Why?

How well do you sleep at night Tom?

My Member of Parliament Tom Lukiwski, has once again let his constituents down. Yesterday all except for seven members of the Harper Conservative Government,  Tom included, voted to defeat private member's bill C-398.

The only Saskatchewan MP who votes "yes" was Maurice Vellacott.

The bill, brought to the House by New Democrat Helene Laverdiere who said in part as she introduced her bill,  "Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce my bill entitled An Act to amend the Patent Act.

This bill will modify the provisions of the current access to medicines regime, which allows Canada to export generic versions of drugs for HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other illnesses to developing countries, and it will make the regime easier to use.

This will enable Canadian manufacturers to send potentially life-saving medicines to those who desperately need them.

This bill is an improved version of Bill C-393, which the House passed by a comfortable margin last March but which, unfortunately, died on the order paper in the Senate.

When drafting this bill, I worked closely with the Grandmothers Advocacy Network and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network"

The bill was championed by the Grandmothers Advocacy Network and thousands of Canadians signed petitions in support of this bill.

When the original bill passed the big drug manufacturers opposed it. This time around withdrew any opposition to the bill being passed.

In advance of the vote former Member of Parliament Gerald Caplin said “If you had the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa and other poor countries, what would you do? A complete no-brainer, right? Why in the world is it even a question?” 

Why indeed. 

Why did the Conservatives change their minds and defeat this bill?

Why did the Harper Government mount a campaign of misinformation in a push to assure the bill was defeated?

Why won't any predominant cabinet ministers comment on the decision to defeat the bill?

Disappointment in the Harper Government was expressed widely by those working on the front lines internationally was widespread.

UNICEF for example released a statement saying in part "We are highly disappointed with the result of tonight's vote. This Bill would have helped get life-saving medicine to the world's most vulnerable children without any additional costs to the government or Canadians. This is a missed opportunity and it is children who will suffer most," says UNICEF Canada's President and CEO David Morley.

Currently only 42 per cent of the estimated 1.5 million infants born worldwide to mothers with HIV receive the antiretroviral (ARV) treatments needed to prevent transmission of the disease.

If passed, Bill C-398 would have strengthened Canada's position as a true global leader on newborn, child and maternal health. The Bill proposed critical amendments to CAMR removing the unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that have made the process impossible to use.

How many children will die before a bill like this is finally passed?

Stephen Harper should be ashamed

Why Didn't They Bother to Report this in October?

I am sometimes amazed at the state of journalism in this country.

Yesterday we were treated to an "economic update" from the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty  It was big news on the CBC yesterday and in this mornings papers. The deficit is up. The Globe & Mail shouts "Surprise $7- Billion Deficit Surge" on the top of the front page. The Regina Leader Post puts a bigger headline on the front page of the business section.

Holy smoke. it all seems to say. "Boy, were we taken by surprise."

Sure Jim, Sure

If you scroll down this blog, to a posting about a month ago, there it is. At that point it had surges to over $6-billion and climbing.

The spin now put on the story is that commodity prices are to blame. No mention of those corporate tax cuts.

The Globe & Mail quotes one unnamed bank economist as saying the government's financial credibility could now be in jeopardy.

Only now? These guys' credibility period, is  already shot.  Jim Flaherty is one of the old Mike Harris mafia and the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper already is the least trusted leader in the Western Hemisphere.

Flaherty says   "You can be assured, we have contingency plans."

Sure Jim, sure.

What about an Order of Canada

Another story that grabbed my attention because of the outrage expressed by the media. Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, generously gave Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals to two anti-abortion activists who have been jailed repeatedly.

One of the 30 medals Vellacott was allotted to give away as a Conservative backbencher, one went to someone called Mary Wagner, whose actions at abortion clinics have landed her behind bars time and time again. He also gave one to Linda Gibbons,who is currently in jail in Toronto awaiting trial after she attempted to force her way into a Toronto clinic’s private treatment area.

Should we be giving these things to criminals? Do we care? What if the shoe was on the other foot?

