Canadian Election 2004

9:33 and less than 12 hours to go!

2004-06-28T09:33:00.000-04:00

So if you've been reading along with my writing then you know all about The Liberals, the Conservatives,
the Bloc, the NDP,
and the Rest, the platforms, and the reasons to vote.
We've been from a Majority Liberal Government, to Minority Conservative, all the way up to talk of a Majority Conservative.
We've seen 10% slides in opinion polls and heard a variety of different promises. We've had mistakes, errors, swearing, shifting alliances, and the French and English Debates. The Media's role, provincial and foreign influence, the balance of power, the comeback of a couple, And the disappearance of one. With less than 15 hours to go, I can honestly say this has been one of the most interesting elections in my lifetime.

I cannot stress on you enough how important it is for everyone to vote. There are up to 200 seats that depending on voter turnout could change the out come off that seat. I am expecting many seats in Ontario to be decided by less that 100 votes, whereas in the previous election the Liberals walked away with large vote amounts. So whether you want to see change, or if you want things to remain the same you still need to vote.

Some things to remember

1) You don't need to be on the voter list! What you need is photo ID, and a record of your residency. This can be accomplished with a phone/cable bill, or any government or work documentation. I've done this three times myself, and it's very easy.

2) You can go home early! Polls are open until 9:30 in most places, so most of us can get home with plenty of time to spare, but if there's any question as to you being able to vote you are legally allowed to leave work to make it on time.

3) You vote right near you. Drop your postal code in here and it will show you where to vote

Prediction

I am continuing my prediction from before, Liberal Minority, with the Bloc holding the balance of power. It will be tight race and the balance that any one party hold will be slim.

How can you help?

Get out and vote. Be involved. What you vote for will make a difference, as whoever ends up running the country will need the other parties help. And Vote intelligently, think about your area. If you're in Downtown Toronto the vote is split between the NDP and the Liberals. If you're in the 905 area it's between the Liberals and the Conservatives. If you're on Saanich-Gulf Island (Victoria) then it's between the Greens and the Conservatives. So if you want to vote for a specific person or party do that, but if you're a strategic voter and want to keep someone in or out of power, think about your area and where you can make the biggest impact.

Happy Voting Day everyone!

Dead Heat and three days to go.

2004-06-25T17:43:00.000-04:00

About 72 hours from now I'm going to be racing out of work to go place my vote in one of the tightest races of the last 30 years. By everyone's admission there are virtually NO safe ridings anywhere in the country, and every vote could make the difference.

So this weekend I will be spending some time thinking about the last 4 weeks to see what it all means and make my final decisions. I have already decided who I am not voting for, Sorry Communist Party, the Marxist-Leninist party has much more going for it, but I have not officially placed my vote and can still be swayed.

Interestingly though, the US election always manages to cause a stir in Canada and we tend to get involved in our own ways (there are constantly polls talking about what Canadians think of US leaders, while most American's can't name Canada's leader), however this is one of the first where we've had major US statements about ours.

Michael Moore has come out and said that he hopes Canadian's don't elect Stephen Harper and his conservatives. He has said that Canadians should not become more like Americans and we should be thinking about the long term ramifications to our votes. As with the US, most right wing conservatives will brush Michael Moore off as an annoyance and vote for Harper and his ilk.

And now Ralph Nader, independent Candidate for President in the US, and some believe 2000 election spoiler has come up and endorsed the NDP. In his statement he said that the voters are understandably reacting to the scandal, but we should beware and not overreact. He says a viable third party is a great option and the NDP are there as our option.

So as you head through the next few days think about the party you are voting for. Are you voting for spite, and will you still feel that spite in 4 years and was it worth it? Are you going to vote for the lesser of evils or vote for what you believe in?

Last post pre-vote will come on Monday morning.

Where is Stephen Harper?

2004-06-24T10:35:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago Stephen Harper took a day off to set himself up for the home stretch. This unplanned day off came a day after the news hit of a new poll putting him 6 points behind the Liberals, dropping heavily in the week after the debate. The Conservatives had hit the wall some said, they peaked too early said others, and the whole time the Liberals watched with baited breath to find out what Stephen was going to do the following day.

