Quotation for the Masses

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."

This is a fantastic quotation that I found while creeping through a friends Facebook profile. I am far too exhausted to go into the deep spiritual connections behind the first few lines there, but I can tell you that it is in direct view with my own spirituality, my social consciousness, and my political ideology.

To me, calling myself a Socialist, or a social-democrat if you'd like that better, is more than just a way to look at politics. Its a set of ethics and a set of values that you apply to every day existance. You apply it to your dealings and daily interactions with people around you. Its a spiritual excersize. Whenever I hear the word 'socialism', I envision the definition of 'compassion' going along with it. As hinted above, the truest and most valued traits in a human being; caring, compassion, sympathy, empathy, helpful - all of these are the cornerstones that we build a Socialist-democratic political base from. You cannot have Socialism without these factors, they are integral parts of the foundation of the ideology and must be present to have even the slightest dash of social-democracy. That being said, one place that these human traits are not found is in the very bottom soil of Capitalist theory.

It should be stated, however, that I am a realist - and as such realize that we have built strong and powerful nations by way of Industrial-Capitalism, as well as crude-Capitalism for many millenia. However, it is in my view a nessecery evil that is needed to ensure growth within a nation or society, but it must be kept in line by accountable and public checks and balances. Private enterprise is a great thing for a country if it is responsible and fair in its dealings and services it provides.

But this isnt about Capitalism and its shortcomings, it about that wonderful quote!

I take pride in the fact that I respect the needs of the many against the needs of the few, and the needs of the individual. JFK said it in great words, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!' Although spoken from the mouth of a filthy Democrat, those words found roots deep within every single American regardless of political preference or standing. Its the belief in the greater Good. Its the belief that there is more to life than personal betterment and personal advancement. It means nothing if those you love, and even those you dont love or dont know, do not get to enjoy the spoils of their hard work in life. Life is infinately bigger than just you or I, but exactly the same size as both of us put together.

Happy Holidays.

That quote above, by the way, is from Albert Einstein.

A Rising-Tide Floods all Coastal Villiages

As you can probably tell from the rest of my posts here in the blogosphere, I am a social-democrat. I am a supporter of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I voted for Barack Obama, and I would have zero problem with having same-sex marriage ceremonies and gay pride parades on every street corner in Canada. (But I'm not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that..) 

And of course, one's social views are closely tied with their political ones, therefore I am socially-liberal in almost every way imaginable.

I am a big believer in social economics, and I will never buy into the school of thought that a capitalist rising tide raises all ships. Trickle down economic theory is outdated and useless, as shown by the negligible amount of difference that the most wealthy and powerful nations have inflicted on Africa, Latin America and the developing world. Not to mention the way that 21st century Harper-Conservatism has left the most destitute Canadians out to dry in our own nation.

I'm nearly finished Jack Layton's book 'Speaking Out: Ideas that work for Canadians' (1), and lays out an astonishing, albeit ambitious, plan for Canada to pull itself up and reclaim our place as the most amazing country on Earth.

Now going back deep into my moleskine I see a quote from Mr. Layton in context to the Decade of Taxcuts inflicted upon us by both the Liberal and the Conservative Governments;

'Canadians know when they stop being refered to as citizens, and start being refered to as taxpayers that they've lost something.' (2)

And its true, personally I find the term 'taxpayer' borderline insulting. Its placing a hierarchy into everyday society and belittling Canadians as though our only contribution to our collective society is monetary. But our tax dollars stop being dollars at one point and they turn into much more valuable assets. They build us roads and freeways, insure we have access to reasonably priced groceries, provide each and every Canadian with the fundamental human right that is healthcare, and most importantly our tax dollars are converted into the most indispensible and valuable currency that is work.

When we as western civilisation entered into the 'social contract' that is collective living, we signed on to certain freedoms and liberties to be State administered so as to be more effective and far-reaching than our individual selves. In Canada, we give our Governments the responsibility to administer health care to all of our citizens, setting us apart from our closest neighbours to the south. We give the challenge of creating and maintaining our road systems and highway systems to our governments, because they can handle the scope of such a project better than smaller groups or individuals might be able to.

We rely on our governments to hold certain things within the public domain, and deliberately keep things out of the hands of private industry. Our police forces and armies are such examples. They are neccessities, and it is important to maintain those institutions in a non-partisan, non-subjective manour that will benefit the inhabitants of Canada and their values. We grant the government the responsibility of, and trust them to protect us as both as a collective nation and as individuals.

You will always here the loudest voices on the Right preaching about the dangers of 'big government' and too much emphasis on collective rights as opposed to individual rights. They will advocate for lower taxes and less government involvement into our lives. Personally, I want as much government as possible  available in my life. I want to see government left, right and center wherever I look. It doesnt mean that I need to become reliant on the government, or that the government has any sort of say in my affairs, it just means that the Government is there to take care of me if I so should need them. The Government as a suppliment to my individual rights is my ideal view of a government.