Although I have never been convicted of a crime I have had my share of confrontations with police and have been arrested, and jailed as a result of my actions on picket lines. Should I now be disqualified?

Thinking of the issue in that light I am not so sure. I have been an activist too.

* Just a quick note to my MP Tom Lukiwski: I am still waiting for my medal in recognition of a lifetime working in the trenches fighting for the rights of working peoples.
OK Tom,  you were probably right in not offering me that one. A medal from the Queen wouldn't really be appropriate for me but, all things considered, I would accept an Order of Canada.
And after all if Conrad Black still has his and...never mind, I feel a rant coming on. I should just quit.

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.

Lisa Raitt Has to Go

Time to Go, Lisa

Ok, lets get the legal stuff on the table off the top. The Canada Labour Code is a dense set of regulations that sets out the rules of conduct for Federally regulated employees and employers. I say dense because it comes in five parts and unless you have studied the damn thing, good luck working your way through it.

In recent days we have seen Canada’s Labour Minister, Lisa Raitt quoting from the Code in her justification for blocking Air Canada from locking out the pilots and for the Machinists from going on strike.

The Labour Code says, Division V 87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

The “immediate and serious danger” the Labour Minister says she was trying to prevent was a disruption of airline service during what is spring break in some parts of Canada, particularly in Ontario.

She referred the issue to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and in doing so, interrupted the initiate any work stoppage until the CIRB is able to rule whether or not, a work stoppage would contravene that part of the regulations.

From my perspective, the only honourable thing the members of the CIRB could have done then, was to submit their resignations enmasse. I worked within the Labour community for over 30 years and I have had my share of arguments with decisions taken by Ministers of Labour Federal and Provincial, but I have never in my life, seen such total disregard for process.

The stall tactic used by Raitt allowed her the time to get back to work legislation into the house. Bill C-33 was rammed through after a late-night session in the House of Commons. It was passed at 1:30 a.m. Wednesday morning with MP’s voting 155 in favour to 124 against.

The bill which now just needs the approval of the Conservative dominated Senate will force the parties to binding arbitration. The arbitrator will be picked by the government. Workers should not hold out much hope for a fair settlement.

We have come a very long way from the time when Brice Mackasey is reported to have advised a senior civil servant that he should think of the position as the Minister for Labour since there are plenty of other departments to look out the other interests.

Raitt should know better but, she is has been a controversial figure in much of her working life, unafraid to support positions unpopular to all but hard line Conservatives.

The Harper Government is trying to send Labour a strong message through Raitt. She has shown in her response to disputes at Canada Post and Air Canada the when it comes to Labour Relations, they will stand up for business every time no matter what laws get trampled in the process.

Organized labour in Canada has a choice. They can stand by and watch workers get steam rolled by Harper or, they can get up off their collective asses and take this government on. It has been a long time since a Canadian Labour Leader went to jail for standing up for what was right. Perhaps it is time a few of them put their jobs on the line.

I Have Been on the CIA Website

I have been on the CIA website the last couple of days. No, it’s not what you think. The CIA, nosey buggers that they are, have an amazing amount of information about countries around the world, including Canada. They have information about Canada, our own government isn’t all that open with.

I went onto the site because I got thinking about oil. All this talk about the Keystone pipeline and the newer Northern Gateway proposal, which would export oil to Asian markets through Kitimat. Our Prime Minister says we need these markets. The growth of our economy depends on it. We have to sell our oil.

Harper wants Keystone big time. He and the oil companies have been talking about how the pipeline is win-win for the USA and Canada. This pipeline will create jobs in Texas he says. Why do these guys keep putting roadblocks in our way?

I got thinking about pipelines and about imports and exports and thanks to the CIA I have a better idea of the lay of the land.

The amounts are up and down but on average, Canada exports about 2,000,000 barrels of oil and oil products a day, mainly to the USA. By coincidence, Canada also imports about 2,000,000 barrels a day of oil and oil products a day from the Middle East, the North Sea and South America.

So, how about this idea Stephen Harper? If, instead of concentrating on building a new pipeline to Texas and creating a raft of new jobs there, why not forget about any expansion of the market, build the pipeline around the Great Lakes to Eastern Canada. Create the jobs in Canada and significantly reduce our oil imports or eliminate them altogether.

