Don't Worry, Be Happy

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm back.

Canada has the strongest banking system in the world right now, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. We should be happy about it.

Thank goodness. All my friends who work in the banking industry are relieved they aren't facing the reality others (such as my friend who worked for Lehman has been wrestling with for six months) are facing. Canada may be in a better position than some, but thousands of people are losing their jobs, including members of that "mobile" workforce reliant on high oil prices fuelling oil sands development.

But all banking jokes aside, I suggest you watch the video of Mr. Harper reading the first real speech he's made about the recession. He wrote it himself. His big point? Cut the red tape, so infrastructure projects can move forward quickly.

According to Harper, there are two kinds of red tape. The first involves all the environmental impact assessments that must take place before a new infrastructure project is approved. The second is a cheeky reference to the Liberal dominated Senate debating his proposed economic stimulus package.

The nerve! The gall! How dare the Senators actually wake up and debate an incredibly important issue instead of passing it quickly!

The nerve, indeed. Almost as cheeky as the Conservatives tacking such issues as seniors and First Nation housing, pay equity, and changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to an economic stimulus package.

Does an economic stimulus package need to be passed quickly? Yes, if you think one is needed at all. But blaming the slowness on the Liberals and the Senators is not going to wash.

Mr. Harper had a chance to propose a stimulus package before Christmas, but chose to wait for Mr. Obama's package first. Smart move, in my opinion. Anything the Americans do to prop up their economy will have a trickle down effect to Canada. Why should we spend our own dwindling pile of cash when we can piggyback?

He's taken his time, developed a comprehensive package. Or so he says. That's all well and good. Now he wants it implemented as soon as possible.

The problem with C-10 isn't that the economic stimulus package. It's all the other stuff tacked on that the Conservatives want pushed though with little or no debate.

I'm not falling for it. Neither are small businesses (who are affected by competition proposals in C-10), paddlers and recreational waterway users (who may lose waterway access and have waterways altered by fast tracked infrastructure projects), women working in the public sector (who will lose the ability to file complaints for pay equity), provincial governments affected by transfer payment changes (FYI, Quebec will receive more in transfer payments than all other provinces combined), First Nations people off-reserve (as the bill only addresses on-reserve needs), low-income and senior housing needs, students requiring financial assistance (don't worry, Bill C-10 says you don't have to pay back your loan if you're dead), and more.

I got tired of reading the bill, so I'll stop there. But that should also make it obvious that this bill has too much in it for a cursory approval trip.

So send it back, Senators, and demand the stimulus package be separate from all these other changes.

If you don't like it, Mr. Harper, then I suggest it's about time you did something about Senate reform other than appoint senators.

Abby's weather report on the Canadian political storm

I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for my next post about the Canadian constitutional conundrum, so I thought I'd at least get a post out before the PM and the GG get jiggy with it. (This new job is taking huge chunks of time out of my aimless internet surfing and blog posting.) Since my skewed, totally pointless opinions seem to amuse you, here's how I see recent events:

The original Conservative motion

The original so-called economic update didn't really update the economic situation or the current economic climate at all. Why? Because Harper wants to wait until our big, friendly, newly led neighbours to the south sort out what the heck they are going to do about their own economy.

Makes sense, right? Why should we spend money to stimulate our economy when it is totally reliant on the US? I thought it was a good idea for the government to keep my tax money in its pocket instead of handing it out to doomed manufacturers. It's called capitalism. What goes up can come down with a really big bang.

That's fine. What really stunk about the motion was the bald political manoeuvring that was tacked on to pigeonhole the opposition parties, civil servants, and women in the workforce.

Most people now know that the Conservatives were going to cancel party subsidy funding to save the government money. Thirty million? That's a drop in the bucket. It's less than Harper's security staff budget, in fact. Peanuts. However, it would cripple the opposition and allow them to possibly gain a majority in the next election.

Sneaky enough, but the sneaky part of me admires a good political handcuffing. The opposition wouldn't dare force another election, right? So they have to say yes.

