Land of Plenty

Here I am, at my sister's place in Ontario. A surreal land of plenty.

A one way plane ticket was sent so I could attend my nephew's wedding. Sis lives in beautiful Southwestern Ontario in a two bedroom, two bathroom, full basement brick home with her hard working husband. Her now adult children (and grandchildren) all live within a 20 mile radius and everyone gets along well. I love my sis and her family.

Their lifestyle is middle class mainstream. This means they lack for little in the North American Capitalist arena. I find myself gasping at the way the money flows in this household: instead of one four litre plastic jug of ozonated, distilled water there are eighteen: instead of thawing three frozen chickens the night before a barbeque, my brother-in-law goes to the butcher to purchase 'fresh' chickens. Running to town in one of their two vehicles to buy one forgotten item is not a problem. Leftover food is thrown out, as bro-in-law won't eat it.

They have a dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer, air conditioner, dehumidifier, two computers, two television sets and every consievable kitchen gadget imaginable, not to mention the hundreds of tools, camping gear, extra clothing items, bicycles, sports equipment, tent trailer, utility trailer and sundry other STUFF that has been purchased.

Not being around others who live such a lifestyle for any length of time, I am astounded that this seems to be the norm.

When you live well below the poverty line, as do I, such monetary excess seems obscene, unnecessary and sickening. For me, nothing that requires spending my meager income is taken for granted. Nothing is wasted. Nothing is done without preplanning.

When I write, I forget that most people don't really have a clue as to how I make ends meet on a daily basis. It is a constant challenge, which I have mastered over many years of ekking out a living.

Sis says that only I, of all my siblings, have an acquired 'Grace' to endure living well below the poverty level. To Sis, I reply: There is nothing graceful about poverty.

Recommend this post

The damned-if-they-did, damned-if-they-didn't defence

In an interesting article in yesterday's Globe and Mail, reporter John Lorinc asks lawyer Peter Rosenthal, who has defended activists in court, about the following:

Some people say the police were damned-if-they-did and damned if they didn't.

To which my response is: the same could be said, even more so, of the G20 detainees.

Police told people to leave ... but blocked all exits.

Police told people they had the law on their side - to ask whomever they pleased for identification; to fail to identify themselves or give their badge numbers; to search people's possessions and their persons, including their body cavities; to 'deny' people their right to legal representation by means of postponement techniques; to arrest and/or detain citizens without informing them of the crime they have purportedly committed - ... but such a law didn't exist.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

The people who were marching for various freedoms last weekend, including the freedom to assemble, were damned no matter what they did.

H/t @impolitical for the link to that article.

Recommend this post

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow

and wow. Washington, DC agrees to a $13.7M settlement pertaining to mass arrests that occurred during a protest near the World Bank and International Monetary Fund buildings in 2000.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman said the class-action lawsuit, which has wended its way through the court for about a decade, will benefit "future generations" who want to speak out and air their grievances. He said it sparked a 2004 D.C. law that set out policies for police to follow at demonstrations, including a prohibition against encircling protesters without probable cause to arrest them.

Under the settlement, each person arrested and found eligible for compensation will be awarded $18,000, and the record of that arrest will be expunged. It also requires additional training for police officers.

And a class-action suit is just beginning for the mass arrests during last weekend's G20 in Toronto. Would that US court rulings set precedents in Canada!

ETA: Add your support to the CCLA's G20 action, in defence of those who were arrested or detained.

Recommend this post

Do you care about the erosion of Canadians' civil liberties?

There are four things that you can do, particularly pertaining to the arrests and detentions that took place during last weekend's G20 summit, in support of pulling back Harperian (and now McGuintyan?) authoritarianism and their latest encroachments of our civil liberties:

1. Send an email in support of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association petition. As noted on their website, once in receipt of 5,000 endorsements the CCLA will be submitting the petition to the three levels of government.

2. Fill out this short form, which will send an email to politicians at all three levels of government: Toronto city council, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the Parliament of Canada.

3. Once you've completed the form in step 2, you'll be redirected to the Facebook group Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20. If you haven't already joined, DO IT. (As I write this, the group is closing in on 40,000 members.)

4. Spread the word.

Recommend this post

Entrapment

Chief Bill Blair, speaking of the Queen and Spadina incident, is reported to have said "police asked people in the area to leave the area three times."

(Original photo by Jonas Naimark.)

How were people to leave? Your forces had them boxed in, deliberately, a situation which was repeated several times throughout the summit.

The ISU must have ordered the arrest of anyone who was on the streets, that alone being a 'breach of the peace'. Your forces herded people together to make arrests easier for themselves.

Recommend this post

If you heighten 'security', deny citizens their rights

... the citizens will gather and they will challenge you.

Stephen Harper, you got things backwards; just like your buddies, who hold aggression to be the only road to peace.

You build bombs and bombs will fall. You build walls and people will tear them down. You turn Toronto into an armed camp and people will become fearful.

The mere presence of 20,000 armed personnel was the primary act of intimidation. YOUR decision, Harper, to have such a huge security presence, is the chief cause of the violence that was Toronto this weekend. YOU were the primary agent provacateur.

Recommend this post

Fairness in Representation vs. Ideological Identity

I happened upon this news story today, about (now) former Liberal Hec Cloutier planning to run as an independent in the next federal election.

"I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: 'Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you're the only one who can win the seat back for us.' I said I will consider running, but 'I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents'," Clouthier recalled.

"He said: 'I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.' I said: 'No, I've been there, done that.' I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again."

I tweeted the link to the article, adding the comment "Canadians need more politicians like this."

I got a common reply, of the type: 'S/he supports (or is against), or would vote in favour of _____.' (Fill in the blank, e.g.: the gun registry, abortion, censorship, strict environmental laws, Canada's military presence in Afghanistan....

The underlying message of such comments? That anyone who supports _____ or, regardless of personal conviction, would vote in support of _____, is ipso facto a poor candidate for political office; this, despite the majority of constituents in the riding being in support of _____.

Which brings one to a dilemma. In some cases*, fairness in representation aligns well with ideological identity. That is, the Member of Parliament or provincial representative and the political party of which s/he is a member represent the majority view of constituents in that riding.

But what of cases when they don't? What should a politician do? Represent the wishes of the majority of constituents, even if the representative or his/her party may disagree? - and even if the majority outside the riding may disagree? Or should the representative of the people of that riding vote the (national, provincial) party line?

See, to me, it's no dilemma at all. In a properly-functioning democracy, politicians represent the people. (Nothing in the Canadian Constitution says that political parties have a right to representation!)

If the wishes of the majority in a riding run counter to the wishes of others in the riding, then it's up to the dissenting minority, most particularly in the riding, to work to persuade the others. If the dissenters want to enlist outside help, that's fine, as can the opposing side. At least the two sides are listening and talking to one another, which so often doesn't happen now.

That's what democracy is about. It's messy and sometimes inconvenient.

In a properly functioning democracy, we shouldn't be running roughshod over other people's views. Most particularly, we shouldn't permit unfair political representation of the people just because the people in question hold views contrary to ours.

* I write in some cases because our antiquated voting system and the unwillingness of 'the people's representatives' to cooperate ensure that the majority views of Canadians remain, in fact, unrepresented in our houses of government.

Recommend this post

If the Liberal Party Aims to be Rid of the Elitist Label

... then it had better rethink postures like this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snubbing opposition parties by ending a long established practice of inviting foreign heads of state to meet with them.

No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has met with U.S. President Barack Obama and he also met Mexican President Felipe Calderon in May.

“It seems totally normal to me that the leader of the official opposition would have meetings, and the leaders of the third and fourth parties would not,” Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron said.

Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.

If the label fits, wear it: elitist.

Recommend this post

G8 'Signature Environmental Project' Dims

Fifteen solar lamps - at a cost of $207,900 - were supposed to light the way for G8 participants. HarperCo didn't grant the contract for this "signature environmental project" until May 25th. The company charged with supplying the lamps can only provide five lamps within the allotted time. The problem is partly due to the rocky terrain - otherwise known as The Canadian Shield.

Steve Rennie, of The Canadian Press, notes that "the same money could buy almost 14,000 solar-powered Noma garden lights at Canadian Tire. Those lights cost $15 each."

Recommend this post

Alert for USians Living In or Travelling to TO

Yup. Despite one billion loonies spent by HarperCo on security for the coming G20 summit, Washington has deemed it necessary to issue a travel alert. USians who live in or intend to travel to Toronto between now and June 28th are advised to "avoid protests" and avoid downtown TO altogether.