Once we start shipping our own oil to Eastern Canada the existing level of export to the USA can be sent south via the existing pipeline network.

Just saying Stevie, it is time to think outside the box.

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.

I have a Compromise

Canada's Favorite Rodent

Senator Nicole Eaton, a Harper appointed Conservative senator, is urging Canada to dump the beaver in favour of the polar bear as an official emblem of Canada.

Eaton, says the beaver is yesterday’s animal announcing that it is time to replace the a “19th-century has-been for a 21st-century hero. The polar bear,” she says, “with its strength, courage, resourcefulness, and dignity is perfect for the part.” She calls Canada iconic beaver “ the dentally defective rat” and suggests that it is a “nuisance that wreaks havoc on farmlands, roads, lakes, streams and tree plantations,”

I say, “Not so fast.” I like the beaver and even though I have spent more than one Canada Day trying to dismantle a beaver dam which often caused our Lake to rise and partially flood our dock, I prefer that to having a hungry, 600 kilogram bear lurking about the woods and around our cabin, gobbling up anyone who might linger on their way to the outhouse.

As a compromise, I suggest keeping the beaver and scrapping the senate.

Here we go Again

Sometime I wonder who starts these fights. No matter what, PostMedia seems determined to put themselves right into the middle of it. No doubt, they figure, a good dust up sells newspapers.

A deer rifle?

Now the Stephen Harpers, the Maurice Vellacotts and the Tom Lukiwskis of the world have pretty much won the ban the gun registry fight, the gun nuts have moved on to the next battle, stopping any attempt to restrict semi automatic weapons. Despite the fact that Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews tells them not to worry. Just wait. The campaign is just getting started.

Just in case a stranger comes to your door?

We have moved from “farmers need to protect their grain from deer, their cattle from gophers and their grandchildren from marauding packs of coyotes” to “our fine fighting men and women back from war torn Afghanistan need to keep their skill fine tuned.”

For shooting gophers?

You might ask, who can we thank for all this fine mess? If you asked me, I'd say it sits firmly in Stephen Harper's lap. I don't know how the nerdy economist got so pulled in by the gun nuts of the world but he did. 

And of course, one for the ladies

If you want to figure out who loves these weapons, spend a little time on some of the Canadian gun forums on-line. So, to be frank, I wouldn't trust most of those guys with a butter knife. It doesn't make me feel more secure knowing that all the guns on this page are available from your friendly Canadian gun dealers, down the block.While little Stevie cozies up, I get more and more nervous.

Should we be Worried?

I often find it curious, the way issues seem to bounce off each other.

This morning's Globe and Mail has a page three story about Canada's Privacy Commissioner and her fight against some of the Internet's giants and the lack of respect given to privacy on the web.

It talked about her fight with Google and Facebook and the on-line dating site eHarmony as well as her discovery that Staples had been less that diligent about purging personal information from returned computer hard drives offered for re-sale.

Jennifer Staddart is a tough cookie determined to make sure your privacy is respected on the Internet.

It wasn't more than 10 minutes after reading the story that I checked my e-mail and found a link to an Open Media on-line petition warning me about what may be the greatest threat to our privacy. The Harper Government's proposed legislation which would allow the authorities to mine our computers for data without having to go through the bother of obtaining a warrant.

They tell us:

The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant.

This bizarre legislation will create Internet surveillance that is:

Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification.

Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime.

Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.

The legislation, which in true Harper style is bundled with other "tough on crime" bills is described by the conservatives as one which will help track down "perverts and pedophiles." What could be wrong with that after all?

So is all this really a problem, or is Open Media over reacting? Internet expert and commentator Michael Giest thinks it is. He says:

There are several concerns with the Conservatives lawful access plans. First, it bears noting that these bills have never received extensive debate on the floor of the House of Commons and never been the subject of committee hearings. Police officers may support the legislation, but there has never been an opportunity to question them on the need for such legislation or on their ability to use lawful access powers if the bills become law. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners have expressed deep concerns about these bills, yet they have never had the opportunity to air those concerns before committee. Internet service providers, who face millions in additional costs - presumably passed along to consumers - have never appeared before committee. By making a commitment to passing lawful access within 100 days, the Conservatives are undertaking to pass legislation with enormous implications for the Internet that has never received parliamentary scrutiny and will receive limited attention.