In a situation like the one we are in right now, facing a global Depression, cutting taxes is a useless and futile approach to take. In fact, if the Harper Government hadnt given out the corporate 2% GST cut disguised as a personal tax cut, Ottawa would have billions more dollars at it's disposal, and the $30B projected-deficit we are now in store for would probably look more like $15-20B. When Harper cut the tax by 1% in July 2007 it cost Ottawa $400 000 per month in revenue, and and estimated $4.35B anually. Then he cut it by another 1% in January 2008, costing Ottawa ~$9B or more. It saved individuals negligible amounts of money, and cost the collective valuable leverage in desperate times. As stated above, those tax dollars are much more than just their namesake, they create opportunity and REAL wealth by providing stimulus to create jobs and then further stimulus by generating spending and consumerism to keep the economy rolling. Power in numbers is the key here, one $100 item is much larger and more useful than one-hundred $1 items. There was also an increase in the personal income tax for the lowest tax pad from 15% to 15.5%. (3)

As I stated above, I do not ascribe to the trickle-down school of economic thought. If you give money to those who already have more than enough money, thats where it will stay. Cut taxes for corporations, wages dont go up automatically - first things first - the stockholders get paid, then the CEO, President, all the big boys up top get their cut. After that, some new investments might take place, which may or may not create jobs. Wages will only go up if the Unions fight for it, that is almost a given in every workplace. Throughout history that has been shown aswell. The people at the bottom don't get heard unless they all chant in unison. They will be lucky to get a fraction of the value they would have received from the dollars had they not been given away in taxcuts and put towards useful social programs or infrastructure investment. Things that would generate real wealth and stimulate the real economy.

Take for example the scenario of giving $100 000 in taxcut subsidies to a widget company. Before any of that goes into creating more widgets, all of those in high management and administration get a piece. Then lets say the remaining 50% goes into making 10 more widgets an hour for that company. None of that money goes to the workers of the factory, and none goes to help the consumers pay for those new widgets. All it does is benefit the company and puff up their bottomline. Now invest $90 000 into retrofitting some old abandoned widget factories into livable, affordable housing. It creates 100 new jobs, creates 20 new living quarters for 40 more people to get off the streets into, and provides stability in their lives. Now say those 40 people shape-up and get jobs, thanks in part to the $10 000 that was invested into local community services aimed at giving tips and tricks to homeless people on how to look become hireable again. What have we done here with that 2nd scenario?

• Created 100 jobs from the construction, providing income for those workers to buy widgets


• Transformed 40 individuals back into productive members of society, allowing them to buy widgets, as well as taking a burden off of themselves and our SP-healthcare system, because they will not freeze in -35 degree Winnipeg winters anymore.


• We created a public asset in the form of real estate for the Government, collecting rents and providing for a profitable sale of the building at a later time, further stimulating the economy on the property tax collected after that sale.


• Created a situation where the widget company profits from increased spending without direct funding from the Government, therefore allowing more production without throwing out tax dollars with no hope of profitable return from the company.

It seems to me a pretty simple choice. Do we play 'Plinko' with our tax dollars and hope the ball lands in the $100 000 cup, or do we place the ball in the cup ourselves? Trickle down theory is fundamentally flawed, and exacerbates the underlying problems with the capitalist linear-model. The bottom line for the widget factory may show more monetary profitability, but it does not take into account the 'externalities' that investing the same dollar amount into true economic factors provide - i.e. people and property values, long term objectives, long term investment in the economy.

Only Government has the resources and the mandate to execute these objectives. I do not fault private enterprise for these shortcomings, it is to be expected. A Company, in the collective sense, answers first and foremost to its shareholders and administration, not to the workers. A Government is different, seeing as it's shareholder is every single Canadian citizen, and so it's actions will reflect the best interest of all Canadians. This is a wonderful thing, because private companies do not have that same ability, and they both benefit society in very different, very important ways.

The trick is to find the delicate balance between the two.

 

More later on, I gots tonnes of this Commie shit...

(1) - Book information from Winnipeg-based McNally-Robinson Booksellers found here.
(2) - pg. 40, 'Speaking Out: Ideas that work for Canadians', Jack Layton, 2004
(3) - Globe and Mail article, Harper's Canada Day Gift, (web article)

Introducing: Auto Canada

582 200 Canadian jobs to be lost in 5 yrs if Auto collapses. (Tues. 16 Dec. 2008)
(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/16/jobs-auto.html)

A report that the Ontario Manufacturing Council was brought down today, stating that if the auto industry was to be let go and left to be consumed by the invisible mouth of market correction there would be an immediate 323 000 jobs lost as well as another 200 000+ over the next 5 years. Huge sectors of the auto-economy would crumble, resulting in 80% of the auto parts industry disappearing from now until 2014. That is a ridiculous number, almost unfathomable really. One half of one million people would lose their jobs, mulitply that by those half-million family members and you have a catastrophic number of people out of a job. The effects would be devastating.

I dont know much about economics, but I dont think you have to in a situation like this one.

The job losses are compounded by the ripple effects that they would cause. Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue lost from these 500 000 wages no longer being paid out, corporate taxes that are not available to collect from the Detroit 3, the economic losses from decreased spending and purchasing. It will be a nightmare if Big Auto collapses.