Recommend this post

Afghan Document Deal No Deal for Canadians

Ralph Goodale has just said in the House of Commons that the success of the agreement will depend on the "honest behaviour" of all parties involved and he vowed that the Liberals "will continue to be alert and vigilant in the process."

Bwahahahaha...

According to Goodale, "all relevant and necessary information will be available."

Relevant and necessary, as determined by whom?

That would be jurists, not Members of Parliament who are the people's representatives. Jurists will review all material - minus legal documents and cabinet records which are to be automatically excluded from the get-go - before ever an MP's eyes should fall upon it.

This sham of a deal, which has enough holes to sink a ship and leaves Harper enough wiggle room for further circumventing parliamentary privilege, was predictable. As was the Liberal-Conservative dance to avoid an election.

Not predictable and disappointing to me was the assent of the Bloc.

The NDP, which has refused to sign on to the deal, has been much more forceful of late. I'm impressed and likin' it.

Recommend this post

Post-9/11 Security Hysteria Similar to Nuclear Arms Race

Post-9/11 security hysteria - which is costing Canada $1.2 billion and counting for a single shindig - reminds me of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. It's the philosophy of security or nuclear weapons hypothetically being deterrents for terra-ism or war.

However, so much security creates an atmosphere of fear; and anger at freedoms curtailed. And when people feel fear and are incensed by the injustice imposed by the State, terra-ism and war become more, not less, likely.

Recommend this post

He Talketh Out of Both Sides of Mouth

Liberal MP Joe Volpe tweets: "I stand with Israel. Critics would be wise to reserve judgment until all the facts are clear."

Clearly, Volpe considers his own advice to be valueless.

Recommend this post

Edmonton Sun Favours Electoral Reform

"The single-member plurality system, which allows a candidate to win without a majority of electoral support, has several other natural consequences: it leads to long periods of governance without effective opposition, as opposing parties typically receive far fewer seats than their vote count should represent. It also leads to an erosion of checks and balances over power. And it leads to public disenchantment with the consequences of under-representation, which in turn leads to not only less voter involvement, but less candidate/platform promotion, as well.

"...until abolished for political gain in 1956 by the Social Credit Party, Alberta had effective alternate voting systems that were, by Canadian standards, revolutionary. Those included single transferable votes, which let voters in Edmonton and Calgary pick MLAs based on an order of preference, with the remaining percentage of votes over what was required to win transferable to another supported candidate. Ironically, the single transferable vote system is now among more popular modern proposals to amend western democratic systems."

Hear that BC?

Our 160-member Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform got it right. After almost a year studying the various options, including our current first-past-the-post (single member plurality) system, it determined that proportional representation would best address the needs presented to it in thousands of submissions from British Columbians.

Then, after evaluating various proportional representation systems, the members of the Citizens Assembly determined that the Single Transferable Vote delivered the optimum benefit and fairness to voters - which was precisely what the majority of presenters, those not speaking on behalf of political parties, had asked for.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Majority Governments

Lorne Gunter writes in the Edmonton Sun today in general support of a Liberal-NDP coalition - provided the Bloc "doesn't hold the hammer."

I wish journalists and others would stop denigrating the Bloc. In doing so, they denigrate the people who vote for it. But that's not the point of this post. It's this:

What I would object to, strenuously, would be proportional representation foisted on the nation by such a coalition.

That would cement coalition in our future almost forever.... [M]ajority governments would be rare and coalition governments are compromise governments.

Oh, dear! To have coalition, compromise, the representation in government - not perpetually in opposition - of the majority of voters!

Get with the lingo: majority government should NOT be defined as 'government comprised of members of a single party' but 'government comprised of members that represent the majority of voters'.

Governments - minority or majority - should never be defined in terms of how many political parties they represent. To hell with parties! What about voters?!

Recommend this post

Anti-HST Petition a Sign of New Populism in BC?

[Updated]

I've written before that I support the HST, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I didn't sign the anti-HST petition.

I do NOT and have never supported the machinations by the BC Liberals to ram the HST down British Columbians' throats without ever uttering a word about it during the May 2009 election.

I've also written, extensively, about my support for democratic reform.

I am therefore heartened by the strength of the (pseudo*) populist anti-HST campaign, which has already reached the required number of signatures weeks ahead of the deadline. And I'm especially excited about this: if the conclusion is unsatisfactory (nothing binds the Liberal government to honour a referendum outcome or to introduce a bill to undo the HST), then the petitioners will begin the recall process for Liberal MLAs, one riding at a time.

I hope this augers well for future heightened voter attention to the goings-on in Victoria. It's long past time politicians thought twice about getting voters angry.

*The anti-HST petition received a lot of help from well-pocketed individuals and groups who've certain vested political interests.

ETA: If my MLA was a Liberal and despite my supporting the HST, I would sign a recall petition. Lying during an election and bringing in a policy scant weeks later - one known to press voter buttons and one that Campbell & Co. assured everyone wasn't even on the party's radar - deserves no less than firing the lot of them.

Recommend this post

Stephen Harper Does a Mr. Dithers

According to Dimitri Soudas - now banned (as are all political staffers) by HarperCo from appearing before parliamentary committees -, one Stephen Harper has done a Mr. Dithers.

No, Soudas didn't put it quite that way. He put it this way:

"The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions [between the board of internal economy and the AG re MP expenses] continue. He's also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency."

How it must hurt Harper to have mocked Iggy's backtracking - only to turn around and do it himself!

Meanwhile, Jack Layton, who heads the most progressive (?) of Canada's national parties, still cleaves to BOIE's original decision not to allow the AG to do an audit, period.

For those who like to keep score, this is how the leaders of the four parties in the House of Commons stack up on the issue:

First place, blue ribbon: Gilles Ducuppe, whose party always supported having the AG do an audit.
Second place, red ribbon: Ignatieff, who listened to his MPs and backtracked early.
Third place, white ribbon: Harper, who didn't backtrack until late in the game.
Fourth place, no ribbon: Layton, whose party continues to support the status quo.

All of which leads me to this:  

An audit by the AG is no longer good enough. Resistance by MPs has raised alarm bells. NOW I want all MPs (and senators) to post online their detailed expense reports and to back them up with links to the relevant invoices. Toronto city council is a good example of what SHOULD be done.

[H/t to @dominionpundit for reference to the TO info.]

Recommend this post

Parliamentarians Not Required to Testify at Committees

... unless required to do so by an Order of the House.

Parliamentarians cannot be compelled by committees alone, as can other witnesses. So says the esteemed Kady O'Malley in a recent Twitter conversation.

Therefore, with the Harper Government's latest salvo regarding the appearance of political staffers at parliamentary committees, Canadians face the same scenario as with the Afghan detainee documents issue:

- Committee X requires A
- HarperCo refuses A
- A member of the Opposition files a motion to compel A
- The House votes on the motion
- The motion passes
- HarperCo refuses A
- The opposition appeals to the Speaker of the House
- The Speaker takes time to consider
- The Speaker orders that HarperCo and members of the opposition negotiate a deal
- Time passes
- A deal is reached
- Committee X requires B....

Recommend this post

NOW what is our Ineffectual Opposition going to do?

The Harper Government - yes, let's call it what it is; over 60% of Canadians are unrepresented by this government - will make official on Tuesday that political staffers are now banned from testifying before parliamentary committees.

The purported reason, according to political staffer Dimitri Soudas: "Ministers are the ones who are accountable and answer to Parliament."

To Iggy & Layton, neither of whom "want an election" (the Canadians that I know DO): How are you going to work your next climb-down? Without enabling more damage to our democracy?

ETA: The manoeuvrings by Canada's political parties to avoid an election in order to ensure their own survival, actions that risk our country's democratic institutions, is why I dislike party politics and favour the Single Transferable Vote, a proportional representation electoral system. STV is not only the fairest system for voters; it also enables more independents to be elected.

Recommend this post

Federal Government Joins Online Communities

Well, sort of.

It's not like the feds have social engagement or true participation in mind. It's more infiltration.

At least that's what I glean from this: "[E]mployees in Foreign Affairs or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ... have recently been trained in online posting."

Trained?

Translation: Told what to write, based on key phrases in target comments. In other words, how to propagandize.

Recommend this post

Correction - Jean Crowder Expenses

I'd written previously that NDP MP Jean Crowder, who represents my constituency of Nanaimo-Cowichan, claimed $274,404 for 'Other' (2008-2009).