The Straw that Seized the Zamboni

But the Conservatives tipped their hand. They decided to tie a little more pesky policy to the motion white they were at it. What did that include? Taking away civil servants' rights to strike for 3 years, and a woman's right to sue for pay equity.

That's right. We females don't need the right to demand fair and equal pay. We should be barefoot, in the kitchen, looking after our children. After all, it's not like the measly childcare subsidy the Conservatives hand out would actually pay for childcare and allow us to work anyway. So much for the word "progressive".

Infringing on worker's rights and women's rights is a sure fire way to rile up the NDP and the Bloc. Rile them up so much that they'd consider having a sleepover with the Liberals. They've all decided they hate the Conservatives more than they hate each other. Isn't that sweet?

Clearing up the air

I don' t particularly care for the Liberals, and I don't think Dion would make an effective leader, particularly in this situation.

Having said that, Stephen Harper continues to anger me with his patriotic bullshit attacks so much that I'd just like to point out the following:

1. Harper repeatedly states that the public hasn't voted for Dion as PM. They never voted for Harper, either. WE DO NOT ELECT A PRIME MINISTER. Ask Kim Campbell about that. You don't even need to be a member of the House to be PM.

2. Harper also says that his party was elected to govern. It wasn't. It is a minority. This coalition could have been formed and given power immediately after the election, if the Governor General approved.

3. The attacks for working with separatists are hypocritical. The Alliance and the Conservatives have both worked with the Bloc in the past to bring down the Liberals. It's called politics. Someone has to work with someone else, or minorities don't work. Obviously.

4. The opposition parties were elected to represent the people in the same way the conservatives were. Saying they weren't chosen to govern isn't correct; they were voted to govern, but no single party collected enough seats to form a majority.

So that's my two cents on all of that.

Now, it's very likely that the GG will either put the brakes on all this until January or call an election. I don't want to see another election. I dislike hugely Harper's style of governing, his secrecy, and his dictator-like control of his party.

Most importantly, I don't want to see a coalition take power which is, essentially, controlled by the Bloc.

Gilles Duceppe is an intelligent, forceful man. The NDP think they are gaining power through cabinet posts and such, but the real power lies in the ability to push a bill through the House, and that rests entirely on the Bloc.

Allowing the coalition to come to power means that, yes, the three parties that supported Kyoto and other environmental measures will be able to push through important legislation. But it also means that control of the House will lie entirely with a regional party with very specific interests.

Do you think Duceppe is going to be concerned about BC? About Newfoundland and its equalization disputes? (We all know how Quebec loves Newfie natural resources.) No.

I don't particularly care that they're separatists. I care that they don't have the country's best interests at heart.

So that's where I stand on this whole issue. Take from it what you will.

The Left calls Harper's bluff

On Thursday, I was tempted to post a blog about Harper's economic update, which included the elimination of party funding. There was so much fodder for the cannon--the sneaky backhandness brilliance of it (vote against it, and it looks like you don't support the economy, vote for it and you lose most of your political funding) and how it was inevitable.

Why? Because I didn't dream the Liberals and NDP would stop shouting at each other long enough to join forces and do what they're really in Parliament to do--oppose and criticize the ruling party.

The reason I didn't write my post on a coalition was because I didn't see it actually happening. Jack Layton is too full of himself, Stephane Dion doesn't even have the support of his own party, and making concessions to the Bloc just doesn't sit well outside of Quebec. I thought Harper was fairly safe with this move.

We all underestimated how much that loonie and change per vote means to politicians. It was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Oh, they may say it's about the economy or the civil servants' right to strike, but we know the truth.

The best part of it all is they don't have enough seats without the Bloc, and they don't have anyone to be Prime Minister. The Liberals have clearly had enough of Dion. So how would this crazy common-law partnership work?

Okay, I lied. The best part of all this is that it wasn't Dion and Layton who managed to pull the talks together, it was Chretien and Broadbent. It's like Daddy suddenly decided the kids had had long enough to get their shit together and stepped in to get some real work done.

I'll be watching next week to see what happens!

Financial Meltdown=Conservative Majority?

Yesterday was another Black Monday on the world's financial scene. Unless you've been under a rock, you may have noticed that Bush's proposed Wall Street bailout plan was narrowly voted down by Congress.

