National Politick

02-03-09 / Ramble

2009-02-02T18:55:00.000-08:00

There is a great saying that is you should never question a mans integrity, only question his actions. Anyone who is a thoughtful follower of Canadian politics can understand that Harper is not the devil incarnate. He is simply a conservative, and a very devout one at that, and his principles clash sometimes violently with the other parties in the House. He is running for the hills with this budget, and his whole team is on his tail. I think everyone can agree that Canada has had enough of Stephen Harper, whether you are a conservative or a socialist, he is divisive and bad for our country.

The budget has alot of great things in it that are going to be very good for Canada. But there are not-so good things as well, and even though it is pessimistic to obsess over the bad things, that is really what we need to be talking about. He didnt do anything for EI except extend the time-frame for benefits, but he didnt eliminate the 2wk wait at the start, and coupled with the backlogs that can be expected now, benefits might not be received for a month or more. He didnt make it easier or more affordable for students to goto University or College, so that we can have a ready-to-go workforce in the next 2-5 years. He did give money to infrastructure spending, but failed to recognize (either by ignorance or by design) that our Cities are totally broke and cant even begin to match the funds of the Provinces + Federal Gov't.

I agree that the only thing left to do at this point was to pass the budget and use some leverage to get in some other ideas into the budget - and Mike's Liberals dropped the ball on that one. Not only that, they wasted time stipulating their dumb ammendment to get '3 updates' from the Tories on how everything is going. The Liberals knew that the budget was medicocre and as one talking head put it, a mile wide an inch deep, but did very little about it. At least Layton and Duceppe had the good fortune to be reasonably sure the Budget wouldnt live or die on their votes and spoke out.

Hopefully we can trust the Government to deliver on its promises here, because God know that the Liberals wont force an election with their poor-credit flow, and honestly its a big waste of my money. We would have a properly functional Parliament with a different, and less divisive Cabinet. Progressive policy and a destruction of the regressive Reform platform that the Harperites have been operating on.

Thomas RB Miller

Budget or Rent-a-Wreck?

2009-01-29T22:28:00.000-08:00

The Conservative 2009 Budget came through the other day, with the Liberals voicing their... cough.... reluctant support for the Bill, stipulating regular updates and reports to the House of Commons as integral for their support for it. We also saw Jack Layton and his New Democrats strongly oppose the Budget, speaking specifically out against the lack of Employment Insurance reform, social housing funding, daycare affordability, post-secondary education affordability, disproportionate corporate taxcuts, and especially the issue of co-funding for projects between the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Governments.

-}---{-

The foremost complaint, EI reform, deals with the fact that the only change made to EI was a 5 wk extension in benefits, and some more funding in tune of $1 000 000 000 for EI administered training courses, some of which one would not be required to be taking EI benefits to take advantage of. Not a single change was made in respect to eligibility for EI benefits, meaning that those who may fall just shy of being eligible, but have had a good paying job and are now laid off perminently or temporarily, their needs are still not going to be met. The 2 wk waiting period to get benefits was proposed to be eliminated, and as Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla pointed out in a relayed email from one of her constituents, there is a 3 wk backlog on receiving benefits above and beyond the 2 wk wait.

Social housing funding, as far as I can tell, is being given a decent chunk of the package at $2 000 000 000. The infrastructure spending, in my own opinion, was up to snuff and will do wonders for our country at this point. The only complaint that I have regarding the infrastructure is that I wish it would be more geared towards green construction. Now is the perfect opportunity to shed our current modes and create sustainability in our buildings both residential and commercial. The Tories also did a great job on the home-renovation tax credits up to $1350 for 2009, which will hopefully spark a Green Revolution in renovations across the country. An additional bonus for that particular credit would have been to stipulate that it must be a green renovation; installing geothermal heating systems, heat-trapping windows, etc etc. This would have exponential effects on our personal economies, as well as some great environmental benefits with the use of less and less GHGs and the harmful processes to extract energy.

The other issues such as daycare and post-secondary education are things that have plagued us for decades. It is vital to not only our economy, but our future as a productive and moral authority in the world. Nations such as Cuba give universal post-secondary education to all citizens. Most countries on the European continent, such as the UK and Germany, have fantastic policies regarding education. German public Universities are free to both domestic and international students. The UK gives free education to those whose family makes under £20 000/yr (in and about CAD $45 000). In Canada, and I can speak from personal experience, students are struggling to maintain a decent grade point average while juggling their paid work outside school to cover costs such as; rent, food, text books, pencils, small luxuries, and monthly payments on their outrageous student loans. This is something that must change.

The most important of those issues address though, co-funding on all governmental levels, is lacking in many ways. The 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 policy that the Government has taken in relation to Federal/Provincial/Municipal spending on infrastructure and other service is very, very flawed. This is where we will get into trouble, folks. This Conservative Government has a poor track record on getting the funds-promised turned into funds-practiced. Heaping 33¢ for every dollar spent by the Federal Government onto the already broke Municipal councils for infrastructure spending is going to insure that little of the promised monies gets spent where it should. The only funds that our Municipalities have access to are Property Taxes, revenue from services rendered such as transit fares, and those dollars the transfers from the Provinces and Territories who have our cities under the watchful eye of their jurisdiction.

This is the foundation from the New Democrats and the Bloc Québecois stand in their choice to regard the Budget, and its authors, as ill-equiped and ill-qualified to be heading the effort. They are skeptical of the Tory Government insofar as they do not trust them to dispense the funds at all. La Parti libéral du Canada and their leader Mike Ignatieff have imposed just this evening a stipulation that requires the Government to check-in with Parliament on its progress, less it face defeat. Hopefully this will be enough of a threat to force the Government into giving out the funds that it has promised.