I was wrong. Crowder's expense record claims that amount under 'Staff and Other Expenses'. For Other, the record claims $16. This is better and I apologize for the error. (Reporter David Akin brought it to my attention in a tweet.)

The correction doesn't change my point, however. All MP's expenses should undergo the type of audit that Sheila Fraser does. In fact, I'd prefer that MP's detailed expenses be made public, that they be posted online somewhere.

Recommend this post

Very Impressive

This is what a coalition agreement looks like - The Coalition: Our programme for government (PDF). BBC provides the summary here.

I am particularly impressed by this, from p27 of the agreement:

"We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote."

Canadian politics and the behaviour of Canada's politicians appear so petty and small in comparison.

My thanks to Doug Saunders, European Bureau Chief of the Globe and Mail, for tweeting the above links.

ETA: Some readers appear not to have noted the point of emphasis above. I support a referendum on electoral reform whose result is based on a simple majority, not the super majorities (60 percent) that Canadian provinces have imposed. I do not support the Alternative Vote, which is another winner-take-all system, not a proportional one.

Recommend this post

Iggy Blames Opponents for Dismal Polling Numbers

Michael Ignatieff says his political foes have "done a number on me," an observation he made before seeing the latest EKOS numbers which have the Liberal Party down to 25.1 percent.

Well, the Conservatives defined Stéphane Dion before the Liberal Party got its act together too.

Who's fault, truly, was that?

Blaming one's opponents for one's own dismal showing and plummeting popularity does not demonstrate leadership.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Coalition Governments

As important as the question regarding whether the Liberal Party and NDP would consider being part of a coalition government is whether the Conservative Party would.

Why are virtually all media, journalists, other writers and democratic reformers ignoring this?

Just because Canadians won't vote in enough MPs to give a single party a majority is no reason why Canada must be stuck with perpetual minorities.

Coalition governments are majority governments.

If the Liberals and Conservatives want a majority government all they need do is be honest with Canadians and negotiate with the third- and/or fourth-place parties after an election.

Unfortunately, given the political environment Canada's party leaders have created, in collusion with most media, honesty and negotiation are unlikely democratic tools to be removed from their toolboxes. Indeed, those tools must be rusty from disuse.

Recommend this post

Second Exchange with MP's Office re Expenses

Hello Chrystal,

We comply with the rules laid out by the Board of Internal Economy. If you would like a certain audit from them, please contact the members on the Board. Here is the link to their website: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/boie-e.htm.

Sincerely,

Alistair MacGregor │Community Development
Jean Crowder, MP Nanaimo-Cowichan


My reply:

Therein lies the rub. The rules as "laid out by the Board of Internal Economy" do not meet the demands of Canadians like myself.

I appreciate your quick responses. They've been informative.

Chrystal Ocean,
Duncan BC.

[See original letter and first exchange]

Recommend this post

Response to My Letter to MP re Expenses

Dear Chrystal,

Thank you for your email to Jean.

The House of Commons, through the Board of Internal Economy, has rigorous internal auditing, including the auditing of MPs’ expenses, and an external auditor is hired on a regular basis to conduct an external audit on the books. There are very strict rules for all expenses incurred by MPs’ offices and these are enforced by impartial House of Commons administration staff.

All of our expenses are public and available online. Below are three links to different expenses of MP offices:

1. Members Office and Travel Expenses

Below is the direct link to the PDF document for the most recent financial period.

Members Office and Travel Expenses 2008 - 2009

2. Disclosure Statement from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

A direct link to a specific MP’s disclosure statement can be obtained by entering the name of the MP on this page:

http://ciec-ccie.gc.ca/PublicSearchMembers.aspx

3. Candidate's Electoral Campaign Return

Find the information here by clicking "40th General Election" and then searching by candidate:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin2/select_election.aspx?entity=1〈=e

I hope this addresses your concerns. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Alistair MacGregor │Community Development
Jean Crowder, MP Nanaimo-Cowichan


My reply:

The audits you mention ... are financial audits. They are not the performance audits as done by the Auditor General.

The links you provide do not show details of expenses, merely major category breakdowns.

Therefore, no, your response does not address my concerns.

Chrystal Ocean,
Duncan BC.

[My original letter and an update]

Recommend this post

Letter to My Member of Parliament re MP Expenses

Hello Jean [Crowder, NDP MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan]:

Given the public outcry - count me among the numbers - over the denial by the Board of Internal Economy to permit Canada's Auditor General to audit MP expenses, will you:

1. Make your expenses public?
2. Push your leader and fellow MPs to have MP expenses annually made public and/or to have MP expenses audited by Canada's Auditor General, whenever he/she requests it?

Chrystal Ocean,
Duncan BC.

[See two updates]

Recommend this post

Why Canadian Politicians won't Emulate Brits - UPDATE

Taylor Owen scores a hit regarding why Canadians are unlikely to see a coalition government anytime in the near future.

To summarize:

1. The NDP's joined-at-the-hip relationship with labour unions.
2. The Green Party's devotion to a poor election strategy.
3. Reform's influence on the Conservative Party.
4. The uncomfortable marriage of red and blue Liberals. We need the old Progressive Conservatives back or a new, similar party that will bring in like elements from the Greens, Liberals and Conservatives.
5. The immaturity of Canada's politicians, particularly that of the power brokers. Self-interest appears to be their goal, not service in a parliamentary democracy.

UPDATE: Oh, well done, guys! You continue to prove point 5.

ETA: First link in post has been corrected.

Recommend this post

Canada, the Liberals and Iggy's (mis)Fortunes

"There is a magic number circulating among Liberals these days: 25 per cent. If their party sinks to this number in the polls, then all bets are off."

All those Liberals who decried the crowning of Michael Ignatieff just months ago; all those Liberals who pushed for one-member-one-vote ... and were denied it by the party's backroom boys and powerbrokers: You know what to do when next a pollster comes calling.

In the event that you don't, you might read this and this.

Your country needs you to do the right thing.

Recommend this post

Oh, dear. Not a good response, Mr. Comartin

On the Auditor General's request for an invitation to audit MPs' expenses, NDP MP Joe Comartin responded with these two gems: i) "This type of examination should not be done by a public servant" and ii) "It's the electorate who makes those decisions as to whether we spend our money properly."

Comartin must have had tongue firmly in cheek when he said that. How else to explain the inconsistency of the two statements?

For members of the electorate to know whether MPs spend their money properly, MPs' expenses must be made, er, known to them.

Ergo, either MPs should make their expenses public for all to see or they should extend that invitation to Canada's Auditor General for her to have at 'em - not that lack of invitation will stop her.

Oh, and regarding MPs wanting expenses sealed to keep lawsuits quiet, per Liberal MP Paul Szabo, well I'd like an answer to this question:

Why should MPs be the only public employers to get off the hook?

Recommend this post

On Leadership Popularity

... and party (mis)fortunes.

Despite issue after issue, which should have brought an end to his reign, Stephen Harper continues to lead in the popularity contest among leaders of the four major national parties. His party also leads the dismal pack.

That both leadership and Conservative party numbers are out front is not surprising. The two stats almost always go in tandem, in terms of place.

In leadership numbers, Michael Ignatieff has, more often than not, done worse than his party.

The same cannot be said of Harper.

You'd think the hapless Liberals would put two and two together.

Recommend this post

UK Forms Coalition Government - UPDATE 3

Details are starting to emerge regarding the deal between the UK Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Of particular interest is an agreement to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote. While AV is another flavour of winner-take-all and is not proportional, it does use the preferential ballot. Therefore, AV helps citizens become accustomed to voting by preferential order rather than by either/or.

The agreement also includes moving toward having an elected upper house and by means of a proportional system. (The House of Lords is equivalent in function to the Canadian Senate.)

Would that Canada emulated the UK's example!

Original post.

Recommend this post

UK Forms Coalition Government - UPDATE

Confirmed, from the first speech by the new PM David Cameron. There WILL be a coalition government. Details to follow.

If the Brits can do it, why not Canada?

Why did Stephen Harper - and Paul Martin, and other leaders of parties that headed minority governments - never enter into a coalition with another party, in order to form MAJORITY governments?

Canada, and especially Canadian politicians, LEARN FROM THIS.

UPDATE: Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, is reported confirmed to be the new Deputy Prime Minister in the new Conservative-LibDem government. Also it's rumoured that the LibDems negotiated strongly and received many more concessions from the Conservatives than vice versa - unlike Canada's Ineffectual Opposition parties. In his speech, Cameron had spoken of a "full and proper" coalition. Looks like he meant it.