But as I am reading through the comments on the CBC article, I came across a very interesting take on the whole thing;

'There's no guarantee anywhere in the United States or Canada for these Canadian jobs... even with the bailout. Flaherty has been whistling in the dark he too doesn't know what to do to keep the legs under Ontario's economy. The US economy is tanked... and the Lesser Depression is upon them and the world. Even Obama said they are in never-before-land. You can't get lower than 0% interest rates unless you pay people to borrow. If this blog were interested in listening to what Canada could do - I might try offering my suggestion. Here goes for the third try:

I think that there is a goldrush awaiting those who would re-furbish existing automobiles and trucks with newly developed engines and power trains. The assembly line run in reverse would make billions and re-employ the existing auto workers. And if we could ask the Big Three to take a one or two year sabattical from useless manufacturing, they could re-tool, re-train and regain our confidence that we can still roll on their wheels. The 0% Interest rate is an admission that the US has slid into a Depression. To get out they will be looking for ways to do their own auto parts manufacturing - along with other manufacturing jobs they farm out to us. Our Loonie will flip over just as fast as it took a dive....in which case it will price us out when reality checks in. Only a war-time economy is going to save our standard of living... because what happens from now on requires swift and decisive action on the part of government and business. Are the Conservatives and Co-alitionites paying attention? Don't make new dinoautos... re-tool the previous years models. Tough times... tough decisions. Do we make Ford/GM/Chryler engines in Canada? Drop everything else... apply the newest technology and start putting them in todays rolling stock.' - written by: Jakespeare

This guy hit it right on the head. I am a major proponent, especially after this recent report, of providing some sort of security for the auto workers whos heads are on the chopping block - but I do agree that the archaic petrol guzzlers that have been churned out model after model need to be curtailed. I lived in Europe for the better end of a year, I have spent probably twice that traveling throughout the continent, and one thing that always baffled me was their lack of huge Super-Charged pickups and battering ram-vehicles. Why do we need these massive trucks and vans? I have started to diliberately take notice of those driving large pickups and heavy vehicles to see if they are really using them the way they are intended to be used. A good many of the trucks are what I would consider 'luxury' pickups, those that are not work or transport vehicles driven by blue collar types, but instead are being driven by men who have never done any physical labouring, women who are driving their kids to school, or douchebag teenagers who drive trucks to be hip. 

That could be an unfair generalisation though...

But the pearl of that post was putting a hiatus on the production of new cars and putting all of their efforts in the refurbishing of existing stock. This could be used for installing new greener technology engines into these older model cars, meaning that the jobs can be retained on the lines while at the same time taking big leaps forward for environmental damage control, and further facilitating economic growth by everyone saving at the pumps. War time economics 101.

Another big thing that we can do regarding the auto industry is to implement some, *gasp*, protectionist policies regarding the import of foreign vehicles. That is paramount to our crappy North American car companies success. We live in Canada, for Christsake, lets monopolize the shit out of the auto industry in this country! Auto Canada, here we come! Make it much more accessible for Canadians to buy Canadian-made vehicles that are better for the economy and the environment, and restrict the availability of foreign made cars on the Canadian marketplace.

Ahh... when I am Prime Minister for life.. things will be so much simpler.

Notes on the Regina Manifesto (CCF-1933)

The Regina Manifesto

This is an interesting piece of Canadian Literature. I would definatly recommend it for idea purposes, but then again you could always just pick up an NDP platform for a Jack Layton book, haha.

The CCF, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, formed in 1932 in Calgary, Alberta. It was a conglomeration of famers, socialists and organized labourmen who were tired of the two-party, business class federal parties in Canada. After officially forming in 1932, they released their party platform titled the Regina Manifesto. In it, they laid out a variety of quite progressive, social ideas that they would put into place as a Federal Government.

The CCF is famous for producing a great Canadian named Tommy Douglas, as leader of the Saskatchewan CCF in 1944. He introduced universal heathcare for the province, in lou of well levied opposition from the Doctors of Saskatchewan, aswell as the American Medical Association, who feared the spread of public healthcare to other parts of North America. (1) Well, within 20 years it passed the House of Commons and was instituted on a Federal level during the minority Liberal Government with support from then NDP leader Tommy Douglas, headed by one of my distant relatives Prime Minister Mike Pearson.

There is no doubt that without this fantastic show of grassroots, truly progressive and Canadian democracy - we would be a few decades back from having the type of social services that we so enjoy in this wonderful Nation. It also is eerily remincient of todays circumstance. Read on - but read the source text before this post. I have not included many of my thoughts on the actual CCF Party in this essay.

Below I have taken a few excerpts from the Regina Manifesto of 1933, and I have also wrote a quick thought under each of them. 

 

'When private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated'

This statement rings very true even today, especially today with the current economic crises that we are going through. You can see this oscillation today when we are faced with a depression of the magnitude of which is frightfully reminicent of that which this paper was responding to. We see the foundations of our laissez faire approach bringing the general population negligible amounts of wealth during peak times, and destructive results when the tower built too high come tumbling down. And what happens when this downturn reached the presipous? The public teat is suckled and not only does the individual suffer, but so too does the collective. Wealth is privatised, risk is nationalised.

'We consider that both the old parties in Canada are the instruments of capitalist interests and cannot serve as agents of social reconstruction, and that whatever the superficial differences between them, they are bound to carry on government in accordance with the dictates of the big business interests who finance them.'

Chances are if you are reading this blog here that you think similar to the way I do, and feel that the major two entities in Canadian politics do not represent your interests. Just in the last several days the newly headed Liberal Party has met with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty for discussion and consultation on the Tory Budget that is to be brought down on January 27th of 2009. They emerged with smiling faces and clasp hands, which dont get me wrong, is fantastic, but it leaves the more social-minded Grits and the NDPers with a poor taste in our mouths. Les libéraux bleu have taken the helm of the party and are steering it towards the Conservative sirens.

'Only by such public ownership, operated on a planned economy, can our main industries be saved from the wasteful competition of the ruinous overdevelopment and over-capitalization which are the inevitable outcome of capitalism.'

