Take off, eh?: A few cents more

To say that Monday night’s returns were the result of further polarization in Canadian politics wouldn’t be entirely accurate. While there is some evidence to say that this is a factor, it is still one out of a myriad.One of the things that has been gr…

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: A few cents more

To say that Monday night’s returns were the result of further polarization in Canadian politics wouldn’t be entirely accurate. While there is some evidence to say that this is a factor, it is still one out of a myriad. One of the things that has been gradually helping the Conservatives

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: 2 Cents

Well, now I've read one account that says the Liberal party achieved the results it did in this election because it was too far to the right, that we were "Blue light" which obviously couldn't succeed when the choice for those so inclined would obviously be "Blue." I've read another

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: 2 Cents

Well, now I’ve read one account that says the Liberal party achieved the results it did in this election because it was too far to the right, that we were “Blue light” which obviously couldn’t succeed when the choice for those so inclined would obviously be “Blue.”

I’ve read another account that says that we were too close to the NDP on the left, and seemed to suggest, a disingenuous version of them which failed in the face of their perceived sincerity over ours regarding those positions which we shared.

Perhaps, just maybe, what we are seeing is more of a polarization of Canadian politics, moving slightly away from that centre ground that we have done so well to occupy in the past.

In such a scenario, you would see more of the kind of results that materialized for the Conservatives and the NDP.

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: Winds of change

Heady times for sure. Personally, I think there is only so much that can be done I the face of such a groundswell; it is looking the federal NDP party is going to have it’s time in the sun. Good for them.

Another upside is that the Quebec electorate is once again learning they have other options, and that they can have an important say in the makeup of the government, beyond electing MP’s that don’t want to be part of Canada, and can’t see beyond their own provincial borders.

As far as I can tell, the Liberal candidate in my riding still has the best shot to unseat the Conservative, but if it were the NDP candidate I would have given them my vote.

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: Thought on the NDP surge

One of the things that has been somewhat downplayed is Jack Layton’s current reliance on a cane, with the impression being that maybe the NDP were trying to avoid having Jack appear as a weakened leader, or too much like a senior citizen.

But, perhaps this is actually contributing to their current success?

The median age in Canada as of 2011 is an all time high of 41, which means that half of the population is middle aged, or older.

Looking at the Wikipedia entry on the Demogrphics of Canada, the largest cohorts in 2010 were in the 45 and 50 year range: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramideca2010.jpg

Could it be that an aging population sees something they identify with a little more, adding to the appeal of the NDP and the 60 year old Layton?

Obviously, I’m not saying this is the only factor, or even the largest of the many circumstances, but perhaps a significant one that has contributed to what is looking like a Sea change in the Canadian political landscape.

Continue reading

Take off, eh?: "Something to ponder before we vote, the sad truth" or "Quelle tragedie: Something that won’t resonate with most Canadians"

Not sure when this email originated, but by the time it made it to my inbox it was already out of date, at least in respect to who might be forming the official opposition.

That aside, the message in the email should resonate with any Canadian who isn’t already a blinder wearing supporter of the Conservatives. It may have already been posted online, but I figure one more time couldn’t hurt.

Written by a Senator who was originally appointed as a PC, it should give anyone cause for concern, but tragically enough, most voting Canadians wouldn’t take the time to read it, and even then it likely wouldn’t resonate with them. Quelle tragedie.

It reads:

*A letter from Tom Banks, Canadian Senator*

It’s worth noting that Tom was a Conservative when he was appointed to the Senate. If you agree with this food for thought please feel free to send it to your friends of whatever political stripe. The bigger message here is how we want our government to behave, no matter who forms that government. Here’s Tom’s missive:

“There is only one thing about the outcome of the May 2nd election on which Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper agree. It is that one of them will be the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and Ms. May are not in the running to form a government. They can’t. It will be either Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Harper.

That is the choice, and it is a very clear – in fact, stark choice. We will choose between openness or secrecy. Between listening or refusing to listen. Between someone who respects Parliament or someone who disdains it. Between things we can and will do now or things that, (provided of course that everything goes well), we might do in five or six years. Between someone who answers all questions from Canadians, or someone who won’t accept any.

Between Mr. Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act”, or Mr. Ignatieff who said ” . . . we don’t want user fees. We want universal, accessible, free-at-the-point-of-service health care, paid out of general revenue. That’s just bottom line. Otherwise we get two-tiered”.

Between buying jets or helping vets. Between real early childhood learning and care or Saturday-night babysitting. Between respect for our great institutions or contempt for them. Between helping families or helping big corporations. Between the Canada that we think we have, or the way in which Mr. Harper has already changed it.

Over the past few years Mr. Harper’s government has quietly engineered so many changes that there are some ways in which our country is barely recognizable. Many of us don’t yet realize the extent of those changes, because many of them have been brought about very carefully and gradually – almost imperceptibly in some cases.

This is diabolically clever. If these things had all been done at once, there would have been loud protests and reactions. But moving just one little brick at a time doesn’t cause much fuss – until you realize that the whole house has been renovated. And we’ve hardly noticed.