Even that right wing rag Macleans Magazine is concerned.

Should we worry? I think so. All of us should be concerned but perhaps especially, guys like me, who spend the first few morning hours after coffee trying to hold the government's feet to the fire should take note. 

These guys are mean spirited and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and for our pudgy Prime Minister, that isn't too far.

Can it Get More Mean Spirited Than That?

First the Harper Government signaled that they would bring in back to work legislation, so they could get the mail moving, after Canada Post locked out the postal workers. That, in and of itself was pretty outrageous, considering that the Government could simply tell the crown corporation to lift the lock out if they were concerned about mail service. Hell, I was getting regular mail delivery before the lock out. 

But no, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, who claims to have a familial connection to labour - they must be estranged - did a quick jig around that issue and said the parties should get back to the table and that they were just trying to help.

So,  the legislation hit the table this week. In it, she wants to force the parties into a final offer selection process which is at least more fair than having an arbitrator decide the outstanding issues.

What did shock most fair minded Canadians however was the way the government bill dealt with the wage issue. The proposed back-to-work legislation sets out a wage settlement that is actually lower than Canada Post’s last offer.

Raitt's legislation calls for a wage settlement of 1.75 per cent in the first year, 1.5 per cent in the second year, and 2 per cent each in the final two years.

At the bargaining table, Canada Post has offered 1.9 per cent in each of the first three years, followed by 2 per cent in the final year.

The Canada Post employees on average will lose over $800.00 just because they exercised their legal right to, try to bring pressure on their employer, through a series of rotating strikes. 

The message is very clear. Don't mess with the the Harper Government or, you will pay. 

Can it get more mean spirited that that? I am afraid it can.

Deepak Who?

In a move that I thought bordered on an unfair labour practice Deepak Chopra, CEO of Canada Post, released a video message to unionized workers last week in which he said among other things that the union's demands would financially harm the Crown corporation.

I wondered who is this Deepak Chopra? So I Googled him. This what I found:

Deepak Chopra is a world-renowned authority in the field of mind-body healing, a best-selling author, and the founder of the Chopra Center for Wellbeing.

Heralded by Time Magazine as the "poet-prophet of alternative medicine," he is ,,,a global force in the field of human empowerment, Dr. Chopra is the prolific author of more than fifty-five books, including fourteen bestsellers on mind-body health, quantum mechanics, spirituality, and peace. Dr. Chopra's books have been published in more than eighty-five languages

Oops, wrong Deepak.

The Canada Post head, appointed in January was touted to have wide experience and knowledge by Chuck Strahl, who was then Harper’s Transport Minister. At Chopra's appointment Strahl said "His extensive experience in dealing with government and postal officials around the world, as well as his vast knowledge of the regulatory bodies governing the mailing industry, will definitely be a strong asset to the corporation,"

I’m not sure what he knows about the mail but he how Conservative Governments work. He locked out the union workers, shut down the mail service and gave the Blue Meanies’ Lisa Raitt an excuse to introduce back to work legislation which she is expected to do later today.

A Few Thoughts About Canada's Military Engagements

Royal Poobagh Muammar Gaddafi

The transition from peacekeeper to baby killer has taken us a while but, I think we have probably arrived.

For years we told ourselves that we, unlike some other nations, resisted getting our armed forces into messy wars. We preferred “police actions” and other peacekeeping roles.

Then some of our reputation got more than a little tarnished in Somalia and then Rwanda didn’t go well. Some of our military brass started telling Canadians we were kidding ourselves if we didn’t think our overseas military roles were a real shooting wars.

We managed to stay the hell out of Iraq thanks to Jean Chretian’s stubbornness but then, along came Afghanistan and in we jumped.

