serious about working with the opposition.

Remember budgets past; when the Conservatives purposefully included 'poison pill' legislation, essentially daring the opposition to vote against the budget and bring the government down. And of course, the Liberals in a weakened state (having lost their backbone), passed these budgets, or at least kept enough members away from the vote to prevent the government's defeat.

Canadians need to wake up to the tactics Harper and his team are using, and we need to realize that we cannot afford another year of the Harper Government, and we cannot afford a Harper Majority.

The disdain and contempt that the Conservatives have shown for government, and its procedures, should be truth enough to show Canadians that we cannot trust Harper and his Conservative party with the reigns of power.