I guess the role of the Liberal Party will follow its historical place; not quite with the Tories, but not quite against them either. They remind me of the old Loony Toons shows where a character would be scared by a massive, snarling shadow, not sticking around long enough to find out that its really a puny lapdog with a panting tongue. The NDP will stay as the REAL Official Opposition to the Harper Conservatives, keeping an air of legitimacy to the Canadian Progressive-Left, something which the Bloc cannot bring itself to represent.

-}---{-

My personal opinion is as such; pass the budget avec the subamendment put forth by Ignatieff and his blue-Liberals, hopefully Rae the orange-Liberal camp, whose ideology is closer to that of the NDP, will find some cojognes and vote with the New Democrats and the Bloc in putting pressure onto the Government to implement some of the changes they are seeking - i.e. elimination of the 2wk wait for EI, giving a larger role to the Federal and Provincial Governments in regards to infrastructure and transit service funds instead of loading up our Cities with fiscal responsibilities they cannot handle.

Thomas RB Miller

And The Ants Go Marching One by One...

2009-01-27T19:01:00.000-08:00

Today, January 27th 2009, the Conservative Government of Canada will introduce it's 2009 Budget Bill to the newly reinstated House of Commons.

Our Parliament has been on hiatus since early December 2008, the correct terminology being prorogued. Today is the day that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty addresses the House with a Budget that is predicting a $34 000 000 000 deficit in this fiscal year, and another $30 000 000 000 in the next year. This will take, they project, 5 years before we start writing in black ink again - but I think that we can all assume these are conservative figures, no pun intended.

According to the CBC, this is a breif layout of the Budget to be put forth;

$7 billion for infrastructure, including $4 billion for provincial and municipal projects.

$2 billion for social housing.

$1.5 billion in aid for laid-off workers.

$1 billion for communities hit hard by the economic downturn.

$550 million for farmers.

$150 million for the forestry sector.

$160 million for arts and culture.

Some $80 million in way of broad permenant tax cuts [1]

It all seems pretty great, eh? So lets take the first few point by point.

$7 000 000 000 for infrastructure spending, meaning that new roads, bridges, highways etc. will be built or repaired. $4 000 000 000of that going towards the Provinces and Cities of Canada, probably going straight into urban transit and trying to offset some of those operational and maintenance costs. Good stuff, our cities here in Canada are severely shorthanded when it comes to their Municipal responsibilities, being able to collect tax revenue only from property and property gains or from user-paid fares for transit service. A little injection of liquid funds will greatly help the situation there, but an even better solution is the protection of Canadian Municipalities, and the emancipation of the cities from the Provincial and Territorial yoke. That will all be laid out in a future document, though. Transport Minister John Baird said however, that each level of government would be expected to pay equal shares for these projects, a quite unreasonable request when dealing with the Municipalities who, as stated above, are in dire straits for cash. There is also talk of $1 000 000 000 of that going into a fund for immediate green or environmental infrastructure projects across Canada, [2] which in my own opinion is a tragically low number given the circumstances. Canada can and should show leadership in their commitment to environmental protection and sustainable, profitable infrastructure in the most opportune time; when jobs are desperately needing to be created in the construction and trade industries. In December 2008 alone, Canada shed more that 34 000 jobs, many coming from the construction sector. [3]

$2 000 000 000 for social housing! Thats the one that I was looking for the most in this budget. But the very distressing figure tied into this one is that it is less money than what we are spending on the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games! Actually, quite a bit less, with the Vancouver Olympic Committee spending in the ballpark of $3 500 000 000on the Games. The City of Vancouver has also renegged on its promises to create affordable housing in Vancouver prior to the Games being held.

Since the Olympic bid process began, over 1,000 units of affordable SRO housing units have either been converted to other uses or shut down permanently. [4]

The term SRO is an acronym for Single Residency Occupancy rooms, somewhat like hotels that the homeless would in a crude reality 'compete for' in the inner cities of Vancouver. If one has ever watched Will Smith in the Pursuit of Happyness, that would be the best visual representation of what we are talking about here. VANOC even went as far as to turn down a request for a $1 Homelessness levy tax on Olympic tickets sold, to be matched by the provincial and federal Governments, as well as a renegging of the 3 200 unit promise for developing affordable social housing to address the socially-sustainable goal of the 2010 Games.

The rest of the points are fairly minor, in comparison, or I simply dont know anything worth saying about them to justify including an in depth analysis of them. We all know the importance of our farmers in Canada, and Im sure that we have all noticed the slow creeping increase in the price of bread loaves in our Safeways and Loblaws. Some interesting notes that I find in my pocketbook shows the statistics regarding our global grain stocks in rapid decline; 128 days in 1987, down to 116 days in 2000, and currently at 53 days if the world was to stop producing grain at this moment. These figures come with no source that I can remember or take away from the notes, so research independantly before taking as final truths.

(Edit + Addition)

The issue of tax cuts is up in the air for myself. For one, if I was to recieve a tax credit from the Feds, it would go immediately to paying down my debt and NOT to creating new stimulus and NOT going back into the economic market places. I think that it would largely be, not a waste, but a misuse of the monies in the hands of the Government to spread it out amongst Canadians who will most likely not inject those funds into the economy, therefore defeating the purpose of the credit.