The government liked to characterize our involvement as being about building roads and getting girls into schools, but in the process, we managed to lose 156 mostly young men and women soldiers, one diplomat, two aid workers and one journalist.

Although our role in Afghanistan has shifted but our troops are still in harm’s way which seems quite absurd considering President Hamid Karzai’s recent statement that coalition forces remain in the country “for their own purposes, for their own goals and they are using our soil for that.” He probably isn't so wrong so what the hell are we doing there?

We have a Defence Minister who loves to play dress-up, American style, in his military outfits and a Prime Minister who too, loves to be photographed in a helmet and flak jacket, no matter how nerdy it makes him look.

We have moved from a government reluctantly bowing to international pressure to get involved to one eager to step to the front of the line.

Muammar Gaddafi, well known as when one of the world’s most notorious dictators, had been propped up by Western business, including one of our most high profile of Canadian companies, Suncor (Petro-Canada) worked in Libya for years and hardly for altruistic reasons. There was big money to be made. No one in Ottawa seemed to mind a bit.

When things began to go even more sideways that usual in the Arab world and Gaddafi resisted reform with bullets,  Canada was one of the first in line, sending a Naval vessel soon followed by fighter jets.

I never quite understood how we made the switch do quickly but I am willing to bet that Harper saw this as a quick and dirty little engagement which would see the dictator move off into exile somewhere a few short weeks after it started. I think he figured it would look good in his ratings at home. He was probably right on that count.

However, politicians never seem to learn that often these little wars can  take a bad turn when you least expect. So here we are, a few months in and Gaddafi or as he likes to be called, “The Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” is still in Tripoli, as large as life.

Canada’s engagement in Libya which was, and still officially is, to protect civilians – wink wink, nod nod – has been extended by an almost unanimous vote in the House of Commons. Despite the politician’s support for Canada’s continued role a Globe & Mail poll suggested that 71% of Canadians feel that our mission should not be extended there.

NATO forces have now bombed rebel (the official good guys) at least three times by mistake and late last week bombed an apartment complex in Tripoli killing nine people including two children.

NATO won’t say what country’s aircraft were involved in the raid which killed the civilians, with good reason. Knowing that your country’s aircraft were involved in that misdirected bombing never would play well at home and NATO countries desperately need support from their citizenry.

When a country gets involved in regime change like it or not they are involved in putting together the government which replaces the one you helped depose, no matter what rag tag group step up to the plate. I don’t think Harper thought much about it but like that retail saying goes, “You break it. It’s yours.”

So, we are in the game, won’t get out soon. Like it or not, Canada will be involved with Libya for a good long time.

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.

I'll Always Have Time for Those Who Protest

I was surprised by some of the reaction to Brigitte DePape brief protest in the Senate chamber last week. Not by the overwhelming on-line support, but by some of the politicians’ responses.

She has become a folk hero in cyberspace but, even politicians who we might expect to be a bit more tolerant of her actions pretty much trashed her protest.

It was expected that the Jason Kenny’s of the world would wade, outraged but I was a bit disappointed when Jack Layton gave us all a little lecture saying “We have been pushing for decorum in the House of Commons. You don’t have decorum if people are standing up holding up signs in the middle of debates and solemn moment. We encourage protests; it is part of a great long tradition of democracy. But it should be happening at the proper place and at the proper time.”

I have heard that kind of response from the “left” before. There is seldom is a "proper place and proper time" if it is inconvenient. Protest is great but just don’t do anything that might draw attention away from Jack.

Implying DePape used the wrong venue to stage her protest, even Elizabeth May waded in saying “Essentially, in theory, we’re in the presence of Her Majesty, that is the sovereign, That isn’t Stephen Harper’s room. That’s somebody else’s room.”

Oh Pleeese. In the presence of her Majesty?

It took 20 seconds out of Harper’s big day. No one was hurt. It wasn’t even noisy. Stephen Harper looked pissed off. So what?

She lost her job as a page but, I can’t imagine that paid very well anyway, knowing how the government is usually eager to exploit our youth. At least now she has a few better opportunities to choose from.