UPDATE 2: BBC reports (am watching the livestream) that aside from deputy PM, LibDems will get 20 posts in government (five ministers/15 secretaries).

Recommend this post

DA SEPARATISTS! COALITION WITH DA SEPARATISTS!

From a tweet by Doug Saunders, European Bureau chief with the Globe and Mail, re the outcome of the UK election:

Just to be clear to Canadians: Gordon Brown today proposed a COALITION WITH SEPARATIST PARTIES!!!! And that aspect doesn't bug people here.

So Canadians wait with bated breath for the Brits to do what our politicians haven't the gonads to do: i) negotiate to form a majority coalition government and ii) include in those negotiations reform of the electoral system.

Only THEN might Canadians see such things happening here.

In the meantime, we have a government that is run by a party that garnered ONLY 23 PERCENT of the popular vote; and thanks to our Ineffectual Opposition we effectively have a Conservative majority government. 

The rest of us are not free of blame. A sufficient number of Canadians clearly don't give a damn.

Recommend this post

How Harper Can Get His Majority

If Stephen Harper wants a majority government, there's a simple solution for getting one. All he need do is transform Canada's electoral system into one of proportional representation. And do it fast.

As shown consistently by polls, the Liberals as led by Michael Ignatieff continue to draw dismal public support. Meanwhile, the Conservatives hang onto their base. Any new election under our single member plurality system (or 'first-past-the-post') would therefore deliver yet another Conservative minority government.

True, the Ignatieff Liberals make for a piss-poor Official Opposition. As a result, Canada's minority Conservative governments since January 2006 have managed to rule almost as a majority, slowly achieving much of their agenda which includes the whittling away of women's rights.

But there are some things the Conservatives simply cannot do without a majority of votes in the House of Commons. They therefore use playground oneupmanship, sneak tactics and burying of the truth. Against our Ineffectual Opposition, it's no contest.

Still, Canadians have refused to be bullied into giving Harper the majority he craves. Ergo, my suggestion that he bring in proportional representation.

With proportional representation, every government is a majority government, usually a coalition of two or more parties. In Canada's current case, the Greens would likely get seats, enough to play kingmaker.

All Harper need do is woo the Greens over to his side. Given the man's thirst for power and tendency toward expediency, accomplishing this should be a walk in the park.

Recommend this post

BC Municipality Enacts Canada's First Living Wage Bylaw

It's New Westminster, which has been at the forefront of other poverty-reduction campaigns.

Living wage bylaws set a wage 'floor' above the minimum wage for workers who work directly for the city, for firms that receive contracts from the city, and firms that receive economic development money from the city.

"Once the policy is implemented, all direct and indirect workers (contract workers, etc.) performing work on City premises will earn a wage no lower than $16.74," [Dave] Tate [of BC ACORN] said in an email.

How about other BC municipalities and the province following New West's example? Heck, why not municipalities and provinces/territories throughout Canada?

Recommend this post

On Liberals' Proposed National Food Policy

Don't be fooled by the big numbers. Here's what the Liberals propose to be included in their national food policy as reported by the CBC:

* $50 million to improve food inspections and ensure imported foods meet domestic standards
* $80 million to promote farmers markets and local food
* $40 million to help 250,000 low-income children get healthy food (my emphasis)

Let's look at that last one, shall we?

Any program has administrative costs, so it's not clear that the entire $40 million would go to 250,000 children. However, let's assume it does.

The numbers reduce to this: $160 per year per child, or $13.33 per month, or 44 cents per day.

Wow.

Food costs are higher where people of low income live. Most of us haven't the means - a vehicle or bus fare - to get to where the bargains are. We must walk everywhere or transport ourselves in a four-wheeled scooter (if we're so fortunate to have one and live in a building that provides plug-in facilities). If we've a scooter, then accessibility to, from and in stores becomes a further barrier.

How much do you suppose someone can buy for 44 cents in a neighbourhood where there's only one grocery store and accessibility for people with disabilities is an issue?

Here's another bone to pick. Children under a certain age don't have income. Their parents or guardians do.

You can bet that hungry children have even hungrier parents. Parents will deprive themselves first of food before they'll let their children starve.

Politicians and poverty activists should stop the "child poverty" crap. Because you can't lift a child out of poverty unless you treat the whole family - hell, unless you treat the whole community.

Incidentally, by the time the Liberal plan would come into being, inflation would have eaten up all or a good chunk of that 44 cents.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous.]

Recommend this post

Another Politician - ahem - Borrows Content

Have Canada's politicians not heard of 'original content'? The BC NDP's Rob Fleming appears to be the latest in a string of politicians who, seemingly unabashedly, will freely swipe content from other people's work. The federal Conservatives have been the worst offenders.

Have none of them heard of, you know, copyright laws or fair dealing?

Recommend this post

New Vaccine in Treatment of TOADS

Kittimati, Cascadia
UnAssociated Press

The Union of People with Uteri United to Reduce Savagery (UPURS) met last week in Kittimati, Cascadia to confer on findings from researchers at the International Medical Science Institute (IMSI) and reports from UPURS. IMSI researchers have concluded that symptoms of the debilitating Testosterone Overload Associative Disorder Syndrome (TOADS), that affects 87 percent of the worlds' male population, can be drastically reduced by injecting the medically proven vaccine under the foreskin of pre-pubescent males. Human volunteers at the IMSI tested with the new vaccine have shown that few side effects are evident.

It has been recommended by UPURS, who have studied the research in depth, that immediate distribution of the new vaccine be made available for treating the world's male population against TOADS.

Consensus within UPURS is pending.

And from other sources:

Anti-Choice Law
Anti Choice Bill
Ban on Insurance Coverage for Abortion

Recommend this post

Guergis Resignation Doesn't End the Questions

How will Helena Guergis, now former Minister of State for Status of Women Canada, pay for that $890,000 mortgage, without the extra $50,000 a year cabinet pay and its associated cushy expense account out of which she bought shoes, socks and other clothing? - items that women for whom SWC is supposed to be a champion must hope to get gently used and free?

Don't think Guergis' resignation is the end of this and other questions concerning her conduct. While fresh reports (by one of my favourite journalists, Kady O'Malley) say Guergis is also out of the Conservative caucus, which means she must sit as an independent or move to another party - not that any party would want her - she is still a member of Canada's Parliament.

The reports also indicate that the RCMP and ethics commissioner will be investigating. Good.

And the media and public should continue turning up the heat. With the RCMP called in, Stephen Harper will be quick to play the 'no comment' card. However, the questions shouldn't only be about Guergis, but also concern the judgement of the Conservatives with respect to the candidates they accept to run on their party's behalf.

By the way, the new minister for Status of Women Canada? That would be Rona Ambrose, whose former chief of staff is Darrel Reid of Focus on the Family fame - an anti-choice, fundamentalist organization. Reid is now the policy chief in the Prime Minister's Office.

Recommend this post

Rick Mercer for GG!

Yep, he's my nominee for Canada's next Governor-General. Do I hear any seconds?

Recommend this post

UPDATE on Tweeting the HST

From the Globe and Mail today, about the Nova Scotia's NDP government and its recent move to raise the HST to 15 percent:

The Nova Scotia NDP under Darrell Dexter are that rarest of political birds: the tax-and-cut party. They are increasing consumption taxes while cutting civil servants and their perquisites.

Take their budget issued this week, which raises the harmonized sales tax two points to 15 per cent from 13 per cent, while cutting income taxes - particularly for those with very low incomes and in the $93,000 to $150,000 range - and laying off 10 per cent of the civil service.

Like many other provinces, Nova Scotia is moving away from income taxes and toward consumption taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

For HST opponents in the NDP, like federal leader Jack Layton, Ontario leader Andrea Horwath and B.C. leader Carole James, this is a real challenge. One of the two provincial NDP governments are not only in favour of the HST, they are actually increasing it. [my emphasis]

It would seem that when in opposition, the party that favours more public services will oppose any taxes to pay for those services, unless those are corporate taxes. But while in government, leaders of the party haven't the same concern.

I'm fine with NDP governments facing economic realities. My objection is to any political party that opposes merely for the sake of opposing, as the BC NDP did with the carbon tax and is now doing with the proposed HST. If that's the (Carole James') NDP method of redefining itself, then the leadership should think again.