And so as we speak, CPAC returns from adjournment for the presentation of the Budget. I will do my absolute best to take a bite into the document myself and report back to my loyal, currently non-existant readers!
Thomas RB Miller, Winnipeg Manitoba

---

[1] CBC.ca Newsreel, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/26/budgetadvancer.html
[2] Vancouver Sun, http://www.vancouversun.com/Entertainment/Budget+targets+infrastructure/1219136/story.html
[3] Journal of Commerce, http://www.joconl.com/article/id32020
[4] Dissident Voice radical newsletter, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/vancouver-2010-olympics-social-sustainability-legacy-under-fire/

The Political Reality of Beards

2009-01-14T05:55:00.000-08:00

You know, every so often I find myself snapping into a sort of uber self-consciousness. It happens in a variety of different situations throughout my everyday life. I find myself very aware of my surroundings when in a city and the role that I play in that city. I think about the different professions that keep that city functioning, the professions that I frequent and contribute to.

I also think about the underbelly of the city, the street-level professions such as prostitution, drug dealing, 'illegal' labour. I wonder if those prostitutes realize that they are party to a timeless and ancient profession, historically one that was not as frowned upon as it is today. Do the 'illegal' labourers (a more appropriate term would be undocumented, I guess) realize that they are somewhat a splinter of historic slave-labour that made the polis of old as great and prosperous as they were.

And then I looked at my shaggy appearance in the mirror this evening. I have kept a full beard on my face for the last two years now, and a goatee another 2 or 3 years prior in one capacity or another, and I love it. If one does not wear a beard, one does not know how much a beard completes a face. I saw my face and the unkempt condition of my barbs and thought to myself, 'What do I represent with this beard?'

I have long been an admirer of Fidel and Ernesto Guevara; what they symbolized in both their actions and their appearance. The represented change and an alternate way of doing things, of conducting oneself both in society as well as in a larger national and global way. The romance of the Cuban Revolution, the foundations of which were very non-partisan, contrary to popular belief, which a interestingly contrasts with the daddies of Communism and their strikingly eyeblinding facial-statements of the 19th c.

Thus the political issue reveals itself. Do my political preferences and inclinations manifest themselves in a physical way via my facial hair? Can I be picked out of a crowd as a socialist, just by my beard? I think yes. My keeping a beard signifies my aversion to conform to normal, mainstream trends. Since the end of the 19th century beards have been on the steady decline. American Presidents stopped wearing facial hair altogether after Taft [c.1930] (also, coincidentally the 1st Governer of Cuba) and it took decades before it was again donned en mass with the emergence of the hippy sub-culture.

And so I present that wear my beard as a personal statement just as much as a political or fashionable statement. I want my physical appearance to reflect my inner self, and non-conformity and ruggedness manifest through my neck, chin and cheeks in the form of sharp, whiskery barbs. I reject the classical clean-shavenism that finds its roots in the barbarians and non-Romans. I reject the notion that they only way to live in a civilized manour is to enter into the kind of society that we have created over centuries of misguided, liberal theology. How interesting that in order to be considered a civil person, one must remove one the most natural, biological products that a human, puebecent male can produce.

That is my rant on beards and their connection to politics. There is much more that can be said, and perhaps I will say it at a later time. Until then, grow a beard and realize the miracle of masculinity!

Responsive vs Responsible Government

2009-01-08T07:38:00.000-08:00

The concept of Responsible Government was, is, and always will be a fundamental aspect of any democratic movement world over. After all, les gens gave their namesake for the term.

But as with all terms and concepts, it is left entirely open to interpretation. Responsible to what? To whom? In a federal and centralised system, in a nation as geographically vast as Canada's, when do MPs go back to their constituents and take their most important seat, their riding office, to test the waters of opinion? On what subject matter do the people truely need to be involved?

As anyone with a political mind should realize, the system we function in is a liberal-democratic one. Do not mistake this for modern liberal thinking, or an even more dangerous mistake, for Canadian capital-L Liberalism. Liberal-democracy protects the individual, and the rights that inherently come from being an individual. Free-Market Democracy is how I choose to define it. Free-Market Capitalism holds that every man, woman and Samoan-child has the right to earn funds, save their funds, invest their funds, or donate their funds in whatever way they see fit. This was the dirt from which liberal-democratic thought bloomed, and envitably those same rights were adopted upon the wider public in the form of suffrage and participation in their own governance.

This is an important point to make when discussing the many variant forms of democracy and its respective schools of thought. Another facet of thought is that which was explored in the Soviet Union's theoretical and early stages as it struggled out of the grips of Czarist, uber-liberal tyranny. Because of the unique circumstances that Soviet-Communist Democracy grew out of, having to be fostered in the underground and alienated from the people, the concept of the Vanguard was created and taken as the only feasible vehicle of democratic change in an autocratic and dictatorial age. It gained momentum and support from the roots of Communism in the writings of Marx. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat became the buzz phrase for the movement.

And so the difference is drawn in the phrase, 'For the People, By the People, or Both?' We must leave to our governments some degree of freedom to disassociate from the people in order to maintain a functioning system. We in the Western + capitalistic world have the right of suffrage, that is the right to decide by election and universal participation exactly who makes up our Governments. That in turn requires that the government be responsible and accountable to the people who they represent, and ergo who elected them, and who could elect them again in the future. That accountability carries over to everything that the Government has involvement in, ensuring that the people interests and needs are first in line when making decisions regarding Governmental Affairs.

Non liberal-democracy does not inherently ensure that the Government will take the people interests into account, seeing as there is no accountability. They are stated to be for the people, but they are not elected by the people. This is a recipe for disaster, resulting in the latter stages of the Soviet Empire and more recently in the Canadian Constitutional Crisis precipitated by the Harperites at the end of 2008.

The interesting twist in this thinking is that even though historically it has been adopted to many Leftist movements, it also takes many pointers from the Pro-business, free market end of the spectrum. The corporate world is unelected, unaccountable except to it stockholders and money lenders, and void of any inherent allegiance to morality, be them determined good or bad by popular standards. This is why there is a movement against the vast privatisation of many resources, such as public water and heat during the winter months. Less Government, more business is the general rule of thumb for Conservative parties world over - interestingly though, it frequently is followed by total and unwaivering praise for our democratic institutions and the need to have people involved in their Governance!

