Lukiwski Plays Pinocchio

My MP, Tom Lukiwski, who supposedly represents the residents of Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre doesn't like the new proposed changes to the Saskatchewan Electoral Boundaries. I understand why. The existing boundaries carve up Regina and Saskatoon into a bit of a pie adding to them, huge rural components. The rural voters have guaranteed that guys like Tom get elected.

Lukiwski and his Saskatchewan colleagues have been trying to say that unlike Canada's other 25  significant cities, Saskatchewan cities should not have urban ridings. They have mounted a bit of a campaign.

A few evenings ago we got an automated robocall call from a group that claimed to be Chase Research. It was a "push poll" of the worst kind.  My son took the call and then we called the number identified in the call to complain, we were so annoyed. Then when we discovered we could not find any Canadian firm called Chase Research on the Internet we started to get suspicious.

Our reaction was to say, "This has to be a Conservative poll."

Oh, no no says our friend Tom. Quoted in the Star Phoenix he said,    "Certainly, polling is not something I'm doing and ... I'm pretty sure I'd know if any one of my colleagues was doing something like that, and I haven't heard a thing."  Lukiwski just happens to be on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee that will consider the boundaries commission's final report.

So, late yesterday the truth, or something that resembles it, came out. This was a Conservative initiated push poll delivered to us by the firm RackNine Inc. That, for those of you with short memories, is the same firm that, on the behest of Stephen Harper's Conservatives, sent people they suspected would vote for the opposition, to the wrong polling stations during the last election. How could we forget Pierre Poutine?

I don't know about you but I don't think liars and cheats deserve to be Members of Parliament.

 

Gerry Ritz is predictable in nothing else. Known for making it up as he goes along and never accepting responsibility for anything unless it makes him look good, has done it again.

The Regina Leader Post reports the former ostrich farmer turned Agriculture Minister who, should by rights have resigned over the XL Foods tainted meat scandal, is now blaming the Federal inspectors at XL for being "too nice" Not tough enough?

No mention from Gerry that, under his watch, the number of inspector on the floor in meat packing plants was substantially cut. The message from the Harper Conservatives has always been clear, "Things work better when industry polices itself."  Under the guise of "cutting red tape" these guys put Canadians at risk daily.

Who has the guts or the time to be "tough enough" under Gerry's watch. Conscientious inspectors very likely would be accused with threatening meat packers' profits.

So no word that Gerry Ritz has learned any lessons from all this;

• No promise to get more inspectors on the floor, 
• no word that Gerry has listened to the workers on the floor who complain that the speeded productions  lines are a risk, 
• no sign that Gerry who visited the plant soon after the American inspectors found the problem his department had missed, ever visited the citizens who were made sick by his incompetence, 
• and actually no word that Gerry gives a fiddlers fart about anything but his own survival.

Get used to it folks. There are years to go before we gt another kick at the cat.

Gerry Ritz Has to go

Ok, enough is enough. No ands, ifs or buts, Gerry Ritz has to go.

I know, I know, Ritz is only putting into place the Harper agenda like a faithful old lapdog but, bottom line, the minister is responsible.

What makes things worse, I think, is his denial in the beginning of this latest scandal. His story just didn't hold up. Some say he just lied about it, figuring he’d get away with it. I don’t know for sure, but I do know what side of the coin I fall on. I just don’t trust Gerry.

I think what I find most annoying is that for Ritz and the rest of the Harper Conservatives, this is all about protecting business. Their corporate friends. These Conservatives forget, their primary responsibility is to protect its us.

Ritz is ignoring the fact that:

• Because we tolerate over crowded feedlots, cattle turns up on the killing floor, caked with mud and cow shit 
• A vaccine is available which would put a stop to this e-coli problem but it costs about $3.00 an animal and the government sees this as too much of a burden to producers to insist they use it. 

• Huge meat packers mostly hire immigrant workers on work permits who don’t dare complain when production lines are cranked up to unsafe speeds, making it impossible for the workers to do their jobs safely. 

• Despite what the so-called Agriculture Minister says, there are fewer inspectors on the plant floor, leaving much of the responsibility to the producer. 

Ritz just doesn't seem to get it. He has dodged question period in the House of Commons and left a press conference, held on the completion of his tour of the XL plant, after four questions because he didn't like where the questions were leading.

Calling this a scandal is not too big a word. Canadian’s health is at risk and from my perspective, having the Ag Minister resign isn’t enough. This whole damn incompetent government should step down.