An interesting concept for that age and time. We have market mechanisms now that require a constant stream of purchasing and upgrading. Cars, gagets, entertainment equipment. Granted, we do benefit from this in terms of leisure and our enjoyment and quality of life increases, but we are constantly having to trade up to the newest technology so quickly that the products we have are obsolete in a matter of months. There is some reckoning here with this particular excerpt, because advancement in technology is very benficial to a society and to retard that advancement would put Canada far behind other nations. There is give and take here.

'...we do not propose any policy of outright confiscation...'  'In times of war, human life has been conscripted. Should economic circumstances call for it, conscription of wealth would be more justifiable.'

I really enjoy the way this drips with the sting of an embarassing truth - at least for a time when we had conscription. Who is it that calls for those young men to be sent to war? Those who can profit from war. Imperial Wars continue to plague us, maybe a tad less than our Souther Neighbours, but nonetheless we are ever involved in unjust and largely unproductive wars, while stiffling progress in REAL conflicted parts of the world - Sudan, Rwanda, Tibet.

Included as well was the former part of the paragraph regarding confiscation. Important because it sets the CCF distinctly apart from those highly centralised, Sovietesque totalitarian socialism. The document also speaks of the need for democratic change, and that there is no advocation for violence in their doctrine. Another very important detail in showing the character of the Party and its Manifesto.

'The Canadian Senate, which was originally created to protect provincial rights, but has failed even in this function, has developed into a bulwark of capitalist interests, as is illustrated by the large number of company directorships held by its aged members. In its peculiar composition of a fixed number of members appointed for life it is one of the most reactionary assemblies in the civilized world. It is a standing obstacle to all progressive legislation, and the only permanently satisfactory method of dealing with the constitutional difficulties it creates is to abolish it.'

Refer to my previous comments on the Canadian Senate here.

'The establishment of a commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially minded jurists and social workers, to deal with all matters pertaining to crime and punishment and the general administration of law, in order to humanize the law and to bring it into harmony with the needs of the people'

'While the removal of economic inequality will do much to overcome the most glaring injustices in the treatment of those who come into conflict with the law, our present archaic system must be changed and brought into accordance with a modern concept of human relationships. The new system must not be based as is the present one, upon vengeance and fear, but upon an understanding of human behaviour. For this reason its planning and control cannot be left in the hands of those steeped in the outworn legal tradition; and therefore it is proposed that there shall be established a national commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially minded jurists and social workers whose duty it shall be to devise a system of prevention and correction consistent with other features of the new social order.'

Fantastic policy towards crime. If you even get a chance to read Jack Layton's book 'Ideas that Work for Canadians' please do. I picked it up for $2.99 in a bargain bin with the books no one wants, which ironically is where I have found much of my awesome library. But his book talks about thinking outside the box when thinking about politics. There is more to crime than 'bad people, bad decisions' - there are environmental factors to their development into counter-productive citizens. Millions of kids goto school each day without a lunch, which is directly sabotaging their preformance and resulting in kids dropping out. Young students cannot goto universities because of tuition fees, which means that when it comes time for them to create families - the problem becomes cyclical. Addressing crime the way we do has clearly failed to address the root fundamental problems of crime itself. Quit with the band-aid sollutions and get to the heart of the problem.

'No C.C.F. Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth.'

This was changed to a less confrontational and Marxist sounding ending in the Winnipeg Declaration, which I will present in our next meeting. Please return.

But as you can see, this is some quite pertenent stuff here. It is an extremely progressive agenda that was presented here, but one that would make all of Canada a better place and make Canadians even more proud of the country they are already so proud of. More to come on the Winnipeg Declaration later on.

'Liz to Plato [Reverse Chronology]

As promised, a brief article on the arguements for a Canadian Republic.

In my research of this topic today I came across an interesting little nug of historical irrelevance. On December 13th 1837, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie (1795 - 1861) proclaimed Navy Island, a small island in the middle of the Niagra River, the Republic of Canada after retreating from Toronto in the end days of the Upper Canada Rebellion with some 200 supporters of his. This, of course, was never recognized generally, and was a short lived pipe-dream of his before his escape to the United States and his subsequent 18 month incarceration for violating neutrality laws between the US + the British Empire.

[caption id="attachment_130" align="aligncenter" width="314" caption="The flag of the Republic of Canada (1837) - Proclaimed by William Lyon Mackenzie (1)"][/caption]

He was a true revolutionary against the British Imperial presence in Canada. Maybe it was because he was a Scot, maybe because he was just a level headed individual - well, as level headed as any utilitarian Tory can be. He was also the First Mayor of Toronto, which is a pretty interesting thing in itself. He was also a proponent of his mother's belief of Presbyterian-secession, advocating the separation of Church and State, although not religious himself. This may have been a driving factor in his demand for Canadian Independence. Also, it should be noted that Mackenzie had said he was disappointedwith the American way of life, saying that it was not what it claimed to be, vis-a-vis the 'American Dream' and all that. He returned to the Province of Canada in 1849.

 My own opinion on this topic is that it is well time for Canada to sever it's traditional ties with the English Monarchy. I see it as a useless appendage of our system to keep these cerimonial positions such as Governor General in our everyday operation of Government. Especially withwhat we have just gone through in Canada, with the proroguing of Parliament on request of the Prime Minister, now is a good a time as any to get rid of the Monarchy.