American documentary film maker Michel Moore offered her a job and issued a statement saying “For a young person to do that and to do it peacefully, and quietly and with grace, I thought it was a very powerful moment. Every now and then there is an iconic moment where an individual takes action, and it inspires others to think about, you know, what else we would be doing.”

The Public Service Alliance stepped up and said they would hire her if she wanted to work for the union, and the Council of Canadians offered her a job in their organization. Not bad for someone who just graduated.

I agree with DePape when she says, “Contrary to Harper’s rhetoric, Conservative values are not in fact Canadian values. How could they be when three out of four eligible voters didn’t even give their support to the Conservatives?”

Is a Harper Majority fair? Not in your life.

Is it legitimate? You bet.

The Blue Meanies did manage to gain a majority with less that 40% of Canadians supporting them but, they did it using the rules in place. Our first-past-the-post electoral system isn't fair but, Harper didn’t do anything the Liberals haven’t done before him.

And, we let them do it. 

It takes guts to stand up and do what that young woman did. She gets my vote, hands down.

Time to Bring in Electoral Reform

Hi there from the Speaker's chair

As one of the sixty percenters, those people who didn’t vote for the blue meanies, I couldn’t help to notice that while the big parties have been quick to defend our undemocratic first past the post electoral system when it comes to General Elections, they recognize how flawed the system is when the time comes to elect the Speaker of the House.

It took six ballots before Andrew Scheer got the keys to that lovely old residence in the Gatineau’s. If the House of Commons used the system, which they think is good enough for the rest of us; the Speaker would most likely be a New Democrat.

It is well past time for this country to talk about serious electoral reform and to join the majority of world democracies in embracing proportional representation.

Corporate Canada Doesn't Have a Vote

I read in the paper this morning that corporate Canada is concerned about the NDP surge and particularly the possibility of  Jack Layton becoming Prime Minister. The fact that there is much hand wringing in corporate  board rooms should come at little surprise. I would imagine any big corporation facing tax cuts implemented by the Harper crowd would worry about extra taxes and if Jack gets in power they will have to re-think their lobbying strategy on Parliament Hill. Doors won't be propped open in anticipation of their arrival any longer.

Hold on to your hats over the next few days. Corporate spokespeople will be speculating that the NDP surge will lower the Canadian dollar, create financial instability and threaten you with higher mortgages. The thing to remember that these bright lights in the economic brain trust are the same bunch whose incompetence brought us the recent economic collapse.

The real question the media should be asking is "Who cares what corporate Canada thinks?"

The best thing corporate Canada can do is butt out. Wake up boys and girls of the fourth estate, corporate Canada doesn't have a vote and seldom look out for any interests other than their own..

Truth in Advertising

I’ll be honest. I don’t watch a great deal of television. In fact I hardly turn the set on and the two hours I sat watching the Leaders’ Debate broke my evening watching record, for the year. What I do see on television is generally on those distracting screens which seem to predominate most bars these days. 

 
Last night after a film and poetry event in Regina, a few of us including the poets, went across the street for a beer. What drew my attention away from the conversation were the bright red and blue Conservative commercials attacking the Liberal platform and their leader, Michael Ignatieff. I want to make this clear. I am not a Liberal ( Liberal leaning readers of this blog probably just breathed a sign of relief) Even without the sound these ads were offensive.  

Now I do know that as hard as it seems for some of us to believe it, we do have a Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and I thought “Surely this must be over the line” So I looked. 

Under the heading Truth. Fairness. Accuracy advertizing standards says the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is the criteria for acceptable standards for advertizing in Canada.

They apparently set the criteria for truthfulness, accuracy and fairness. Things were looking up. Perhaps I'd file a complaint.

Now I used to think that truth was truth – end of story, but I have come to understand that when it comes to telling stories, as the country and western song says “There are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the cold hard truth.”  Let me tell you. In political advertising, the cold, hard truth is hard to find.

Never the less I thought it might be a good time to bring, at least a few of the 14 clauses in the code to Stephen Harper’s attention because it seemed to me that the ads I saw broke quite a few of the rules.