The point that I wanted to make when starting this piece was that the principles of Social-democracy jive more with the fundamentals of Canadian democracy and with the Accountable Government theory than the Conservative values and the free-market mentality that would have unaccountable, unelected corporate entities control vital services like clean water or house-heating - leaving them up to the fluctuating and profit driven markets as opposed to stable and strategically controlled markets of the Public sector.

Not to say that capitalism and a dose the the Free Market is a hideous and terrible thing, quite the opposite actually. I would see as much economic growth as possible from the Free Market and from the private sectors of society, but when it comes to essential services like heat during the winter, those who cannot afford their heat bill in Winnipeg during the month of February should not freeze to death because of their financial inabilities. Only a public corporation can sustainably run a loss during the winter to accomodate the people, such a move is out of the question for a private company who much balance budgets or risk bankruptcy.

Long live HUGE, NON-Invasive, Government!

Quotation for the Masses

2008-12-27T06:13:00.000-08:00

"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

2008-12-20T08:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-17T07:37:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-12-16T09:57:00.000-08:00

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]

2008-12-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

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. So how do we rid ourselves of the monarchy and what would Canada look like afterwards?

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley commented that he thought 'for Canada after Queen Elizabeth, it should be time to consider a different institution for us, and personally I would prefer a wholly Canadian institution' (5) This is the most common way thought to implement a republican change in the monarchy. We simply do not recognize Elizibeth's heir once she passes away or relinquishes the throne. This will probably be done when the time comes, but the question still remains as to what sort of Canadian Institution we will subsitute for the Queen? Personally, I think that a complete removal of the Governor General posting is the best way to proceed. One way that could be considered is that the Prime Minister be elected directly instead of by party and by appointment. This would mean a reform in our electoral system, allowing for an option of Prime Minister as well as Member of Parliament for one's riding. This would also mean that the Prime Minister is no longer up for election by riding, but by general consensus nation-wide. This would require an amendment to the rules of the House of Commons aswell, allowing for one extra seat within the House for the elected Prime Minister. The trick here is that the PM and his Government would still be in reliant on the confidence of the House of Commons, meaning that Parliament can still defeat the PM + his Cabinet.

How would the candidates for Prime Minister be selected then? The candidates would be left up to an executive process, which would then present 10 names to be put to election. This would include nominees from the parties, as well as others who would be nominated by popular choice. This would probably need a convention to decided th forerunners, somewhat like the American primaries. This whole scenario would, in a perfect world, also be coupled with Proportional Representation and so there would have to be a mechanism installed to allow for non-partisan candidates (Independents) that would also have a way to be elected.

I will write more later on regarding the mechanisms that could be put in place, as well as the fundamentally important issue of Proportional Representation in Parliament.

References + Sources:
(1) - Image sourced from Wikipedia - [image found here]
(2) - Video of police dispursing the protesters from CBC Archives / also found on Wikipedia re: Canadian Republicanism
(3) - Public Opinion Polls taken from Wikipedia
(4) - Links to direct transcript of Empire Club speech, but originally sourced from Wikipedia (again)
(5) - Hunter, Stuart; The Province: British Columbians outraged at Manley; Oct. 7, 2002 (originally sourced from Wikipedia)

The Great Canadian Winter 2008 [Part 2]

2008-12-12T05:56:00.000-08:00

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.

[ECONOMIC OUTLOOK]

Right now we are in a Parliamentary hiatus. Parliament, both the Senate and the Commons, have been adjourned and will not sit until January 27th 2009 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty bring down their budget, presumably containing some sort of stimulus packaging for our ailing Canadian Industries. If the Conservatives come through with a feasible and acceptable plan, then the newly appointed interim leader of the Grits, Michael Ignatieff, has said that the Liberals will consider supporting the Government's budget, if it is in the interest of Canadians - giving off the impression that forming a Coalition Government is an unfavourable choice, only to happen if the Governer General asks him to do so (2). NDP Leader Jack Layton, however, has said outright that the New Democratic Party of Canada has fully lost confidence in the Prime Minister and will consider some of the ideas brought forth by the Tory budget and incorporate them into the plans of the Coalition Government.

My own opinion on this matter is that Stephen Harper has put forward a regressive agenda for Canada and for the Canadian people. He is trying to force a square block into a round hole. Canadians, by and large, are not considered conservatives, and even more so they are not Reform supporters. That can be seen in the popular vote of the last election, with only 37% of Canadians voting for a Conservative way forward for the economy. We did not vote overwhelmingly for a laissez-faire economic programme, we as a collective body support some sort of environmental, social, involved Government during the recessionary period that we are facing at the moment.

Our Government has failed to act quickly and effectively for working Canadians, with a job-loss of around 71 000 just in November 2008 alone. Pulp mills in the maritime provinces are closing their factories. Auto plants in southern Ontario are eliminatin shifts resulting in hundreds of workers being laid off. Logging industries in the West and in Quèbec are flailing because of reduced demand for pulp because of the pulp mill closures, as well as the lack of demand for wood related materials. Our manufacturing industry is reeling because the United States has slowed its buying because of their economy. This means that jobs will be lost in all these economic sectors, furthering the pressure of our mortgage and consumer markets.

Bottom line: We need to inject the economy with funds so as to protect the jobs of Canadians, and to soften the fallout from our slowing and receeding economy. The free-market and 'invisible hand' theory of economics does not work, that much is proven by this entire crisis we are going through. If you let things be, with no sort of planning except the divine hand of the markets, the destructive nature of man comes into play. Greed does not generate a sustainable base for the economy, and it will eventually result in the downfall of any nation.