It is apparent that the separation of Canada from England has been a driving force in the history of our Nations. I say it in plural because I recognize Quèbec as a Nation within the Nation of Canada, and that it has a separate political and cultural history in contrast with mainstream English-Canadian history. It is unfair and ill advised to impose a on such a diverse nation, a Head of State that is culturally different than distinct, large population demographics of Canada. It is fuel to the fire for causes such as Quèbec Sovereignty, case and point what is called 'Trudgeon Saturday' when Queen Elizibeth II visited Canada in celebration of the 100 year anniversary of the Quèbec Conference. Her Majesty's procession through Quèbec City was lined with protesters who turned their back on her and chanted for her to go home. Police cracked down on these non-violent protesters, arresting 35 and injuring 6 in violent dispursals. (2) Her presence in Canada was also right around the same time that the FLQ was commencing their terrorist attacks in the Province.

Provincial issues aside for a moment, the idea of a Canadian Republic is fairly central to maintaining a unique and personal Canadian identity. Public opinion polls are fairly split on the matter, however, finding support on both sides of the coin fairly strong. (3) Another fact to consider though, is that when asked 'who Canada's head of state' was, only 5% could correctly answer The Queen. This indicates that a huge majority of Canadians do not understand the way our governmental system works. With those figures, Im surprised that we dont hear more stories about people being confused as to why Stephen Harper didnt have his name on their ballot. I wont go into the mechanics of our electoral system, simply put - we are a Constitutional Monarchy with Representative Government. The Prime Minister is formally appointed by the Queen's representative the Governor General of Canada. She also appoints our Cabinet. But nowadays she follows the democratic will of the people, appointing the leader of the most supported party in Parliament to be Prime Minister, and appoints his Cabinet on recomendation of the Prime Minister.

She does, however, hold some special powers over Canadian democracy, as we saw just early this month when she was faced with the 3-way decision to either call an election, allow a coalition to form, or prorogue Parliament until a later time. She chose the latter, which is not such a big deal in and of itself, but more in the circumstance that she acted. She acted on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada to effectively shut down Parliament and spare his minority Government from a proposed vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. This subverted the very democratic values that we have long established here in Canada, and gave a precident to future minority Governments that the House can be shut down on a whim in order to avoid a defeat. You can read more about those events in another post of mine. But the point is moot. The real issue here is that the final decision was left on the shoulders of an unelected, unaccountable institution of our Government. The 'will of the people' - by way of their democratically elected representatives residing in the House of Commons - was silenced by the very system that it operates in. This alone is cause for reform, no? If the structure of Governance allows for such indiscretions to take place, a change is needed to preserve the values that we hold as Canadians. This cannot be done with our Head of State and our Executive powers sitting on a foreign throne.

We do not have an Executive Branch that is separate from the Legislative Branch in Canada. This, like any system, has its pros and cons. For one, it means a less confusing and involved election, haha, but more importantly it means that every action taken by the Government is accountable to the rest of Parliament, and that it hold the confidence of Parliament. This is of course subject to many conditions. Cheif among them is the situation of a majority Government, one where the largest party holds a majority (155+) of the 308 seats that are currently in the House of Commons. This means that there need not be cooperation or consultation between parties, because all legislation that is tabled at the House by the Government can pass with a majority of votes. This is, as I see now, irrelevant to the point of this essay.

What it does segway to, though, is the question of why the Monarchy still exists in Canada. What purpose does it serve outside of its traditional and cerimonial tasks? A statement made by a man named Robert H Hilborn, and further quoted by former Governor General Roland Michener says,

'The Monarchy provides a basis for political continuity, so that parties can change but the essence and theory of government can continue... Its influence may be more apparent than real but it is real enough for a political system that works on consent... The monarchy is beyond partisan politics which cannot be said of an elected head of state' (4)

But if the tasks of our Monarchical representatives in Canada are merely cerimonious and defunct in the face of our democratic values, what then is the reason for keeping them? It leads us down a dangerous road to say that the Monarchy is above partisan politics, and therefore imperitive to our political system, because that acceptance gives consent to the intervention of that Monarchy in the face of a partisanship by the elected representatives. We have the executive decisions, which should be in the realm of the elected Executive/Legislative, being made by an unaccountable Executive. It simply subverts the very democratic foundations of Canada to have such a system still in place.

Political continuity comes not from the Monarchy, otherwise most Governments world over would have collapsed by now, but from the institutions that are in place to keep government accountable and renewable - i.e.  the electoral process. Another vital institution to preserving our democratic standards is the trust that the people put in their participation in governmental affairs - and that their participation matters. This is manifested in elections and accountability, something that is not present with a foreign, unaccountable Head of State.

The Great Canadian Winter 2008 [Part 2]

This is the second installment to the Great Canadian Winter of 2008 paper. The first part can be found here.

So the first paper talked about what had happened with the Parliamentary crisis that was precipitated by the Tories' Economic and Fiscal Update (1) on November 27th. It included some controversial proposals to cut Government spending, as well as no economic stimulus plan, which was something being called for by all the opposition parties. It resulted in the proposed defeat of the Harper Gov't by way of a no confidence motion that was to be tabled on December 1st (and then the 8th), as well as a Coalition Government between the Liberals and the NDP - but that was avoided when Mr. Harper sought, and received, a prorogument of Parliament from the Governer General until January 2009.