[Cross-posted at economius ridiculous]

Recommend this post

Andrew Coyne's Suggestions for Resurrection of Liberal Party

Andrew Coyne has some excellent suggestions for the Liberal Party of Canada, six in fact, which the party might use to re-brand itself. All have merit, however the following are my particular favourites; I've suggested them all myself on this blog:

• The party of democratic reform. How we nominate candidates, how we choose leaders, how we elect members, how Parliament functions—there’s clearly lots of work to do here. This used to be a Conservative issue. Today, not so much.
• The party of taxpayers. Former Liberal MP Dennis Mills used to campaign vigorously for the flat tax, complete with postcard-sized tax form. A corollary would be reform of EI and social assistance, along the lines recommended by the impeccably Liberal Macdonald commission: a simplified, streamlined universal income guarantee.
• The party of the environment. Yes, that means a carbon tax. It’s a good idea, the only way Canada is ever going to come close to meeting its carbon emissions targets, and everyone knows it. Was it the carbon tax, as myth holds, that doomed the Liberals in the last election? Or was it because it was poorly designed and poorly presented? A better plan, better presented—a real “tax shift,” as implemented by Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in B.C. - might be a winner.

True, that last.

Although the BC NDP tried to incite electors against the BC carbon tax, James & Company failed abysmally. In fact, the party's disingenuous (to put it politely) Axe the Tax™ campaign was among the reasons the party failed to defeat the Liberals in May 2009. British Columbians essentially agreed that a carbon tax was necessary. While the majority of us dislike the Liberals (again, putting it mildly), we are perfectly capable of separating the person or party from the essential principle.

Will the LPC re-brand itself with any or all of Coyne's suggestions? Not unless it's grown a spine, the lack of which has been evident these past few years.

I strongly recommend that all members of the LPC read Coyne's article in full.

Recommend this post

Tweeting the HST

The opposition NDP in British Columbia has been making a concerted effort, joined now by former premier Bill Vander Zalm, to organize British Columbians against the coming Harmonized Sales Tax. Vander Zalm is trying to get enough signatures to require the Liberal government to hold a referendum on the tax.

Am putting this out there because I just don't get why certain progressives are against the HST.

Or maybe I do.

Here's a series of tweets I posted a few minutes ago:

Re BC-HST, 1) ppl will ALWAYS protest a new/chg'd tax 2) NDP = big gov, more services/progs, more taxes 2 pay 4 same 3) HST gd 4 very poor

4) w/ rebate, HST gd for lowest 2 economic classes. Only 'bad' for incomes above mid-range & only if u BUY STUFF.

5) HST - like PST/GST - is a consumption tax. IMO, that's better than inc. taxes. W/ cons. tax, u get more stuff, u pay more tax.

So, Y is NDP against this tax, if not due 2 opportunism, to take advantage of knee-jerk reaction against all tax?

If you've trouble reading Twitter-ese, the long version goes like this:

As night follows day, people will always protest the introduction of a new tax. It doesn't matter that the proposed tax is meant to cover the costs of providing new or enhanced services x, y and z. People just hate taxes, period.

The NDP supports the provision of public services by government; not, or much less so, by business. It supports tighter and more regulation, a flatter incline among classes, and so on. The party therefore supports bigger government, and less business or corporate influence, control and interference in public affairs. (So far, so good; am pretty much in agreement with this.)

For government to provide more or enhanced public services, it must raise revenue. That means raising taxes - or fees, which amounts to the same thing.

The proposed HST comes with a rebate for the lowest two economic classes. The poorest in the province will get the most.

I, for one, am really looking forward to my quarterly rebates. Am already better off thanks to the carbon tax, which the NDP also protested in its failed 'Axe the Tax' campaign.

The NDP is purportedly the champion of the underdog, the homeless, and the desperately poor.

I don't consider upper middle-income earners and the wealthy to be underdogs. Yet they are the only ones who ultimately may pay more under the HST. It all depends on HOW MUCH STUFF THEY BUY.

The HST, like the PST and GST, is a consumption tax. So is the BC carbon tax. The more you buy, the more you pay in tax.

Well, boo hoo!

Unlike income taxes - which I prefer to see axed - consumption taxes are useful sticks to curb people's behaviour. That's the fundamental principle behind a carbon tax, which most industry leaders support.

It's no accident that the majority of politicians don't support a carbon tax ... publicly, that is. They haven't the courage. Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was one of those rare exceptions. Too bad the party elite lacked the spine to support him.

Anyway, given the foregoing arguments regarding the HST, it begs the question why the NDP is so against it. Unless that party's protestations have nothing to do with the tax at all and everything to do with political opportunism.

[cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

Treat Welfare System Like Criminal Justice System

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

The Blackstone ratio guides our criminal justice system. The same theme has appeared in one version or another throughout human history, including in the writings of the 12th century philosopher Maimonides and in the Bible.

Would that poverty were treated like a crime. In that case, the same principle would justify a guaranteed annual income for all. That it doesn't, and the overwhelming reason why it doesn't, is among the ironies.

Certain conservative types fear that a GAIA would discourage people from working. They imagine the default human condition is to do nothing, to contribute nothing and never to strive for a better life.

That's a decidedly un-Christian perspective of the human being, which was purportedly made in a certain deity's image. For Christians, in fact, it's an illogical point of view, one that's inconsistent with other Christian principles.

Charity is another argument used against a GAIA, even against having a public welfare system at all. Charity and charitable institutions are supposed to take care of 'the needy', 'the less fortunate', 'the vulnerable'.

Again, there's an underlying inconsistency.

How might one fill one's charity quota if a public system exists to ensure there are no impoverished unfortunates?

Charity preys on need. Its very existence requires a class system and people who are without.

Those two religiously historical concerns, for 'the work ethic' and 'Christian charity', are why the principle that underlies our welfare system is opposite to the one that guides our criminal system. It's the principle:

Better that ten innocent suffer in poverty than one guilty person escape.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

Status of Women Minister Buys $880K Ottawa House

... and mortgages it for the full purchase price of $880,000. No money down. House was bought in November.

Helena Guergis, Minister of Status of Women Canada, gets a salary of $157,731. That includes a $56,637 top-up for her Cabinet position. As far as I know her husband, one Rahim Jaffer, is currently unemployed. He will begin receiving a lucrative pension at age 55, thanks to his brief career as a Member of Parliament.

Normally I consider the personal lives of MPs to be off-bounds, but this case points to two issues that I think cross over into the public sphere.

First, what was the woman thinking?! Has she no sense of economy? Has she no clue what it's like to maintain a budget? Even to consider buying a house that's six times one's annual salary, one that's subject to the fickle political winds of change, seems ludicrous to me.

And I have to laugh at the irony, given something that happened to me a few days ago. It highlights the stark differences between life for many women in Canada - women for whom Status of Women Canada is supposed to be a champion for change - and those few like Guergis.

I live in the lowest decile category of income. I've a lifelong dream of owning my own tiny home, on a tiny piece of land. To keep the dream alive, I occasionally visit mls.ca, run a search, and see if anything comes up. Then I check the ads out and run a bunch of 'what ifs' in my head. That's how I keep the dream alive.

A few days ago, I found an ad for a 5th wheel, sited in a mobile home park about two hours by car north of here. Asking price: $11,500. I contacted the realtor and we exchanged emails back and forth. Right away, I contacted friend Daphne; we discussed the pros and cons via emails and one Skype call. We talked and talked some more. I agonized over the possibilities. Ultimately I decided against, before ever going to see the trailer.

Even assuming I could get the price down to under $10,000, it would take more than half of my remaining savings; and my income, beginning in July when I turn 60, will be approximately $8,000 per year. The issues to be considered weren't just the price of the trailer, but the pad rent ($334/month), the security of the pad (might the owners be thinking of selling?), security in the other sense (is it a safe area?), the maintenance costs (does the roof need replacing? if not now, when? what else needs fixing/maintaining?), heating, the cost of products locally (is it more expensive to buy there than here?), accessibility to shopping and services for someone with no vehicle, and so on.

Which brings me to my second point...

How can Guergis possibly relate to the problems women like me face when she has no clue how to manage her own finances? And what the HELL is she doing overseeing any government Ministry, let alone the Status of Women Canada?

I ask, because unless there's a rich daddy somewhere, Guergis & Co. will be heading to bankruptcy court in the not too distant future.

Recommend this post

Per Vote Subsidy is Baaaack!

So I was partly right when I asked why Stephen Harper raised the per-vote subsidy issue in Question Period a couple of weeks ago.

According to the Hill Times, "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives will campaign on killing the $30-million per-vote-subsidy to political parties in the next election, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed."