We see progress and prosperity in a very linear way. Capitalism sees it as a constant climb to the top of the hill, the summit of which doesnt really exist because there never is 'enough' in Capitalistic theory. Sustainability does not compute with the current way we view success and progress. We still have oil in the ground, everyone needs oil, so we will use up all the oil that we have available and then move onto the next fuel. What is not taken into account is the damage that the oil does to the natural environs of our planet. This is not smart, long term, thinking.

[OUR POLITICAL FUTURE]

We are, at this very moment, in a very exciting time in history. All over the world we are progressing to great heights in human knowledge and human ability. We have started to re-examine everything, to borrow a phrase from David Suzuki (who I just saw on CBC Newsworld). There is one thing in particular that I have been contemplating about our future in Canada.

I have for as long as I can remember been interested in politics and in the social connection between people and our planet. My father is an American, or probably more accurately a Texan, and as you can probably imagine is a diehard Republican Conservative. I grew up with my Canadian mother though, born and raised and lived all her life in Vancouver, BC - as well as I - and so I have my fair share of Canadian socialism in me. Probably more than my fair share. My 'political' upbringing was a very interesting one. I followed my father in his stubborn support for anything and everything Republican - including George Dubya. Although I always said that I supported Bush, and although I chanted '4 more years! 4 more years!' on the phone with my Pops on Bush's re-election in 2004 - I never really felt the same way in my heart. I always identified with the more social aspects of politics, and the more romantic and idealistic properties of Government. This pushed me deep into the arms of Communism as a youth, which always envoked a quote from my folks and others:

'If your not a Communist when you're young, you have no heart. If you're still a Communist when you're old, you have no brain.'
-Winston Churchill (1874-1965) [Unknown source]

Its a great quote, really.

And, in some respects, I have renounced my card-carrying status as a Communist. In others, I am still very persistant in my utopian dreams of a socially responsible society. That is my ultimate vision for Canada. We are a nation of caring and involved people, and in some regards we are a nation of Socialists. The Canadian gut does not agree well with steady doses of Americanised Conservativism, the type that Stephen Harper has been injecting into Canada for coming up on 3 years now. That is blatently obvious if you even take a fleeting glance at the front page of the newspaper. Conflict and destructive partisanism has plagued our Government and our Parliament since the Harperites took the reigns.

We have seen our Parliament split right down the middle between the Tories and the rest of the House of Commons. The presence of even a minority Conservative Government has been quite destructive for Canadian politics.

And so the natural response to the lackluster, and generally non-Canadian, teeny-tiny Government approach to not only this current economic crisis, but also to the basic functions of our society, was to band together and take back the Canada that we know and want back. This need manifested itself in the form of the Liberal-NDP Coalition Government. A Progressive, socially responsible Government made up of 2 parties that together received a strong 44% of the popular vote of Canada. They resolved to put aside their political differences in the name of standing strong and united during turbulent economic times, and put together a package that would help everyday ordinary Canadians before our economy falls to pieces because of inadequate Conservative stewardship.

That is what I believe Canada needs right now. We need to remove ourselves from under the thumb of Conservatism, and get back the values that our system has taken from us.

One of the most important steps that I hope will come out of this discussion on a Liberal-NDP Coalition, as well as the controversy on the undeserved power of the Bloc in Canadian Federal politics, is that it will re-open serious debate on Proportional Representation. It is REQUIRED at this time to truly get Canadians thinking that their vote really counts in Parliament again. This is the catalyst for those talks.

The other thing that I would hope will spark a little bit of intrigue is the idea of finally divorcing ourselves from the English Monarchy and bringing Canada out of the 12th century and thrusting us into an efficient and functioning new era.

But that, as I said before, is fodder for my next theoretical essay.

References:
(1) The 2008 Economic and Fiscal Update @ Gov't Finance Site
(2) CBC.ca news article regarding Michael Ignatieff's new Leadership position

Bi-bi Cameral

2008-12-12T03:01:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-08T05:40:00.000-08:00

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. What has happened in Canada this past week, and it probably started much further back than just a few weeks, is what I would consider a revolution. But it is different than the scenarios that I presented above for several reasons. For one, Canada already functions with a democratic and open governmental structure. We elect our representatives into government, and we are ultimately in control of our Government. But what has happened in the last week, within our current governmental framework, has been unprecidented and unique to the situation at hand. We are in a time of economic crisis where the presence of our government is greatly needed for not just the short term, but also in a longer sense while we move through this period of our history.

We have also seen events within our parliamentary system, where the parties elected to represent us have been at odds with each other like never before. All of these things have resulted in a series of events that have all occured legally within our system, but seem to move contrary to the rules and regulations that we, as a collective society, hold as fundamental. We have a Prime Minister who, because there is no separation between our Executive and Legislative branch, is no different than any other Member of Parliament on the floor of the House, prorogue (essentially shut down) Parliament so as to avoid a democratic action to remove him from his place of power. This particular Prime Minister is in an interesting position, because he has neither a majority of seats in the House of Commons, nor the majority of the popular vote of Canadians. So, with the assistance of a loop hole in our democratic institutions, he removed the representation of a majority of Canadians from government, and will rule by decree for the stated time of 6 weeks until Parliament reconvenes. All of this was done legally, within our long established and accepted democratic institutions.

And now, Canada, we see a deeply rooted contradiction within our current governmental system. There are profound and established inequalities here, and they have taken a hold of and challenged the very fundamentals of our system - but without subverting them in a way to be considered illegal. A series of unrelated happenings of a parliamentary system have come together and, when executed together, contest the very reasons that our system exists in the first place. To give the people an equal and fair voice and a say in their own governance.