Perhaps Andre Picard said it best in today’s Globe and Mail when he wrote in part:

Peter Sandman, a business professor at Rutgers University and the guru of crisis communications, says there are six strategies required during a situation like tainted beef: 1) don’t over-reassure; 2) acknowledge uncertainty; 3) treat the public’s fears as legitimate; 4) express your own feelings; 5) offer people things to do to protect themselves; 6) don’t worry about panic because panic is rare.

The company, the regulator and the minister failed on every single one of these points.

Worse yet, they have no excuse because we’ve seen this movie before.

In 2008, when Maple Leaf Foods Inc. produced listeria tainted luncheon meats that killed 22 people and sickened 35 others, the company responded in textbook fashion. CEO Michael McCain was front and centre: He was available to the media, he was transparent and he was contrite.

Maple Leaf recalled all its meat and shut down the plant – which is what XL should have done. The company then apologized, in print and via its CEO, it fixed the problems, and it compensated the victims.

Mr. Ritz was minister during the listeria crisis. His government commissioned a report from Sheila Weatherill, which cost taxpayers $5.3-million.

Obviously, he has not read or understood that report, which, in addition to its technical recommendations for improving food safety, had two overriding messages: 1) That communication by the CFIA and the government more generally were appallingly bad and 2) there was a “void in leadership” that contributed to the deaths.

Today, as the E. coli tainted meat outbreak demonstrates, communication is as bad, if not worse, and the void in leadership is even more gaping.

A Sad Commentary

I am generally not a big supporter of armed conflict. I distrust military leadership and I am appalled by this new move by our Prime Minister to insert the military into Canadian life these days. Everything from citizenship ceremonies to the Grey Cup game.

I have mixed feelings about Remembrance Day. I see in it, too much celebration of the military and not enough thought about the futility of war. I do not wear a poppy in November and I don’t attend cenotaph services but I probably think about the sacrifices made by young men and women more than most.

This year, I was saddened by the Harper Government’s small-minded move to block the members of the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois to say a few words in the House of Commons during the time set aside to honour the war dead.

As a result of the Conservatives’ petty response to the request to be allowed to say a few words I wrote the same e-mail message to 94 Conservative members of Parliament, including my own MP Tom Lukiwski, several cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister.

I said:

My father served in the Canadian Army during the second world war and when I was a boy was sent to Korea to take part that dispute, again as a member of the Canadian Army.
When I was 17, I joined the Canadian Navy and served on Canada’s ships and submarines for several years.
Given my background, I am sure you can imagine how upset I was to hear that when the House of Commons honoured our fallen soldiers, sailors and airmen. Your party twice denied the representatives from the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois the opportunity to say a few words in the house honouring those brave young men and women.
From my perspective, this action by the Conservative Party of Canada was beyond the pale. It was unconscionable.
Too many young men and women died, and continue to die to uphold the democratic principles, which seem to mean very little to you and your party.
You should be ashamed.

I received 16 responses. Most of them simply said “Thank you for writing, We appreciate the feedback” This e-mail from MP Bruce Stanton is typical.

Hello:
Thank you for your email.
Bruce receives a large volume of email correspondence every day; it is difficult to respond to every piece in a timely manner. As such, Bruce prefers to make the correspondence of his constituents his first priority.
If you could please provide your civic address that identifies you as a constituent of Simcoe North, I would be happy to forward your correspondence to Bruce for his consideration and response.
Thank you for understanding and for taking the time to write.
Kind regards,
Ashley Brown
Parliamentary Assistant

Just one, Ed Komarnicki, actually responded to the issue saying;

Thank you for your note and for bringing the issue to my attention. I understand your frustration and upset.
Although I wasn’t part of the decision making, nor privy to the considerations that led to the decision, I do know that the consideration went beyond simply whether they could speak in the House of Commons on this issue or not. Each of the Bloc and the Green Party are not recognized as having official party status in the House.
Everything being equal and not having regard to these considerations, your desire to see them included in the speaking order is understandable.

It is a sad commentary on the democratic process.

How about a little Transparency

A Secret Society?

Ok, I admit it, I find the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pretty annoying. Don’t believe for a moment that they, as they claim, speak for Canadian taxpayers. From where I sit they seem pretty much like a right wing lobby group.

They describe themselves as a non profit organization funded by Canadians. People like you and me. Somehow, I doubt it.

So where does their money come from? They describe themselves as a non-profit organization. What credible organization has no Annual General Meeting? They do have a Board of Directors although there isn’t any sense, judging from that list, that the organization is anything but a wing on the Conservative Party’s right flank.

They have a staff of 10 to 15 people who can afford suits and have offices, or at the very least a desk, in Ottawa, Toronto, Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Quebec and Halifax. Not cheap.

They are not a charity so no contribution tax credit if you donate to them.