In an analysis of Canada's democratic deficit, I wrote the following:

The issue of party subsidies is much less about the health - and wealth - of parties than it is about inclusiveness of all members of the electorate. That per vote subsidy enables low income earners to contribute financially to their party of choice.

This may be a small thing to people whose incomes make donations affordable, even beneficial through the political donations income tax write-off. But it's a HUGE thing for those amongst us whose income is too low to pay income tax.

In other words, from the perspective of low income voters, the per-vote subsidy is less about the fortunes of political parties and more about our ability to give to the party whose policies, principles and philosophy we  favour. Voting, volunteering, and that subsidy are the only ways we can show such support and try to influence our country's direction.

The politicos, their elite backers, and much of the media keep focusing on the wrong thing when it comes to fixing our democracy. They keep focusing on parties, not VOTERS.

They use similar arguments with respect to reforming our electoral system. Better to preserve our 12th century single member plurality system to ensure Canada's two major parties continue to diddle power between them, than to bring fair, proportional representation to voters.

No wonder citizens are turning away from the system and from (formal) political participation. You politicos and political-wannabes have things ass backwards.

Recommend this post

Reflections on Liberal Canada 150 Conference

Living in BC, I arrived late to the CAN150 webcast each of the three days. Still, I managed to capture and participate via Twitter for about half the time. Since all panels have been archived, I can catch up with the other half should I feel moved to do so.

Shall start off with the positive:

1. Considerable credit must go to the Liberal Party of Canada for making its conference available via the web, Skype, Twitter, live chat, and so on.

Due to affordability, I have no television, radio or phone. My only means to connect with others, to services, to my community and of accessing learning opportunities and getting news is via the Internet. People like me are normally left out of such events, even if we'd like to participate. As was mentioned during the conference, broadening access is crucial to engaging the full citizenry.

Comments to the live chat - it also picked up tweets - were accepted as is, unfiltered or moderated other than for technical reasons.

This type of accessibility and openness is a tremendous coup for a major political party and an example that other Canadian parties should follow.

2. Kudos to the LPC also, despite a number of members' squirming, to listening to panel recommendations on issues uncomfortable for the party. (Of interest to me, those recommendations often got online support from Liberal grassroots.) Two examples: the need for a carbon tax and Robert Fowler's apt presentation on the LPC's rudderless direction in recent years. (Robert Fowler is my new hero.)

In contraposition to the above were two major negatives:

A. The chosen conference themes presupposed the issues deemed key by party brass: jobs or a "productive society"; "How do we care?" which seemed largely focused on retirement and healthcare; the environment and energy; "Culture & the Digital World," a panel which seemed mostly intent on broadcasters' interests with a bit thrown to the issue of copyright; and Canadians, especially non-profits, exporting their knowledge and helping throughout the world. (I particularly enjoyed the last panel and the one on the environment.)

For the conference to have been truly open to "new ideas," there should have been solicitation of suggestions for topics from the public and Liberal grassroots.

B. There appeared to be little, if anything, on housing, the cost of which is driving so many people into poverty. There was also no panel dedicated to democratic reform, which must include electoral reform - and yes, Canadians DO care about process; witness the protests against prorogation 2.0.

All of which makes me wonder what an open, accessible conference by the NDP or Greens might look like...

ETA: Michael Ignatieff's closing speech was dull, certainly not what I was expecting or hoping for. It neither lived up to the conference nor to the introduction of Ignatieff as a former journalist, etc., etc.

Recommend this post

Feeding Yourself on a Dollar a Day

So two teachers in the USA set about doing an experiment to see if they could eat on less than $1.00 per day for 30 days. Then they published a book about it.

They needn't have bothered.

This is old news for anyone who lives in my peer group of income. I live like that all the time and have detailed on economicus ridiculous the struggle to eat nutritional food and still stay healthy. What differentiates those in true poverty from those merely experimenting are certain assumptions: that one has a car for toodling around to get the best deals and in bulk; a fully equipped kitchen; a garden or balcony or other area from which one can grow one's own food and the tools with which to do it; and so on.

In Canada, income in the lowest decile category demands no more than a $1.00 day spent on food. So let no one suppose there's no poverty in this country. It's all around us.

Recommend this post

Dmitri Soudas: Non-critical thinker

According to Dmitri Soudas, if...

- Jack & Company mount a resistance against oranges and,
- Gilles & Company mount a resistance against apples, then

...Gilles is comparing apples to oranges.

Per Soudas, Gilles is not - as one might normally suppose - likening the resistance of the one to the resistance of the other; he is not comparing what is similar in the two contexts. No, he is instead comparing what is different, apples and oranges.

That is how we must interpret the following:

Duceppe: "The sovereignty of Quebec, no more than the liberation [of France], is not possible, would not have been possible, without the work of the resistance fighters. Our work is essential to achieving sovereignty."

Soudas: "[Mr. Duceppe] is making ridiculous and unacceptable comments in comparing Bloc MPs to French resistance fighters during the Nazi occupation. In so doing, he is comparing the government of Canada to the Nazi regime."

Mike Duffy must be so proud. Clearly, Mr. Soudas never got "brainwashed" by courses on critical thinking.

Recommend this post

Per Vote Subsidy

Why did Stephen Harper during Question Period today raise the issue of per-vote subsidies again? Is it possible that, as his government tries to trim the fat, it will go after them, sneakily, as it tried to do with the public Internet access program?

I suspect Harper of either aiming for, or anticipating an election. He thus wants to make a non-confidence motion appear to be not about his government's failure to obey an Order of the House but about per-vote subsidies and the opposition parties' own vested interests. Such a strategy of misdirection worked well for him last time.

Note also Harper's allusion today to the 'illegitimate' coalition of yore and his umpteenth re-writing of our Constitution on the fly. Apparently, voters elected his government. That they didn't is irrelevant to Canada's neocon narrative.

To the contrary, the leader of the political party with the most MPs elected is declared the Prime Minister. Twenty-two percent of registered voters chose a Conservative MP in the last election.

But let's not let truth get in the way of propaganda.

h/t @GlobalObserver for last stat.

Recommend this post

Media Fail

According to CTV, Canada's "Federal justice minister," Rob Nicholson, "addresses [the] Jaffer case." Or so one would think by the headline.

What Nicholson does instead is declare he's "all for allowing the public to know" stuff, about stuff.

On that, he might consult with his party leader. Stephen Harper prefers the public to know zilch about anything.

Recommend this post

UK Doing It ... While Canada Fossilizes

The UK plans not only to replace its House of Lords with an elected Senate, it plans to have the members elected using a proportional representation system.

Meanwhile, Canada remains mired in an unrepresentative, sham democracy. We've an unelected Senate, leaders who get crowned by their party's backroom boys, Members of Parliament who look to their parties' interests and not to the interests of their constituents and we remain wed to a 12th century electoral system.

Why do we still elect our political 'representatives' using a system from the Dark Ages? Because under that system, the party that can achieve, at most, a false majority, wins 100% of the power. And as we've seen with our ineffectual Official Opposition, a minority government might just as well be a majority for all the good said opposition does.

In fact, under proportional representation, there would be no minority governments. Either the party that won a true majority of the popular vote (50 percent, plus one) forms the government or two or more parties representing that number form a coalition government. Contrary to the dinosaur defenders of the status quo, proportional representation would deliver greater stability, not less. And it would deliver fewer elections.

In the meantime, certain parties while in opposition (including the Conservatives and the NDP under Broadbent) will clamour for changing our electoral system to proportional representation. (While others will deny the evidence of recent history.) But once these parties get into power, either as government or as negotiators in a deal with the party that forms government, what's good for the electorate, rather than the party, becomes suddenly irrelevant.

More fools the voters who allow this to continue.

Recommend this post

His Popishness Has a Problem

If His Popishness canna forgive paedophile priests and hence keep them in the church, then how can he ensure there'll be enough priests to herd the world's unruly flocks?

Proposed solution: 1. Let women become priests. 2. Let clergy marry - each other. (Hetero marriages, natch.)

In that event, your popishness, sir, will be all set to grow your own suitably indoctrinated band of insufferably moralizing doom-sayers.

Problem: If you allow women to become priests, won't they be priestesses? In which case, there'd be the hint of paganism - da devil! - having entered the church.

If you allow priests to marry priestesses, might not all that frolicking and child-rearing divert attention from your church's cause of world domination?