And it was nothing.

Early yesterday he made an impassioned speech about how Martin could have stopped McGuinty from raising taxes in Ontario, and has since been virtually silent. The Bloc is still tearing up the Liberals, the NDP are setting out a minority government agenda, and the Liberals are attacking the Conservative health care plan. And the Conservatives are silent, there is even surprisingly a lack of new press releases on their website.

So far the reason it seems that most people are switching to the Conservatives are because they are not the Liberals, not for any real support of the CPC Policy. Harper has tried through this campaign to paint himself as a moderate conservative, but he has failed to distance himself from his Extremist Reform roots. I believe this is the new strategy, stay out of the news, stay out of the way, say nothing.

It seems to be that the more we hear from him the more likely he is to say something that concerns a few more Ontarians who then float back to the Liberals, and if Stephen Harper is going to win he needs to storm Ontario.

On June 28, Vote Conservative - National Post

2004-06-23T11:47:00.000-04:00

The news papers have begun to step in with their opinions on whom you should place your vote for and surprisingly not what I was expecting. The National Post has come in heavily in favour of the Conservatives surprising considering their owners. The Aspers were heavy Chrétien supporters so for them to come out in support of Steven Harper tells me that they are either pandering to their right wing readers, or they are still angry about Martin's subversion of their friend. The Post mentions the reasons of the healthcare system needing some sort of renewal, the promise to cancel Kyoto, and the backing of the US war in Iraq, of which none will happen unless Harper manages a majority which is not very likely at this point.

The Globe and Mail, for years the paper of Canada's right until Lord Black darkened the newspaper skies with the National Post about a decade ago, has come out in favour of the Liberals. The reasons seem to come down to one thing, even though the Liberals have lied, cheated and mismanaged the social conservative agenda is too dangerous for their liking.

The other shock for me was Winnipeg Sun coming out in favour of Martin with similar reasons to the Globe. Only last week I was giving the Sun papers a bashing for being too Conservative/Harper based, but this week their leftists paper, the Winnipeg Sun, slips by the big Sun Media editors and backs the Liberals.

I'm not too sure if this will make much of a difference, but with a couple of conservative type papers going Liberal I don't see it hurting their chances much.

The Liberal comeback

2004-06-22T13:59:00.000-04:00

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll has shown a rebound for the Liberals, bouncing back almost 6 points ahead of the Conservatives from a week and a half ago of a 1-2% miss. In a tight race like this a single point can mean the difference between power and obscurity, and Paul was looking like he was making a run for a footnote in Canadian Political history.

Only a few weeks ago it was looking as if Martin had lost the faith of the media, his party and more importantly the electorate. Steven Harper had seen a 10% rise in his fortune, and was arrogantly talking about a majority government. And with a single poll the momentum the Conservative party had has been stripped away. Talk of a Majority is gone and Harpers statement that the people of Canada wanted to give him a majority has been proven false.

It seems as if people want one thing, a minority government. We are however; unsure of whom we want to be leading. It seems that no one truly wants Martin or Harper, but Layton and Harris aren't a choice of most either. This could very well be the last we see of a majority government, for rearing it's head from the beast of the Liberal Party is the idea of Proportional Representation.

That's right; the party who has benefited the most from our first past the post system is considering, however mildly, the NDP proposal. Martin told the Winnipeg Free Press that he may entertain the idea. No doubt this will be only under the condition that the NDP have enough seats to cover the spread to a majority government. Six days left and I can honestly say this is one of the best election runs we've had in my lifetime. From a majority Liberal to minority Conservative, to a coalition Liberal/NDP, and with less than a week to go and only days away from the publishing ban on polls we could still see many things change.

We've got to put an end to this Bullshit right now

2004-06-21T10:32:00.000-04:00

Jack Layton fumed on Friday as accusations from the Liberals that Jack would work with the Conservative party if they won a minority government. In a sign of desperation, the Liberals have begun attacking the NDP, attempting to pull the left Liberals back to their party. As with Ontario, the NDP are running 26%, only a handful of points behind the Liberals, in the province with the most seats. The NDP are projecting up to 12 seats in Ontario, up from the 2 they presently hold. This is concerning the Liberals, because even if they don't lose the seat to the Conservatives, they still lose the seat.