The second controversy that was just announced this morning was Harper's plan to fill the 18 vacancies that are currently in the Senate, something that he had promised never to do because of his call for democratic Senate reform. He now plans to do this before Christmas time, while Parliament is prorogued. You can read more about that in my post prior to this one; Bi-Bi Cameral.

This particular paper will deal with my vision of Canada after we emerge from this ordeal in January, as well as what I believe should happen to put Canada back on the right track, both politically and economically.

Bi-bi Cameral

CBC News: Harper to fill 18 Vacant Senate Seats before Christmas
(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/11/harper-senate.html)

So, today our glorious Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he will fill the 18 remaining Senate seats before Christmas, pretty obviously as a last attempt at keeping his Conservative presence deep within the Houses. This is coming just a week after he petitioned the Governer General to prorogue Parliament until January 27th so as to avoid a motion of no confidence, deciding that he and his government deserved to bring down a budget before being defeated.

Liberals and New Democrats alike have been questioning why Harper seems to think he has the moral authority to make such Senate appointments after his actions over the past few weeks. I am one of them. This Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, he has wiped his feet on Canada's democratic institutions and thumbed his nose at Canadian workers all across this country. With this proposed Senate appointing, Stephen Harper has also backpeddled yet again on one of his election promises, and one of the Reform roots of the Conservative Party, and that is striving towards democratic reform in the Senate - meaning that Senators would be elected and no longer appointed by the PM. Thus, showing his power hungry roots, the Right-Honourable Prime Minister strikes again.

The Senate is Canada's 'Upper House' of Parliament, meaning their job, although not exclusively, is to give legislation that originates in the Commons a 'sober second glance', and then pass them. Because they are an appointed and not elected body, they rarely vote down legislation that the elected Commons has already passed. They also contribute to the works of Government by forming commitees. Each Province is allocated a set number of Senators, which is distributed not by population, oh no thats much too democratic, but by historical population it would seem. Out of 105 Senate seats, the average representation by One Senator is 301 075 Canadians. (1)  Each of the regions of Canada - Ontario, Quèbec, the Maritimes, and Western Canada - are each given 24 Senators. In British Columbia there are 6 Senators that represent ~4 million Canadians, breaking down to 685 581 citizens per Senate seat- compare that with Nova Scotia who is allocated 10 seats in the Senate, representing just under 1 million, breaking down to 91 346 per Senator. 

The NDP has created a rather funny and interesting look into some of the members of the Senate, it can be found here at SenateHallofFame.ca. It shows the almost inherent uselessness of this unelected Upper House, as well as the appointees that sit there.

This particular appointment of 18 new Senators is going to cost Canadian taxpayers somewhere in and around $6 million just within the first year, or so the Grit and New Democrat spin doctors would tell you. The math breaks down below, but one must also leave room for the Senator's budgetary needs - i.e. assistants, transportation, etc, etc. (2) The main issue here is that with all of Stephen Harper's decrying of the Opposition's resistance to his party funding cuts to 'save the tax payers money' - he is willing to basically toss out $6 million in the first year of this crisis, probably to people who do very, very well without their cushy buck '25 a year salary from the Canadian taxpayer.

But aside from the monetary issue at hand here, the most disturbing - and telling - part of this development in Politickal Canada is that Stephen Harper is Prime Minister at this point only because he thinks that he deserves to be. His 'mandate to govern' means nothing without the explicit support of a majority of Canada's representatives in the Commons - and that he does not have. He silenced the elected body of Canada in order to continue to govern and bring down a budget for the sole reason that he thought he should be granted the chance to do so. He now wants to continue to act as Prime Minister, even after shutting down the very elected body that grants him those luxuries.

I do agree with Mr. Harper that the Senate should be an elected body with more proportional representation within it, but failing that outcome I say we abolish the Senate and leave the real work to those who are elected by the people.

This a statistic from the NDP.ca RSS feed:

The total cost of the Senate is $90,232,000 in 2008-2009 - an increase of 49 million since 1993 - even with a historic number of vacancies. Each Senator costs approximately $336,979 a year. (3)

$90.2 million dollars a year! That is 3 times the amount that the $1.95/vote party funding costs each year. If Harper was truly serious about helping the economy survive throughout these uncertain times, he would start by pruning the current Parliamentary system and disposing of the wasteful spending that we are throwing away in places like the Senate and, dare I say, the Guv'nah General's post. But that seems to be some fodder for another post that I may write soon on the Canadian Republic...

The Senate Chamber on Centre Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa.

---

References:

(1) - Senate of Canada @ Wikipedia.org
(2) - 125 800 x 18 = 2 264 400 (+ budget) (figures from NDP's S.H.F)
(3) - NDP News Feed @ NDP.ca

The Canadian Rehvolution

The Canadian Rehvolution

The direction of a nation depends on not only the national leadership of that nation, but also, and probably more importantly, it lies with mindset of the people and the institutions they believe in. When there is a conflict within a society between two or more separate political bodies - there are two possible realities, with several possible outcomes. Both can be either favourable or unfavourable, depending on the circumstance.

The first reality can best be described in the following way.

When a society is oppressed, and has been oppressed by a despotic regime for as long as anyone within that society can remember, they form very different interpretations of government than would a non-despotic and democratic society. The oppressed nation does not rely on the government for aspects within their everyday life, they do not rely on the publically funded police forces to protect them, nor public services to assist them if they are in an emergency regarding their health. They do not use the government to better their lot, there is no sense that the government is there to raise their standard of living. All of these things become the domain of the individual, and rest solely on the shoulders of the individual.