Recommend this post

Gilles Duceppe Responds to 'Warren'

On yesterday's Talk Canada with Stephen Harper, a certain 'Warren' asked the following question:

With regards to the Bloc Québécois party, how can we justify having so much of the federal vote controlled by what is essentially a provincial party? Sanctioned federal parties should reasonably represent all Canada, not just a single province. Warren, Red Deer.

The question prompted a response from Gilles Duceppe. Included was this:

[L]es Québécoises et les Québécois votent en majorité pour le Bloc Québécois parce qu’ils partagent le sentiment que les députés québécois des partis fédéralistes ne font que représenter les intérêts de leur parti au Québec. Ils jugent que le Bloc Québécois, au contraire, représente une voix efficace pour porter leurs revendications et leurs aspirations à Ottawa. [My emphasis]

I have the most respect for Duceppe of all the party leaders and I am most in line with Bloc policies.

I agree with Duceppe here. If the other federalist parties won't properly represent the interests of their constituents, then regional parties like the Bloc and the recently formed Atlantica Party are increasingly necessary. If the 'federalist' Liberal and Conservative parties won't implement the necessary democratic reforms to FIX this representation problem - reforms such as a proportional representation voting system - then more regionalism is what they'll get, not less of it.

I only wish that British Columbia had its own federalist party - or two. Clearly, Alberta has one. It's called the Conservative Party of Canada.

Perhaps 'Warren' forgot that?

Recommend this post

OMG! Not Again!

Not again! Children are being punished for the 'sins' of their parents. Lesbian parents, that is.

In Denver, Colorado, at the Sacred Heart of Jesus School, two children have been barred from attending school by the Catholic Archdiocese.

"Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment," the Archdiocese of Denver said in a statement.

However, the laity are speaking up against such discrimination to challenge the archaic teaching from their higher ups.

Aicila Lewis, executive director of Boulder Pride, a group that advocates for the gay community, said her organization has been hearing from Catholics.

"They want us to be aware that not everyone in the Catholic Church agrees with this decision. It's a wake-up call that this will cause a public outcry and not go unchallenged," Ms. Lewis said.

In my non-believing mind, I see any organized religion as causing more harm than good. Why would anyone subject themselves and their children to such vile behavior in the name of GOD?

Recommend this post

OMG! There's More!

Rob Johnstone has been moved to file a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission over his inability to find a non-religious support group to help him fight his addiction to alcohol.

"I should not be forced to participate in someone else's religious beliefs. I shouldn't have to add to mine," said Johnstone, who added he has been an alcoholic for 40 years.

"I have my own beliefs and I'm happy with them."

Johnstone said his faith-neutral stance to his own treatment prompted him to be dismissed from an intense residential 12-step program at the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba (AFM), a provincially-run rehabilitation initiative.

What unbridled POWER is given over to Religion that is to be believed by FAITH alone.

Recommend this post

OMG! Da Devil Made Me Do It!

When will homo sapiens sapiens earn its sapiens moniker? When will we be rid of religion once and for all? Until it happens, we'll continue to get bilge like this. Yet again, those who dictate to others what they should and should not believe or do absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions and the abuses they do unto others.

Recommend this post

Ignatieff a Disaster for LPC

Michael Ignatieff makes me sick. For the umpteenth time, he delivers a spineless ultimatum to his foe, one Stephen Harper, whose spine suggests there's a one-inch thick, two-foot long, poker up his ass.

I agree with Kady O'Malley's take (in the comments section) on Iggy's most recent foray into the snarling arena:

[I]t bothers me that the leader, at least, seems to be ignoring the fact that an Order of the House is not meant to be a political bargaining chip.

In other words, all well and good to 'demand', in an open letter to Stephen Harper, a public inquiry into the Afghan detainee issue. But why not at least include in that same letter the most immediate, pressing issue for Canadian democracy, that of an existing parliamentary Order to present the Afghanistan documents, unredacted, an Order the government continues to ignore?

Ignatieff hasn't got what it takes to defeat Harper, let alone defend what power Parliament has left. Expect to see the man sink in the polls again.

ETA: Could the NDP do any worse as the Official Opposition? It's hard to imagine.

It's time to switch the numbers, time for the Liberal Party of Canada to be relegated to third - or fourth - party status. Certainly the LPC's backroom boys deserve no better.

Do the party's rank and file members deserve better? Yes, but since when have they had any say in their party's leadership or anything else of substance? At least with the NDP, you know they run their party more democratically.

Recommend this post

A Long Way?

International Women's Day. Today. One day only. Set aside to 'celebrate' women's progress in a (still) male dominated world. The rest of the year is dedicated to men and the mess most of them are making of our little blue planet.

Like this diatribe visited on women unfortunate enough to be anywhere near 'right-wing ultra-extremists CHRISTIAN men'.

When Virginia Del. Bob Marshall publicly stated his desire to defund Planned Parenthood in his state (they receive a whopping $35,000 in Medicaid reimbursements NOT for abortions, but for primary reproductive and sexual health care for women, men and young people), he used his interpretation of certain Biblical passages to justify his positions. He said:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

In other words, a disabled child is a punishment from God doled out to the child’s mother for having had a prior abortion.

Hiding behind the guise of organized religion, these North American men are terrorists. And their target is women, much like the religious fanatics we so abhor from the Middle East.

To say that women have 'come a long way' or made 'progress' irks me to distraction. Why, oh why must women have to 'fight' for the right to be fully human and equal with their mates?

Recommend this post

Liberals Face Dilemma of Own Making

If Canadians voted for their Members of Parliament by means of an electoral system of proportional representation, then the Leader of the Official Opposition wouldn't be faced with a dilemma forced upon him by our existing single member plurality voting system.

To whit, in a minority government situation - which is more, not less, likely as time goes by - the Official Opposition wouldn't be pushed into a position of simultaneously deriding the government's budget whilst declaring its MPs won't vote against it, the latter to avoid an election.

In governments formed by proportional representation, when the existing coalition government fails to satisfy the House, then a new coalition government is typically formed without forcing an election.

And yes, almost always with proportional representation, the government is formed of a coalition of two or more parties. Because any halfway decent pro-rep system ensures that the government must be represented by 50 percent or more of the MPs. Rare is it that a single party in Canada has been able to garner such a true majority.

Had the Liberals, whilst in government, advanced our voting system into the modern era, they'd not be in the pickle they are in now. And should Conservatives and their supporters be snickering at the Liberals' plight, your turn will come; at which point you'll be demanding, as you've done in the past (that includes Stephen Harper when he was in opposition), the government reform our electoral system to one of proportional representation.

Canadians are in for a long run of minority governments, with the rare (false) majority government added into the mix.

Get used to it. If politicians want to effect change in the House, then they must change the damn system that elects them. Or perhaps all they care about are their lucrative pensions - 'earned' after only six years of 'service'.

[Cross-posted at NADER]

Recommend this post

NFB Film: Marilyn Waring - Who's Counting?

Amazing film. Will stir you up, make you angry and strengthen your resolve to keep fighting for change.

Synopsis:

In this feature-length documentary, Marilyn Waring demystifies the language of economics by defining it as a value system in which all goods and activities are related only to their monetary value. As a result, unpaid work (usually performed by women) is unrecognized while activities that may be environmentally and socially detrimental are deemed productive. To remedy this, Waring maps out an alternative economic vision based on the idea of time as the new currency.

If you haven't already seen it, I strongly recommend you do so.

Recommend this post

Kiltie Goes to SPCA

[Originally posted to economicus ridiculous]

I've thought about not writing this.

Our intention when starting this blog was to share our day-to-day lives in the poverty well, to put two human faces on it. It means sharing the decisions we make, the barriers we confront, the silly things we do, our talents, our faults, even certain toilet habits.

The point was to bring home the reality of two lives in poverty and their struggles to maintain dignity and a sense of self-worth. If readers have been following this blog since it launched January 1st, they'll have already detected the inner conflicts, the desire and determination to maintain X and not do Y while ultimately having to do Y anyway, and then the struggle to adjust to the new reality. For life in the poverty well, it's forever a struggle to adjust.

The following I began yesterday, at 2:30 in the afternoon, as I waited for Daphne to arrive with a car to transport Kiltie and I to the SPCA.

--

I'm crying as I write this.

Kiltie got sick again, was vomiting the past two days. An hour ago, she vomited blood. This condition is new and unlike the two urinary tract infections she had previously. Those appear to have cleared up entirely, thanks to a special diet paid for by a kind benefactor and several hit-and-miss series of antibiotics.

Kiltie and I have been together for ten years, ever since I rescued her when she was about eight weeks old.