And so we are presented with a very unique choice that goes far beyond the temporal and practical actions that will can take, but tugs at the way we regard and think about our current institutions in Canada. We are given the choice of either of two ways out. One of them is by forming a new government and new Executive out of the existing Legislative Assembly we have now by way of a Coalition Government. The other is to go back to the voting booths and re-elect a new Legislative Assembly. The first route will open up doors that we have never opened in Political Canada, and it challenges the way that we have always viewed our electoral process, and the way that we will interact with the institution of elections in the future. The second way will do exactly the same, but without the time to reflect on how this particular institution functions and how we perceive it at the moment vs how we will perceive it later on. Either way, Canadians will be regarding and re-evaluating their political institutions in a very fundamentally different way.

This is the basic characteristic of a revolution.

In the United States of America their Revolution was one of violent uprising against a common enemy. This brought the American people together, and united them under a symbol of their struggle which was the American flag - the Star Spangled Banner. They fought for their freedoms, and the American Revolution carries on today in that very same struggle for freedom.

Frantz Fannon (1925-61) was a philosopher and revolutionary that preached a view that revolutionary action, known as praxis, bred the conditions for revolutionary consciousness to take hold. (1) 'People, Politics, and Government - a Canadian Perspective [6th Edition], James John Guy, Pearson/Prentice Hall In the case of the American Revolution, the praxis was excessive taxation from the British Empire. This precipitated the American Revolution, and instilled strongly held beliefs on the rights of individuals and of governments. It created the conditions for the America we see today.

In Canada, we never had such a revolution. There was no violent uprising that solidified our belief in an alternative form of government or a different way of doing things that the way that we have done them for the last near-400 years. There was no questioning of authority, because there had never been action to create the conditions for revolutionary, that is to say fundamental, change in the way we operate. Without anything to spurr us on, we essentially stagnated and steadfastly refused to change our ways. That is abundantly apparent when you take a look at our first-past-the-post electoral system. It is a fundamental aspect of our democracy, and yet it is grossly undemocratic. We have a system that will award zero representatives to one group, and then forty-nine representatives to another even though their popularity, in terms of votes, are almost the same. It allows for an Executive, whos powers rely solely on the support of the Legislative Assembly, to close that same Assembly even without it's support. The fundamentals of our democracy are fundamentally undemocratic.

And so we find ourselves in a very Canadian position, where it is to be a polite and non-violent revolution, but a revolution nonetheless. With this jarring example of our democratic institutions at work, we have seen that it is time for a change in our ways, and it is my belief that it will happen slowly and through a series of small democratic manoevers. Canadians are changing the ways they see their government. Canada's Electoral, Legislative, Executive and even Constitutional institutions are all under intense scrutiny right now. How we are represented in our Parliament, right down to the powers that those who represent us hold - everything is in flux.

Long live Canada, long live a Free Canada. Vive le rehvolution du Canada.

The Great Canadian Winter 2008 [Part 1]

2008-12-06T07:38:00.000-08:00

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 ||

In Canada we elect individual Members, 308 to be exact, to represent us in the House of Commons in Parliament. That is a very important thing. We live in a representative democracy, which means that we elect our representatives to make decisions in the House on our behalf. We, the electorate, are not involved in the day to day processes of government and of the House, that is the responsibility of our Members of Parliament. Those Members that we send are accountable to their constituents, no one else. Forgetting the bureuocracy of the seating arrangements in Parliament, a majority of Canadians put an X beside either a New Democrat or a Liberal candidate on the Fourteenth of October 2008. 939 950 more to be exact - just a hair more than voted for the Green Party of Canada during the same election, and just about half a million less than Quèbecors who voted for the Bloc Quèbecois. (1)

One must also remember that this particular election in October 2008 was hard-fought on the premise of the LEADER most fit for the job, and the economy. The Tories fought the election on their economic strong points and that their leader was not, infact, made of stone - and the Opposition parties fought it on both economics and leadership skill.

Lets play with negative numbers shall we? Harper lost the vote of almost 62% of Canadians for either one - or both - of those two reasons stated above. 18% sent for their Member of Parliament a New Democrat who would stand for a New Democratic economic stance. Twenty-six percent opted for a Liberal economic policy, but netted a -3% vote swing from the election prior (most likely due to leadership questions). These parties, although not making up a majority of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, we're voted for by nearly 1 million more Canadians than Conservative Party of Canada members.

Now the important thing to remember here is that neither did the Tories. Stephen Harper and his Conservative caucus received 5 208 796 votes from Canadians, which amounts to 37% of the total votes cast. They received more seats than any other single party, but not a majority, in the House of Commons - therefore giving them the right to form the Government of Canada.

Thus is the Canadian democratic system, and a quick overview of the election results of the 40th Parliament of Canada. On to the current crisis.

|| NOVEMBER 27 2008 + COALITION||

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on behalf of the Government of Canada introduced a Fiscal Update on November 27th of 2008 that stated that Canada was in a place of advantage in the face of this global economic slowdown. It said that Canada has 'weathered this downturn better than virtually any other industrialized country... [but] is not isolated from global developments' and the general consensus was that Canada will enter a 'technical recession' in the near future. (2)