Most groups offer a bit more transparency than the CTF. What do they have to hide I wonder. I have never, ever come across any person who admits to being a member. Pretty shady I figure.

What annoys me more than anything else is that Canadian media outlets are constantly parroting the organization’s rhetoric along with the that from the Frontier Institute for Public Policy and the Fraser Institute, taking their research as gospel truth. They take their media releases at face value and uncritically spew them back at us on the public airwaves. I know it is cheaper that paying for research or giving your reporters a little time to dig around themselves but dammit, it ain’t right. I for one would like to hear a bit more from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Enough of this secret society stuff.

Here is a Question for you Jack

So here we are. The election is over, Ottawa has a new, but not necessarily better look to it and many of the 60% or so of Canadians who didn’t vote for the Blue Man Group are wondering what happened. More and more are asking themselves, “Isn’t it time we took a hard look at our electoral system.” The first-past-the post system just doesn’t cut it.

All that considered I think that Fair Vote Canada has a great suggestion for Jack Layton’s first Question in the new Parliament. They are nudging the new Leader of the Opposition to ask:

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, when the right was divided and we seemed to be faced with the prospect of “Liberal government forever”, the current prime minister, who was then out of elected office, co-authored and published with Tom Flanagan a remarkable article entitled “Our Benign Dictatorship”. In this thoughtful and well researched article, they decried the way that our first-past-the-post voting system creates one-party rule “beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system.” They said, and I quote, “For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities.”

They went on to decry the hugely distorted election results in the 1993 election, in which the Reform party won 52 seats with 19% of the votes, but the Progressive Conservatives, with 16% of the votes, won only two seats, while the Bloc Quebecois, with only 14% of the votes, won 54 seats and formed Her Majesty's “Loyal” Opposition.

“Imposing a first-past-the-post voting system upon a society with deep ethno linguistic and regional cleavages,” they said, “inevitably fragments Canadian conservatism,” adding that, ”Our system has similarly fragmented social democrats.”

They encouraged the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties to advocate electoral reform, and suggested the NDP would vote for it too.

“No one who cares seriously about ideas,” they said, “whether conservative, liberal or socialist, should be happy with the thought of prolonged one-party rule,” because, they pointed out, it leads to cronyism, corruption, cynicism and chaos.” The absence of effective competition,” they said, “is just as bad in politics as it is in economics.”

“Voters on the left,” they pointed out, “are as much entitled as voters on the right to effective representation.”

They went on to point out that, “In today’s democratic societies, organizations share power. Corporations, churches, universities, hospitals, even public sector bureaucracies make decisions through consultation, committees and consensus-building techniques. Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.”

They conclude by saying, “Many of Canada’s problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country,” and “Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada’s survival as a nation.”

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House couldn’t agree more with all of that, so my question to the Prime Minister is this: Now that you have won a majority government on the basis of having received less than forty percent of the votes cast in the election, do you still believe in proportional representation?

Then Fair Vote suggests that Jack follow up with the following supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, historically, up to 80% of votes cast for the NDP federally have been wasted votes—they did not help to elect anyone, and our party has always had about half as many seats in this place as we should have won based on the number of votes we received. That has changed, Mr. Speaker, and today, the New Democratic Party is actually slightly over-represented in this House.

But Mr. Speaker, we are willing to put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of our party, and we call on the governing party to do the same.

We do still support proportional representation, Mr. Speaker, and my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this: When will his government put forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act to give Canadians a modern, fair, proportional voting system, so that every Canadian can have a vote that makes a difference? When they do, Mr. Speaker, we will vote for it.

I don't know if Jack reads what Fair Vote writes about the issue but I hope he does. That question would get people's attention. Let him know this is a great idea.

Facebook Creepers

The number of  You Tube videos on line about this election is quite inspiring particularly when the media suggests that the younger demographic doesn't plan to vote.

I know Harper, after three days of being embarrassed in the media, did apologize for his actions, I still find this one of the funniest out there.

The tag at the end says it was made by the Liberal Party of Canada. You never know with You Tube though. That might just be someone's idea of a joke or, it might indicate that the Liberals are way ahead in the social media game.

Why is this Election Important?

Stephen Harper doesn't want to talk about it but Canadians should never forget why we are having an election.

Following rulings by Speaker Peter Milliken, for the first time in Canadian history,the first time in Commonwealth history,  the government and a minister have been found to be in contempt of parliament for withholding information and misleading the house.

This election is about contempt

con·tempt  (kn-tmpt)

n.

1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.

2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.

3. Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

Pay Attention Canada

I noticed an important story in the Hill Times today, unfortunately ignored by most of the mainstream media, at least so far.