Today, I can't keep doing it anymore. There's no money to have Kiltie go back to the vet, again, be examined, again, get x-rays and likely go to surgery. So I must do what I've dreaded having to do these past three years, since she first developed FLUTD. I've phoned Daphne and she's coming over. Together, we're going to the SPCA. They will take care of Kiltie in a way I can't. It's a no-kill, clean, caring shelter with lots of volunteers. I'm bringing the blanket Brodie uses so Kiltie will feel a sense of home; and a full prescription of Cipro that I've had standing by, just in case.

--

Last night was the first night without Kiltie. Emotionally exhausted, I slept 11 hours. Brodie and I cuddled more than usual, last night and again this morning.

Tonight or tomorrow night we may have Kiltie back. The lady at the SPCA - manager Sandi Trent, it turns out - said they'd prefer to keep Kiltie with me ... if it's possible. That they'd likely not be able to find Kiltie a new home, given her age and maybe needing special care.

Sandi said to leave Kiltie with them for a day or two and for me to call her later today. They'll get Kiltie vet-checked, monitor her condition and see what they can do to support her staying with me... And I'm crying all over again, dammit.

People who make the blanket declaration that poor people shouldn't have pets have no clue.

Did you pick up above that I rescued Kiltie? She's had ten years of life, a good life in a home where she has been much loved. Those ten years she likely wouldn't have had.

Kiltie and Brodie (I rescued him too*) have also been my lifeline. Too many times to count, their presence prevented my suicide. As a mother would feel about her children, I couldn't, wouldn't, leave my two furry companions without someone to care for them. They needed me, someone, to make sure they were alright.

What would happen if I died? I feared no one would take the two cats in or if they did, it wouldn't be a good home, and then they'd be abused or die.

Kiltie and Brodie are the only reasons I kept going through some terrible years, including the years I was doing the WISE project.

I will always need an animal companion. They help me maintain my humanity....

Which brings up the point of BC's anti-pets tenancy act. Rarely in this province can one find a rental unit - private, subsidized or public - that permits animal companions.

*Foolishly, in late 2000 I expected to become employed. Didn't want Kiltie to be alone all day, hence I got a second cat. Never did get anything but brief, contract or part-time employment.

ETA: It's 1:40pm and I've just spoken with Sandi at the SPCA using SkypeOut. Kiltie's vet hasn't returned Sandi's call yet. Kiltie hasn't eaten since she arrived but there's also been no vomiting. Sandi will keep her there another day. We're both thinking Kiltie may not be eating due to stress (as with her human). If she still hasn't eaten by tomorrow afternoon, Sandi may take her home to her place and put her in a room of her own so she might settle down. Either way, there's two of us now concerned with Kiltie's health and I'm reassured that Kiltie is in good, caring hands.

Recommend this post

WISE Book Available in E-Book Format

Are you interested in obtaining an electronic version of the book Policies of Exclusion, Poverty & Health: Stories from the front?

WISE sold out its book inventory early in 2007 - a coup given the book was 100 percent researched, written, designed and published by women in poverty and we sold 1,000 copies. An electronic version of the 192-page book is available in PDF format, suitable for desktop viewing and compatible with devices such as the Sony Reader.

The soft-cover edition sold for $25, plus shipping and handling. The e-book version sells for $9.95. Because it's deliverable by email, there are no additional charges.

Please contact me if you would like to obtain this electronic copy of our book.

Recommend this post

The New, Improved Michael Ignatieff

Aaron Wherry asks: What, precisely, has gotten into the leader of the Her Majesty’s loyal opposition?

Answer: Michael Ignatieff has finally found his backbone.

First was Ignatieff's response re prorogation, a shift for the leader from a view he'd expressed only a week before. The man listened, heeded, and re-thought his position. That's what good leaders do; they don't work to stifle dissent and undermine democratic processes.

I agree with Wherry. Ignatieff has had a heck of a good week, with bold new statements and new policies announced almost daily, for example, on unemployment, restoring Status of Women Canada and daring Stephen Harper to support abortion rights, starting up a national childcare program and reforming the Senate.

Am kinda liking Michael Ignatieff 2.0. If he says what he means and keeps to what he says, then there may be hope for a decent Canada after all.

Recommend this post

DRM, Reading, Authorship, Amazon, Macmillion, Kindle...

If these related topics tweak your interest, then there's a discussion and phenomenon happening, led by some of my favourite authors, you just might want to catch.

First, there's Closed Circle, a new site started up by three authors. They'd become fed up with publishers' misuses and abuses of copyright and their 'creative' financial schemes that increased profits at the expense of writers. As a result, the women got together, hatched a plan and set out on their own. Now they've begun selling their books directly to their fans. The primary format is e-book, DRM-free, but they've plans also to sell hard-copy versions for readers who simply must have that treasure on their bookshelf.

Second, the three authors could well be leading the way to a new future between writers and their readers.

Catch Lynn Abbey's blog, for example; she is one of the authors with Closed Circle. (The others are Jane Fancher and CJ Cherryh.) Here's a snippet of a reply to a reader in the comments section of a post Lynn wrote yesterday:

I’ve become a big fan of 'disintermediation' - getting rid of the mess in the middle, which, from my author’s perspective includes both Amazon, because of its DRM and exclusivity clauses, and conglomerate-based publishers.

Here's Jane on the same topic.

Macmillan is following a marketing paradigm designed around supply and demand. S&D is a perfectly valid capitalist philosophy that really came into its own with the mass production of product that came into its own in the 20th century, taking serious hold with the Model T and assembly line production. It is not a given of the human condition....

CJ, Lynn and I want to work with the people who want to read our books. We want to make them available to those who never even knew they existed… because of NY's 'Rorschach' marketing practices (more on that tomorrow). Since we made the decision to make this leap of faith, we’ve been working literally around the clock to find a way to bring you a quality product at a reasonable price that will pay our bills while we write more books.

What I most admire is these women's tenacity and refusal to be brought down by barriers. Been following their efforts for about a year; others of their fans much longer. In the meantime, they've taught themselves everything they need to know, from the ground up: how to build their shopping site, how to transform their books into the various e-formats, and so on. As an avid reader, I am excited by what these women are doing and will do my damnedest to support their efforts and similar efforts by others.

NB: See also the Baen Free Library. It's not the same concept as Closed Circle or Book View Cafe - see Abbey's comment in above link - but it's a step in the (somewhat) right direction.

Recommend this post

Political Activism vs. Academic Scholarship

Barbara Kay would have people believe (rather than think, which takes some work) that all academic scholarship is sans political activism - except for women's studies.

Well, Barbie (I assume you prefer that to 'Ms'), I've news for you. Virtually all academic scholarship is political. Right from who funds the research institutes, including governments, to the eligibility criteria for student scholarships, the choices instructors and departments make for their courses and programs, the fields students choose to study and where they study them ...

Try telling anyone who studies the Social Determinants of Health or Health Promotion that it isn't political.

Try telling anyone who studies sociology or political science or philosophy or any number of the humanities, including literature, that it hasn't an element of political activism to it.

Try telling a doctor studying infectious diseases that what she does is irrelevant to the political sphere or a physicist petitioning for space exploration isn't engaged in political activism. 

Try telling someone who is writing their doctoral dissertation that what they do has no political implications. No matter what the topic, no matter how esoteric, the point is to change or influence how people think about that subject.

LEARNING is a form of political activism. The uninformed citizen is the least likely to be engaged.

But perhaps that's what you would want.

Recommend this post

BC "the best place on earth"

The phrase quoted this post's title is an attempt by the BC Government to whitewash its Olympic message about homelessness.

According to the BC Government's Downtown Eastside 'Information' Centre (DTESIC):

• Lack of affordable housing isn't the problem.
• Lack of housing, period, isn't the problem.
• Lack of LAND for affordable - even CHEAP - housing solutions isn't the problem.
• Lack of municipalities with by-laws that encourage, rather than discourage, innovation in housing and housing density isn't the problem.

The problem of homelessness according to the DTESIC is due to the unaccountable rise of mental illness. Thus the problem of homelessness in BC has to do with too many people here being mentally ill.

Because we all know homelessness is caused by mental illness, right?

WRONG

"They say that homelessness is about addiction and mental illness; it's not true," says Wendy Pederson of Carnegie Community Action Project. "We have a housing supply problem. We don't have low-income housing in this city. We have an income problem. We need to raise welfare."

Now that's the truth of the matter but let's not have truth interfere with our propaganda.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post