What it did not include was a viable stimulus package for integral parts of the Canadian economy, something that all Opposition parties had been calling on the Conservative Government to do, and to do now. What the Government did instead was try to 'hide the deficit' that is inevitably on its way to Canada. The OECD has said that 'countries like Canada that have kept their fiscal house in order are in the best position to ramp up stimulus spending,' (3) and yet we have a Government who takes the opposite stance to the rest of the industrial world, and refuses to offer up a serious and prompt economic stimulus package. They also included into the Update a proposal to eliminate public funding for each vote that all registered parties in Canada receive - a proposal that would virtually bankrupt the Opposition parties, most directly affecting the Green party. The Opposition parties who inhabit the House of Commons, thought this recklass and irresponsible of the Tory Government and therefore announced that they had lost confidence in the Government to effectively govern this country. This meant that none of the Opposition MPs from the Liberal caucus, the NDP caucus or the Bloc Quèbecois caucus would vote in favour of the Government`s lack-there-of plan for stimulating the ailing economy.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quèbecois Leader Gilles Duceppe announced shortly thereafter that they would be bringing the Government down on a vote of No Confidence, to be tabled by the Liberal Opposition on Monday the Eigth of December 2008. They are able to do this because combined, the three opposition parties hold a majority of seats in the House of Commons, meeting and exceeding the required 155 votes to pass legislation or motion of non-confidence in the Government. Normally, this would result in an election.

But the kicker here is that Canadians just returned from the polls less than 2 months ago, and it must be said with the worst case of voter apathy in Canadian electoral history. 59% of Canadians voted in the October election, a record low.(4) The opposition parties agreed that going back to the polls, and spending another $300 million on election finances, was unpalatable to the Canadian people and also to the immediate situation that we were facing. What counted was getting the stimulus dollars injected into the economy as soon as possible so as to buffer us from any large casualties. Therefore, they presented the option of a coaltion government between the Liberals and the New Democrats. The two parties pledged their commitment to the Canadian people and to the setting aside of differences in the name of making the governance of this country effective and workable, atleast in the short term.

But alas, even though the Liberals and NDP had gained the support of 44% of Canadians, 7% more than the Conservatives, they still did not have more seats in the House than the Tories, nor enough seats to ensure that the Coalition Government would stay stable and have the votes it needed to govern effectively. It then turned to the Bloc Quèbecois for support. The three parties signed a document that stated the intentions of the coalition government between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada to bring forth immediate plans for a stimulus package for the Canadian economy, with the support of the Bloc Quèbecois only on issues pertaining to confidence in the newly formed Government for a period of 18 months. This would ensure the Government stability for a year and a half when going up against an angry and large Conservative caucus, and allow the Government to get through some important legislation as pertaining to the collective consensus on the needs of the economy.

This move to bring in the Bloc Quèbecois was taken by the Tory defensive line, and turned into a move that would give the separatists control over the actions of the Government, effectively paving the way for Quèbec soverignty. They called it irresponsible for them to engage the Bloc in any dealings of Canadian Government, because they were self acknowledged proponents of breaking up the country.

What at first had started as a national economic crisis had turned into a Parliamentary crisis - because no one knew if it was legal or legitimate for a newly amalgamated coalition government to usurp the power from the ruling Government - and had now turned into a unity crisis with the Harper Conservatives fanning the embers of anglophone-francophone contempt by calling the Liberals and NDP 'traitors' and basically hinting at the fact that they consider the Bloc an illegitimate force within the House.

What came next was a flurry of Conservative and Liberal and NDP and Bloc Quèbecois MPs speaking out either for or against the proposed coalition force, and a series of media barrages on the legalities and the moralities of going through with the signed, triplecate, ready for Royal Assent deal.

|| PROROGUATION ||

And then, as of December Fourth 2008, the 40th democratically elected Parliament of Canada was essentially silenced by the current Prime Minister - in an act that I see akin to Louis XVI shutting the doors of the Salle des États. He had petitioned the Governer General of Canada Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament until he could bring out a budget on January the 27th. The reason that Mr. Harper did have Parliament prorogued was to avoid the vote of No Confidence that was to occur on the Eigth of December 2008, which would have defeated his Government and given way to the Governer General to either allow the coalition Government to form within the current Parliament, or goto an election and discover a new Government from that election.

The act of prorogument to avoid a completely democratic vote inside the House of Commons is almost an unspeakable act, in my own opinion. It also sets a dangerous precendent that any Prime Minister can effectively shut down Parliament in the face of a defeat in the future, something not likely to ever happen again, but keep in mind it has just happened.

Now the prorogument of Parliament by Mr. Harper via the Governer-General is probably a good thing, one must admit that. Parliament was going to go on holiday for Christmas anyway, and this really just gives them longer holiday time. Both parties, and the Canadian people, would benefit from taking the next 2 months to really take a look at what they believe in, and solidify those beliefs. However, the issue at hand is not the reasons or reasoning or even the benefits behind the act of proroguation, but that the desicion was made by the Prime Minister himself that he should be allowed to bring forth his budget and keep his Government in power, and frankly it was not his desicion to make. He was to face an entirely democratic vote in the House of Commons on monday the Eigth of December 2008, and this prorogument was done to avoid that vote and keep the Harper Conservatives in power. End of story.

REFERENCES + SOURCES OF INFORMATION
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008 accessed Dec 5th 2008 @ ~ 11.30-12am)
(2) - http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/pdf/EconomicStatement2008_Eng.pdf // page 5/127)
(3) - http://www.thespec.com/News/article/466140 - accessed Dec 6th 2008 @ ~2am)
(4) - http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx - accessed Dec 6th 2008 at 2.29am)

I will continue this essay at a later time, and I will also include thoughts on how to fix the mess and come out with a happy and healthy Canada when all is said and done.

Democracy lives here no more...

2008-12-05T02:05:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-30T01:34:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-09T09:04:00.000-08:00

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.