When a situation occurs where the standard of living for the majority of people becomes unacceptable, or the actions of the government start to permeate into the lives of the citizens in a negative and controlling way, then something must occur to stop it. Since there are no democratic, or more appropriately legal ways to do this, the change must come from outside the legal or governmental framework. This comes in the form of a revolution. Its aim is to change the standing of the people, and to change the collective mindset from 'oppressed' to 'liberated' by presenting them with a different way of governance. In doing so, the way that these people view the institutions and the of the role of government changes dramatically. Suddenly, Government takes on a new reality, one where it affects them differently and they examine their role in 'democratic' government to be different that their role in a despotic government, and they act upon it. This change in the collective mindset or the theoretical role of government, then changes the institution of Government in a very real, or practical way. This is revolution.

The second reality is quite different, and cannot therefore be considered a revolution.

When a conflict occurs within a government, despotic or democratic makes little difference, and a dominant side emerges as 'winner', but the overall mindset of the collective people doesn't change - this is considered a revolt. It is like switching out one despot for another despot. The best way to contrast the two is by thinking of a tower of cans piled one on top of the other. A revolt is taking the top can, and replacing it with a new can - nothing changes other than the top can, there are little to no reprecusions on the cans below because of it. A revolution would be like switching the bottom can for a new can. It affects all the cans that are built on top of it. The foundation changes. You must take down all the cans and you can now re-evaluate what would be a better way to go about stacking them again.

The Great Canadian Winter 2008 [Part 1]

Here we are, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the first part of an essay that I am working on regarding our Parliamentary situation right now. What I want to do with this is show the way that our system works (at least a basic skeleton breakdown), the developments of the week of November 27th to December 5th 2008, and then an analysis of the situation and my opinion as to how to proceed after Parliament resumes.

*This is not an objective paper.

First I would like to start with a quick poll:

[polldaddy poll=1176492]

|| MECHANICS + OCTOBER 14 2008 ||

Democracy lives here no more...

The actions of 'Prime Minister' Stephen Harper today were disgusting and undemocratic. He has essentially locked the elected Members of Parliament out of the House of Commons in a way that can only be compared to the actions of King Louis before the French Revoltion and his beheading.

He had killed Canadian democracy so that he can save his own hide - it is sad and transparent. Hopefully the remaining 63% of Canadians may have their voice restored promptly. And at that time, I hope we take action and remove this tyrannt from our government.

July 1 1867 - December 4 2008

CPC: Canada's Political Crisis

In case no one caught on to the title, it was a play on the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).

Well now!, Canada we are in quite a pickle at the moment, aren't we? There are talks at the moment of a collapse of Government and the possibility of either a brand new election just 2 months after the previous one, or even better, a coalition government of the Liberals and New Democrats, with support from the infamous Bloc Quèbecois.

The reason for this sudden turmoil is that the Jim Flaherty and the Tories came out with a `mini-budget`on Thursday that was thought unacceptable by the Opposition. Now, they claim it to be because the economic update did not include a much needed `bailout`for Canadian Industries - i.e. Auto, Forestry, etc. There was also the issue of eliminating certain election financing in the way of the political parties receiving $1.95 for each vote that they got during an election, which would essentially cripple the major political parties, other than the Conservatives of course. 

Firstly, this particular issue of the $1.95 per vote is something that should not EVER be put to law without dicussion in the House. It pertains directly to the democratic functions of the Canadian State, and is not to be change by the stroke of a pen from any ruling party. If you remove the major source of political government funding from the Opposition parties, you essentially come up with a one-party, right-wing state.  Unacceptable under any circumstances.

Secondly, this past election was like viagra for the ego for the Tories. They just cannot accept that they do not hold a majority of seats in the house, that they do not represent the views of more than 40% of the Canadian (voting) population, and that they cannot function without some sort of collusion between themselves and the Opposition. We as Canadians are sick and tired of this government paying chicken with the Opposition parties, and we are sick and tired of Mr. Harper's blatent politicking in Ottawa.

He has divided the House of Commons to the point where it cannot function as a healthy body anymore. This alone is reason to oust him and his Cabinet in favour of a coalition Liberal-NDP government. Stephen Harper has created an atmosphere of contempt in our capitol, and has operated an extremely secretive government that makes Canadians nervous and disheartened and distrustful of our political process. 59% of the population of Canada bothered to vote this October, showing that vote apathy has struck a blow to our democratic pillars in Canada. Voter apathy can usually be translated into voter contempt. When things are going good in government, people are excited, the base is energised - as we saw in the American GE. When we dont trust our leader, when there is little viable alternative for change, people throw their hands in the air and say 'fuck it - let someone else deal with it!'.  And that is what happened in our last election, much to Canada's chagrin.

 

Now, I am a major proponent of not throwing taxpayer dollars at a this economic recession, but I do believe that we need to do whatever we can as a nation, and as the benefactors, to ensure that we are hit softly by this downturn. We need to give money to these ailing industries so that we can save the jobs of the autoworkers and the forestry workers - but we must act as the IMF or World Bank acts when giving out loans and demand that they change their practices for the better. Stop building gas-guzzling, no-selling SUVs. Start putting out ONLY eco-friendly vehicles to help combat climate change and to quell the demand for foreign oils. GIve them the loan, nationalise a portion of the profits and get us our damn money back, and then some!