Perhaps, after a glance at their stock portfolios this morning, dissenting members may change their vote. While protesting against the bailout of Wall Street, one of the major complaints was the use of taxpayer's money to finance the mistakes of the rich and ridiculous.

Today it is evident that yes, while the money was going to the financial sector, it very much goes directly towards helping everyday people in their lives. How?

By providing life insurance, mortgages, and secure pension plans. How many retirees living on their investments are now in serious financial difficulty? How many people, having paid into RRSPs and company pension plans for a lifetime, are now left with nothing?

Canadians aren't exempt. No one is. The Americans spread their greedy fingers all over the world, and we are all going to suffer the consequences.

Stephen Harper has been saying that the Canadian economy is strong. He's made the point repeatedly that we are not part of the US. However, our economy is heavily dependent on the exports of natural resources to the States; if they aren't buying, we're in trouble too.

This was evident in the TSX nosedive yesterday. America's migraine is our headache as well.

Now this election should get interesting. The televised leaders' debates are this week, and it's obvious what the hot issue will be. Basically, the NDP, Liberals and Greens have over-promised themselves and will have to seriously reconsider its promises to the public. Since the Conservatives haven't actually released a platform or made any big spending promises, Harper can project himself as the safe choice.

You know, it might just work. If only Canadians would actually watch the debates and take interest in other issues.

Harper is right on many fronts, and not on others. While making good on many of their policies, healthcare has been a major failing. They not only failed to keep their promises from the last election, they directly went against many of them. But that's a whole other post.

Meanwhile, please watch the debate. It should be highly entertaining, and your interest will actually make a difference in this election.

Off with their tongue: Why Conservative cabinet ministers aren't allowed to speak for themselves

Gerry Ritz is the current Minister of Agriculture in a Conservative minority government.

Did you know his name? I'm not surprised if you haven't. The first time he made a splash in the press was during the current listeriosis controversy. Stephen Harper keeps a very tight rein on his cabinet, and no one speaks to the press without the approval of his office.

Now I thought this was a silly way to function, a top-down control paranoia that creates an aura of secrecy and implied incompetence.

Apparently the prime minister has good reasons to keep a muzzle on his minions. Gerry Ritz made headlines yesterday for his ill-timed and malicious listeriosis jokes. He's since apologized for joshing of his hopes that the first PEI listeriosis victim was Liberal MP Wayne Easter.

Leaving classified documents in the open, joking about a nationwide bacteria outbreak, dismissing the criticism of a fallen soldier's father as just another Liberal supporter, pooping puffins--the gaffs are starting to add up.

And we've got weeks to go yet.

Clarity and Transparency for...?

Well folks, it's not even nine thirty in the morning, and I've already had my exercise for the day. Exercise in futility, that is.

After listening to the local CBC morning host speak to various campaign organizers this morning, I decided that most Canadians don't have two sweet clues about individual party policy. My brilliant idea was to provide a simple breakdown of each party's particular policy on key issues, with a new post each day on a new issue.

Fairly simple, right? That's what I thought. Zip onto each party website, download and read their party policies, and sum it up without all the political gobblygook so the four people who read my blog can make an informed choice. That way, we should end up with four Canadians who at least know why they voted in the way they did.

The first website I searched was the Green Party of Canada, mainly because I was rather disgusted by the representative who had just spoken on the radio. The Greens have a link from their main page directly to a policy page. From there, they have further divided their policy documents into key issues, which can be viewed online or downloaded for convenience. Simple. Effective. This is what they stand for, this is what they want to do.

Next, I searched the Conservatives. Crafty as they are, the top Google search brings up the French version of their site, not English (hmm, wonder where they are campaigning?) and the alternate language button was hard to discern, but I found it. After reading about how cool Stephen Harper is, all the horrible things the Liberals did in the past fifteen years, how awkward Stephane Dion is (they have cartoon like pictures of him along the bottom, quite amusing), how incompetent the NDP are, and how the Bloc are destroying the country, I was still no closer to finding any policy documents. I gave myself a five minute search limit and hadn't found anything by the end of my time. If I couldn't find what I wanted in five minutes, the average click and go Net user isn't going to bother. So, I don't know what the Conservatives are planning, beyond a continuation of what we've seen this minority government do.