The most prominent and powerful of them is what we know as liberal democracy. This was truely the original western democratic theory. It has it roots deep within the foundations of the French Revolution, but make no mistake, liberal-democracy did not come about as a way for the people to have accountable government. Liberal-Democracy was simply a way to facilitate petty-bourgeois capitalism. It made it easier for those who were the productive cogs of the economy at the time to excersize control over the government. The factory owners who employed the French workers had all the real power, and they needed legislation to be put through so that they could extract as much profit as possible and keep their factories operating, so that the French would keep their jobs. This was the façade that was pulled over to make the exploitation look acceptable. What in essence happened was the transfer of power from the Monarchy and the Nobility to the factory owners and the merchant bourgeoisie-capitalists, not immediately down to the people.

But, petty-bourgeois capitalism and the French Revolution did bring with it some very important and very appropriate liberties. The freedom to make money, to spend money, and to save money. It was also the first time that self-determination was really brought into effect in peoples everyday lives. You can think of it as 'free-market democracy'. Liberal-democracy also brought with it an entire economic system, or rather, the economic system brought with it the seeds of liberal-democracy. Unfortunately though, the mere creation of petty-capitalism and the rights associated with it, necessitated the need to trickle those rights and freedoms down to the commoners. Chief among those freedoms was not only the right to self-determination, but more importantly the right to determine one's government. Historically prior that priviledge had been available only to a select elite of persons, and with the French Revolution... very little changed. It took some time before the vast majority of the citizenry had the actual right to determine their own interests in government.

What did change, however, was that the western world suddenly boomed with advancement. The economy thrived because those who had the most at stake in economic success were able to rebuke the barriers that a popular government, accountable to the people and the workers, would have created - i.e. fair and safe working conditions, job security, wage protection, etc etc. This changed eventually when the economies of Europe and North America started to become so large that they could accomodate a lifestyle that would be comfortable for most of the population, destitute workers and all. It was at that point that liberal-democracy encountered it's Loyal Opposition: the concept of the Worker's State.

Worker's Democracy, or what is also known - somwhat inaccurately - as non-liberal democracy or Communism, came from under the thumb of the capitalist doctrines. It was formulated in Germany by Chuck Marx in the middle of the 19th century. It was a total package of worker's rights, a worker's economy, and a blueprint for the installation of a worker's state deep within the existing framework of what they saw as the oppressive, capitalist society.

Although dreampt-up for implementation in Germany, a highly developed capitalist nation, the first Worker State emerged from the smouldering failure of Tzarist Rus' about 60 years later. A re-visionist revolutionary Vladimir Uylanov, known to the world as Lenin, brought the Communist revolution to Russia in late 1917. But the political atmosphere in Russia was quite different than in its neighbouring nations to the west. By 1917 Europe and North America had evolved to the point where nearly all citizens had the right to vote, they were comfortable in their living situation, and used the system to further their own individual agendas and success. They had stopped fighting against their government long ago, and now determined how their governments operated (more or less). Russians did not have this priveledge. They were surpressed by their Imperial Czarist regime, could not freely publish their views if they opposed the government, could not associate with like-mined dissenters on pain of exile or death. This coupled with lack of modern communication and transportational infrastructure made a revolt that was fueled by popular oppinion near impossible. This is where Lenin inserted his own chapter into the Manifesto. That chapter was called the Vanguard of the Revolution.

This is where the fundamental ideological differences lie.

In Liberal-Democratic thought, the government is commonly refered to as 'Of the People, For the People, By the People.' In the Communist variant, Non-Liberal Democracy, during the Vanguard period of the development more of the emphasis is placed on the middle sentance: FOR the People, but not necesserely BY the People. Now this sounds like absolute non-sense when you have been raised and are familiar with living in a liberal-democratic capitalist environment, but we must remember that the French Revolution was conducted in much the same manour. The French Vanguard were the original revolutionaries in the late 1770s, the same way that the Russian Bolshevik-Soviets were in 1917.

Revolutions are born out of popular and widespread discontent, but they are facilitated and fueled by an elite crew on behalf of the people. The point that the Rus' Revolution became disassociated from it's French counterpart lies both in ideology, but more importantly in the era that each independantly developed. Those who fostered the Russian Revolution were educated and lived outside of Russia in the heart of liber-democratic Europe. They saw what the people of western Europe were reaping from what the petty-capitalists had sewn 150 years before, and fought hard against that ideology in their homeland Revolution. They sought to take their transformation into a direction that they hoped would be both more successful and morally superior to that of the Capitalist's.

Had the capitalist ideology been the only thing holding back the Russians from successfully creating a productive, thriving and moral alternative society, I believe that Socialism, and later Communism, really would have dominated the globe. But unfortunately not only was the ideology in stark opposition to the Worker State, but even more so were the ideologues. The governments and the societies and the economies that were so tied up and intertwined within the capitalist nervous system stood in the way of Socialist success. The emphasis on the collective society was a new concept in a world that was monopolised by self-interest and individual-first way of thinking.

Socialism and social-thinking threatened to cut into profits, and therefore into capital, and therefore into their fundamental doctrines of Imperialistic dominance over anything and everything. It opposed the school of thought that was anything that you can hold in your hands, and even some things that you couldnt, had a monetary value assigned to it. It opposed exploitation and perpetual expansion. It opposed a certain degree of sustainability, something that is totally out of groove with capitalism. It threatened to loosen the hold on power that those capitalists and businessmen had. And so now, in the 21st century, we see a resurgence of this ideology of expansion, of anti-sustainability, of self-interest over collective-interest. We see our leaders enacting a policy of 'democratisation' the world over, in some of the most inhospitible and incompatible places on the planet. We see the ignorance of those same policy makers thinking that quantum physics works in political endeavors also.

Eventually the child has to open it's mouth for the airplane-spoon.

America: Canada's after-thought.

2008-11-08T22:01:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-11-08T21:56:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-01T00:08:00.000-07:00

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!