We remember Pat Stogran the veteran's ombudsman  who is being drummed out of his position by the Harper bullies for having the gall to actually do his job. To speak up, forcefully on behalf of veterans and to voice some of the concerns raised to him by those he considered his constituents and he brought to light the shoddy treatment many of them felt they were getting under the leadership Conservative government.

Harper loved the ready access the military provided for photo-ops and the like but when he was needed to provide support to people wounded or traumatized by Afghanistan little Stevie pulled the political equivalent of a "cut and run."

Real support is so much much more than a photo-op Stephen.

Perhaps the most telling thing he brought to light was when he confided that he was told by a senior civil servant   " … that it is in the government’s best interests to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term.” The former senior military officer was shaken to the bone by the comment. “

Now Stogran has revealed that says he believes that the Veterans Affairs Department may have improperly accessed and shared his medical files and other information after he brought forward his concerns and was speaking out on behalf of  veterans.


Mr. Stogran said he first raised the issue after discovering there had been as many as 400 “improper inquiries” into his personal file at the Veterans Affairs Department. At first he didn't worry too much about thinking that people in the department were just curious about who he was but Mr. Stogran became more concerned when
another high-profile veteran, Sean Bruyea, told CP last week that  he obtained information that his personal information and medical files had been spread around within government and used in attempts to discredit him.  It was at that point that Stogran  became aware he may also have been a target. "It was apparent that more people had been in my file than had any business being in my file" Stogran said.

Doesn't this just piss you off? I hate where we seem to be going as a country. Our government is out of control and in the face of it all, Harper is up in the polls.

Give your head a shake Canada. Is this what you want.

Telling it Like it is

Tory Senator Nancy Ruth is getting a lot of flack these days and I am not sure it is warrented. She was just telling it like it is, a rare trait amoungst politicians.

A few days ago Ruth, a former United Church minister and lifelong activist, was speaking to a group on Parliament Hill that had gathered to discuss the declining importance women's right has within the Harper government's foreign policy. She was putting forth the argument that with this government at least, the more you push the more backlash there will be so, she was suggesting that the women’s groups just layoff the issue of including funding for abortion in Canada's G8 plan. She told them it would be best if they just "Shut the fuck up."


Her advice seemed to me to be strategic not philosophical. In other words, she was suggesting if you fight these guys and they will pay you back. Of course she is right. There is a mean spirit running through that gang in Ottawa who call themselves our government these days. The Harper gang are not the "Turn the other cheek" kind of religious zealots they come for the "Eye for an eye" camp.

So no surprise today when the news came out that the Conservatives thugs have cut funding to 14 women's groups in the last two weeks. As an example, MATCH Canada, a group which works to help women around the world have a say about their lives and their country, was told Friday that its federal funding, $400,000 a year will not be renewed.

What more can we say. This government has to go.

It just Leaves a Bad Taste in my Mouth.

Well Little Stevie has got caught out, playing that crass old patronage game. It is becoming more clear every day. Economic stimulus money is being targeted to Conservative ridings and where they can get away with it, big Conservative Party logos were being attached to the cheques. Harper used to try to pretend that his style of politics didn't include that sort of partisan conduct. I wonder what happened to that line.

Harper has called out the damage control team to try and find a way to minimize the fallout from his very crass attempts to link every bit of stimulus money to the Conservative Party.

I find it really interesting that old party hacks like Norman Spector and others are spilling a good deal of ink in the Globe & Mail and other newspapers trying to justify the Conservative Party's modus operandi. What is surprising is that the newspaper editors are letting them do it and in some cases buying in to the game.

What Spector and his ilk are saying is basically, "Ok, it was a bit over the top but...What about those Liberals. Now they were the masters of this patronage game. What a few MPs did here is no big deal"

That isn't the point Norman. We should not be justifying this latest round of unacceptable behavior by Little Stevie and his gang. Trying to brand economic stimulus money with the Conservative seal is wrong and you should be saying so. Pretending that the amount of money being spent in Conservative ridings doesn't far exceed that being made available to non Conservative riding is simply wrong. Duplessis style politics has no place in this century.

It is kind of like saying, "We just caught these bank robbers red handed with $3,000,000 of the loot still in their pockets but, you know, that isn't nearly as bad as that $4,000,000 robbery those other guys pulled off a few years ago. Boys will be boys."

I'm sorry but it isn't ok. Harper should go on national television and apologize to the nation. Canadian's should be letting him know that this type of behaviour is unacceptable. Most off all, Canadians should be trying to extend their capacity to remember so that it extends at least as far as the next election,