Clause #1 under the heading Accuracy and Clarity says:

(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.

(b) Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is deceptive.

(c) All pertinent details of an advertised offer must be clearly and understandably stated.

(d) Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly visible and/or audible.

(e) Both in principle and practice, all advertising claims and representations must be supportable. If the support on which an advertised claim or representation depends is test or survey data, such data must be reasonably competent and reliable, reflecting accepted principles of research design and execution that characterize the current state of the art. At the same time, however, such research should be economically and technically feasible, with due recognition of the various costs of doing business.

(f) The entity that is the advertiser in an advocacy advertisement must be clearly identified as the advertiser in either or both the audio or video portion of the advocacy advertisement.

Then clause #6, under Comparative Advertising it suggests:

Advertisements must not, unfairly, discredit, disparage or attack other products, services, advertisements or companies, or exaggerate the nature or importance of competitive differences.

And finally under #14, Superstitions and Fears:

Advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.

You have seen these ads. What do you think?

So would or could the Advertizing Standards step in? 

Looking a little deeper you'll find that bottom line is that the code is not the law, as we might expect. Like so much Tory bafflegab the code is touted as “...the cornerstone of advertising self-regulation in Canada.”

Self regulation is no regulation. 

That is when I gave up.

Democracy is in Trouble

Get out and vote.

 One Election after another the number of Canadians who exercise their right to vote drops further and further. Not that you can blame them but, people it seems are becoming more and more disengaged from the process, fed up with the feeling that their vote doesn’t count.

Interestingly what seems to be missing from the discussion about why people don’t vote is input from the politicians. During the Leadership debate, Jack Layton was the only participant to even mention proportional representation; even then it was just for one fleeting moment. For the other three, it was as if Jack never even said the words.

During an election campaign you might think the leaders of the political parties would be crying from the roof tops “Vote. Vote. Vote”

Or, at the very least you would think, considering Canada’s dismal participation rate, Elections Canada should be engaged in a significant campaign to get people out to the polls.

The silence is deafening.

I don’t think Stephen Harper actually wants new voters added to the mix. He is hoping his tired old demographic gets off their couches and votes but, the hell with everyone else. Every party is trying to poach a few votes here and a few votes there. Harper wants the “ethnic vote”, The Liberals want the NDP vote. The NDP want the Liberals, and the Greens want a bit from everyone.

A majority of Canadians don’t want the Harper Conservatives but we might get stuck with him again. That government, despite Harper tells you, never represented a majority of Canadians and never will. Let’s be honest here. Neither will the Liberals.

When voters believe their votes won’t make any difference, or don't even count, they have little reason to bother. In my riding the Conservative candidate did get a majority in the last election, just over 50%. So what about the rest of us, the 48% that didn't want Tom Lukiwski? Take it from me, we have no representation in Ottawa. Our MP is invisible to us.That scenario is repeated all across the country. It doesn't make sense.

There is some hope however.

Stephen Harper tells us, again and again, that Canadians didn’t want this election. I think he is wrong. A record number of Canadians turned on their television sets to catch the leaders’ debate. In fact, 10,6000,000 Canadians tuned in to watch, perhaps not for the whole debate but at least for some of it. That is not bad for a debate that started before most people could make it home from work if they lived further from Ottawa than Western Ontario. Thousands of others watched in on line.

The media tells us that people are disengaged but, every single person I talk to is following the campaigns. The blogosphere, Face book, Twitter and YouTube have almost been taken over by the election. I am over whelmed by the amount of material being shared on line – opinions, rants, songs, photos, videos and news links.

I feel a shift. I no longer think a Harper majority is possible. He may hang on to a minority by the skin of his teeth, but that won’t last all that long. The opposition have to decide. Either sell out their principles and support Harper or for some sort of power sharing new government. For me, that would be an easy decision to make.

If nothing else I think the last few years of witnessing a broken parliamentary democracy have started to arouse the sleeping giant. Canadians are fed up. I believe that no matter if politicians like it or not, we will see some form of, much needed, electoral reform in this country.

So stand up, speak out and fight for change. Oh yeah, don't forget to vote