After that came the NDP, because Jack Layton sends me amusing emails telling me about how he's fighting big banks to reduce my credit card interest. The NDP are also conducting a leader-driven campaign-the site is all about Jack. Policy documents weren't anywhere easily found here, either. There was an abundance of information about the horrors of the Conservative government's recent decisions, Liberal bumbling, and how Jack Layton has been single-handedly saving Canadians from the Conservative horde. From what I understood, the NDP are going to do the opposite of whatever the Conservatives say they are going to do.

On the Liberal site, you can request a lawn sign. They like their lawn signs. There is also a large section on Dion and honesty (which talks about all the promises broken by the Conservatives). There is a small amount of general policy on the economy, the proposed green tax shift, and...that's it.

The Bloc Quebecois site, of course, is in French, so the English speaking parts of Canada may miss out on their policy. Which is sad, considering it isn't half bad. The only sticky part is that it is focused only on Quebec, and oh yeah, they want to separate from the country. In terms of finding policy documents, though, the Bloc have links directly from their index page to the key issues, again downloadable by PDF.

So I apologize that I couldn't give you an immediate, lazy researcher's overview of the Canadian election. I'll dig a little deeper, but if you want my opinion, the parties that seem to know what they want to do (other than slag their competition) are the Bloc and the Greens.

Let the games begin.

Conservatives against censorship

Sometimes I am frightened by what I see on television.

When the show that I'm watching features Mary Walsh and some guy from some lobbyist group, I would normally bet that Walsh will provide more entertainment value. I mean, this is the lady that slathered bright red lipstick all over Stephen Harper, tells dirty jokes to Paul Martin, and constantly reminded Canadians not to take our politicians seriously.

Imagine my surprise when the greatest source of my amusement came from Charles McVety, the president of the Canada Family Action Coalition. Mary Walsh wasn't even close.

He was on the Hour to discuss Bill C-10, which will allow the government to refuse funding for film projects that are deemed offensive. No wait, sorry, it's an income tax bill. Oops.

I'm not getting into a debate over that. To me, it's fairly cut and dried. Quite honestly, if what is being created is so great, you shouldn't need my tax dollars to pay for it. The issue itself wasn't the source of my amusement; nor was it the demeanor of the host, who obviously wanted to strangle McVety. It was a quote about censorship.

"I'm a Conservative!" exclaimed McVety. "I'm against censorship!"

Are you laughing yet? Because I am.

Conservatives? Censorship? No, the current Conservative government doesn't apply any principles to the general public that it wouldn't apply to its own party.

By the way, when was the last time Stephen Harper faced a media scrum without pre-submitted questions? The last time a cabinet minister was able to make a comment of their own violition?

Short answer: you can't remember, because it doesn't happen. It's a tightly censored ship that the Conservatives run. And the CFAC is near and dear to the government's heart. That's why this remark so glaringly stands out in my mind.

On their website, the CFAC applauds the efforts of Maclean's magazine columnist by Mark Steyn, currently facing charges from the Canadian Human Rights Commission for published material that offended members of the Muslim community (from his book America Alone, discussing the dangerous rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the western world). I agree that the charges are a travesty. If the media can't stir up controversy, then what is the point? I don't agree with all Steyn has to say, but hey, that's my right as a free-thinking Canadian.

Yes, the CFAC do stand for freedom of speech. When it suits their purposes. Immediately below the news links is a quote from Chris Hedges (author of I don't Believe in Atheists), attacking atheists as fundamentalists themselves. Ones that shouldn't be able to spread their blasphemy to our children. Because they (the Christian right) don't agree with it.

Hmm. Conundrum. Funny. Don't you think? So where exactly does the CFAC stand?

We're against censorship, as long as we can say what we like about you. You, on the other hand, can't say anything about us, or your own beliefs, because it offends us.

Just as a note, all the links on the website that explain the CFAC views currently do not work. The donation button, however, is alive and functioning well.