These are changes that are at the very heart of who and what Canadians are. They are changes to the protections that used to exist against the tyranny of the majority – or against a single-minded my-way-or-the-highway autocrat. These changes are losses to our very Canadian-ness. Let me remind you of some of them:

The Law Commission of Canada was created by an Act of Parliament in 1997. It worked very well. It kept an eye in a sort-of avuncular way, on necessary reforms of the law, including election law. The Commission couldn’t actually change law; but it was very good at letting governments and everybody else know when changes needed to be made and why. It was our legal Jiminy Cricket, and it performed a valuable service for Canada. The Commission was created by an Act of Parliament, and any government wanting to shut it down should have been up-front about it. It should have come to Parliament with a Bill to rescind The Law Commission of Canada Act. That’s what any of our 21 previous Prime Ministers would have done.

But to Mr. Harper, Parliament is an inconvenience. Somebody might ask “Why are you doing this?” But he didn’t want to go through all that Parliamentary trouble; so, rather than proposing the abolition of the Commission (a proposal about which there would have been pretty fierce debate on all sides), they just eliminated all funding for it in the federal budget. Governments can do that. Poof – no Law Commission.

Nice and quiet. Just one little brick. Hardly noticed.

Then there was the Court Challenges Programme, set up in 1994, which was the means by which a bit of legal help could be provided to a private individual or small organization who didn’t have a lot of money, and who was taking on, or being taken on by, the Government of Canada. It leveled the legal playing field a bit. It was a perfect example of fundamental Canadian fairness.

By convincing a tough panel of judges of the reasonableness of your cause, you could get a little help in paying for some lawyers to go up against the phalanx of legal beagles that could always, and forever, and at public expense, be brought to bear against you by the State. In other words, if you weren’t rich, and if you were taking on or being taken on by the Feds, you might have had a chance. But Mr. Harper doesn’t like being questioned, let alone challenged. It’s so inconvenient! Solution? Quietly announce that the Court Challenges Programme is being, er, discontinued. Poof – no Court Challenges Programme – no court challenges.

Hardly noticed.

The Coordination of Access to Information Request System (CAIRS) was created (by a Progressive-Conservative government) in 1989 so that departments of government could harmonize their responses to access-to-information requests that might need multi-departmental responses. It was efficient; it made sure that in most cases the left hand knew what the right hand was doing, or at least what they were saying; and it helped keep government open and accountable. Well, if you’re running a closed-door government, that’s not a good idea, is it? So, as a Treasury Board official explained to the Canadian Press, CAIRS was killed by the Harper government because “extensive” consultations showed it wasn’t valued by government departments. I guess that means that the extensive consultations were all with government departments.

Wait! Wasn’t there anybody else with whom to extensively consult? Wasn’t there some other purpose and use for CAIRS? Didn’t it have something to do with openness and accountability? I guess not. Robert Makichuk, speaking for Mr. Harper’s government, explained that “valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting”.

Right. In other words, CAIRS was an inconvenience to the government. So poof – it’s disappeared. And, except for investigative reporters and other people who might (horrors!) ask questions, its loss is hardly noticed.

And the bridge too far for me: Cutting the already-utterly-inadequate funding for the exposure of Canadian art and artists in other countries. That funding was, by any comparison, already laughably miniscule. Mr. Harper says that “ordinary” Canadians don’t support the arts. He’s wrong. And his is now the only government of any significant country in the world that clearly just doesn’t get it.

All these changes were done quietly, cleverly, and under the radar. No fuss. No outcry. Just one little brick at a time. But in these and other ways, our Canadian house is no longer the kind of place it once was. Nobody minds good renovations. Nobody even minds tearing something down, as long as we put up something better in its place. That’s not what has happened.

Mr. Harper fired the head of the Canadian Wheat Board because he was doing his job properly. He removed the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission because she wanted to make sure that the Chalk River nuclear reactor was safe.

Hardly noticed.

There are many more things that were hardly noticed: Cuts to funding for the Status of Women, Adult Learning and Literacy, Environmental Programs, museums funding, and more. All quietly, just one brick at a time.

Hardly noticed.

As to campaign promises, everybody in sight on every side is guilty of breaking those. Except the Federal NDP of course, who haven’t yet had the opportunity. (It’s very easy to make promises that you know you will not likely have to keep).

But the government promised to end wait times in health care. They didn’t. They promised to end, once and for all, the whining of some provinces about the non-existent “fiscal imbalance”. They didn’t. They said they had brought final resolution to the softwood lumber problem with the U.S. They haven’t. They promised to create thousands of new child-care spaces in Canada. They haven’t. They promised not to tax income trusts (“We will NEVER do that!” they said). They taxed them. They promised to lower your income tax.

They raised it.

They said they had a good “made-in-Canada” plan to meet our obligations on climate change. They don’t. Mr. Harper has said plainly that whatever the Americans do is what we’ll do too.

They campaign on a platform of transparency and accountability; but they’re now trying to discredit the Parliamentary Budget Officer that they created, because he’s trying to do the job that they gave him. Mr. Harper said that our form of government, evolved over centuries from the 900-year-old British Westminster tradition, was all wrong. We had to have fixed election dates, because otherwise, democratic principles would be trampled. “Fixed election dates”, he said, “stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar. They level the playing field for all parties”.

So Parliament (remember them?) at Mr. Harper’s insistence, passed a law requiring fixed election dates, which Mr. Harper promptly broke.

Somebody once said that we get the kind of government we deserve. What did we do to deserve Mr. Harper? He once said that we should all “Stand Up for Canada”. Well, let’s do that. We just have to decide whether the present version of Canada is the one that we’ll stand up for. Or stand for.

Continue reading