We need legislation that is going to protect working, blue collar Canadians and their jobs at the same time. Give incentives to companies that do not outsource their work, penalise those that do. Its really that simple. You may say that penalising companies for being more profitable is akin to sacralige, but you know what, we are facing an economic depression. If you are a Canadian company who is send jobs that could belong to Canadians overseas - you are part of the problem and you will face the penalties for that. You hurt Canadians by doing that, by seeing nothing but the bottom line. Shame.

 

So in closing, I am all for a coalition government by the Liberals and NDP, with support from the Bloc. 44% of voting Canadians put their mark beside a Liberal or New Democrat in October 2008, 10% for the Bloc Quèbecois, and you must also assume that those who voted Green will throw their weight behind the coalition. That is at the very least somewhere in and around 55-60% of the population who will support this power sharing agreement. The sooner the better, I say. Un-paralyze this House and get the blood flowing through Canada's veins again.

 

Jack Layton for Prime Minister!

Click for the CBC News Story

I Against I

I have been reading a book called 'The Real World of Democracy' by C.B. Macpherson from the CBC Massey Lectures. It basically breaks down the three major democratic structures that exist in the world and their differences.

America: Canada's after-thought.

I just thought that this was funny think to see when surfing on the CBC website. Im surprised Timmies wasnt number 3... Long live a free Canada, Ill love this nation til the day I expire.

Ladies and Gentlemen, America's Temporal Saviour...

Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States of America this January, something that has long been awaited by many peoples all over the world.

Something that really got me thinking was a short video piece that I saw on CNN regarding Barack's grandmother in Kenya. The showed hundreds of young, black men and women marching and cheering for Obama. It dawned on me more than ever that he has not just become America's President, but he and his legacy now belong to the world.

Something like 70% of those asked the in United Kingdom who they would vote for have they the chance to vote in the US Federal Election said they would support Barack. Canadians supported him at a 6-to-1 ratio with McCain. He has done the one thing that was probably more and anything else, the most needed for the American Nation: he changed their façade. He has, before he has even taken office, taken the United States out of its isolation. The world has started to ease up on its hate of America. It still holds the American people accountable for the total blunder that was the Bush era, but it also understands that with this new term, this new Chief, America has turned face.

The Republicans joked and cajoled Barack as 'the saviour' and 'the One', but you know what, he is the saviour. Define the term saviour? Is it when a certain man or woman or child, pre-destined to be great, finally emerges to help mankind? That would require a great deal of faith to think that they were sent for a specific purpose at a specific time. Many do not connect to that school of thought.

But even if one does reject the notion of pre-determined future, Barack Obama can be seen as the saviour. A saviour emerges at a time of ordeal, a time of need. We are in a time of need and times of need require a change in pace and change in thinking. Take a look at our viable options for the vehicle of that change, it was either Barack Obama or John McCain. By simple elimination we can see that putting our confidence for change into an old man who is party to the same school of thought that we are currently emassed in will not yeild us much more than what we have already.

Barack Obama is the best kind of saviour. He was in the right place, at the right time, with the right ideas. Perhaps we should start to rethink the criteria that we hold up our great examples of human beings to. We compare and constantly tie ourselves back to an ideology millenia old. What would we do if we took every scientific finding and held it up to the science of ancient Greece, and then discounted all of the aspects that didnt fit the Greek models? It sounds insane. But it shows that our society cannot thrive, it cannot grow if it does not regenerate itself when the current methods are not working. Change is constant, change is neccessary.



Obama for President 2009-2017.

A Conservative Canada, eh?

Its been more than two weeks since a pitiful 59.1% of eligible Canadians went to the polls and 'elected' Prime Minister Stephen 'Sweater Steve' Harper to his 2nd term as our humble leader, ushering in another era of social and economic conservativism for Canada and its diverse people.

But with our electorate's abysmal turn out this year, Harper walked away with less than 40% of the confidence of 2/5s of Canadians, and was given a second chance and the much reminded of 'strenghtened mandate' for the CPP to implement its agenda as though Canadians actually voted for it.

With just a hair under 63% of Canadians eligible to vote voting against the Harperites, and the country in danger of experiencing a Conservative majority guv'ment, a phenomenon took front and center on a national scale: strategic voting against a Harper government. The Progressive Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Danny Wiliams even went so far as to register as a third-party with Elections Canada and spearhead a campaign aptly named 'Anything But Conservative', urging voters to carefully consider where they would leave their mark on Oct. 14th and what it would mean.

I personally took an interest in this, using what I assume to be the catalyst of the strategic voting movement for our generation: Facebook. This 'social networking tool', as the fogies like to call it, has in my own learned opinion, sparked a revolution of sorts in engaging the up and coming generations to call for some sort of proportionate representation for their views. By taking the facts of our very undemocratic system to the base of the youth movement, connecting with them in a way that would have them listen, seeds of change were sewn. Ah, knowledge and youth, a dangerous cocktail for Conservatism.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin. The flip side is that of the divided left in Canada. My reluctance to credit Mr. Harper with his successful efforts to unify the Canadian-right cannot be more seething in this regard, but alas, thems the breaks when you combine thinly veiled socialism with old Westminster democracy. When there are 4 major parties vying for 1 vote, the odds are always stacked in your common-enemy's favour. And couple that with the unproportionate distribution of electoral seats, and whammo! Catastrophy!