Jack's statement continues to the effect that He, and his NDP, do not agree with virtually any policy of the Conservatives, and there was nothing that could change in the next few days that would change that. The Liberals however are still claiming this to be true, especially in BC, an NDP heavy area.

BC looks like they may be the province to watch in this election as it will be close enough in the rest of the country for BC to hold the balance, as well their polls close last of all the provinces. The NDP have been showing a strong third with the Conservatives leading the Liberals by 1-4% depending on the polls. The Greens are showing strongest in BC with 7-10%. Because of the tightness of the race the parties are all furiously working to shift the momentum in their favour, the Liberals working harder than the rest. Many former NDP members are now working for the Liberal party and are the ones attacking Jack directly.

Meanwhile Harper had been running a great campaign until late last week where he attacked Paul Martin for now doing more about child pornography, an issue raised due to the Holly Jones murder trial. This seems to have played poorly as Harper alluded to the fact that Martin has made child porn more readily acceptable. A stretch at the best of times, Martin's Liberals brought in many new pieces of legislation against child porn. My feelings on a minority Liberal government are still solid, and these issues begin to show the true agenda of the Conservatives, one based on fear and cynicism.

What does Klein have to do with anything?

2004-06-18T16:46:00.000-04:00

With two of the main parties (Conservative and Bloc) focusing on a decentralization of power it's important to know the role of the provinces in Federal Politics. As it stands we don't have as clear a delineation between what is the specific role for provincial governments and what Federal jurisdiction. The Federal government acts as a fund distributor to the provinces for programs it deems essential. Programs like security, military and healthcare are federal programs.

Emperor Ralph Klein of Alberta has stepped in many times to complain about Federal programming. He has been demanding that the provinces be allowed to opt out of the programs, receive the money directly, and implement the program themselves in their own way. Apparently he is going to announce his healthcare plan for Alberta two days after the Federal election. Klein has in the past attempted to allow two-tier health care for Albertans, and many have speculated that his health plan will be more of the same. This could have major ramifications for the Canadian Health care system.

Despite the constant denials, Steven Harper and Klein have a strong history. Before his Reform/Alliance days, Harper was finance minister under Ralph Klein and helped to implement the two-tier system growing in Alberta. He spoke of building a "firewall" around Alberta to protect them from the federalist reach, and he cut programs in the same way Ernie Eves did for Ontario under Mike Harris' Tories. If Steven Harper wins the election and gets the Bloc to agree to a devolution of Federal Power (something very important to the Bloc), Ralph Klein may have his way finally, in creating a two-tiered for profit system in Alberta, essentially negating the Canada Health Act.

With only 10 days to go in this election and an electorate bent on change, are we going to vote for something we don't want simply for spite?

Harper and the threat of a conservative government.

2004-06-17T11:05:00.000-04:00

Despite my prediction of a slim Liberal Minority the rest of the media outlets are still claiming the Conservative have the lead. They do have the momentum, and about 10 days to continue their climb, so there is that small chance that I may be wrong, I'm still sticking to my statement. The reason, the Polls are still too far apart, some saying the Liberals have a 1% lead, others saying the Conservatives have a 5% lead. And I do have a strong feeling that Ontario, as in the past, will shift back to the Liberals while standing behind the cardboard barriers.

It looks like there is virtually no way anyone can walk away with a Majority (just ignore Harper, he has to talk like that), and the NDP are not going to pick up enough seats, so we're left with the Bloc as the swing party choosing which party to support. This leaves Duceppe in a strong but difficult position. Does he back the heavily federal Liberal party who is the only other party that a has a chance of seats in Quebec? The one he's been so viciously attacking over the last few weeks? Or does he back the Conservatives, who although decentralized and committed to returning power to the provinces, also has a completely opposing social agenda that Duceppe spent much of the debate criticizing? Either way, he could hold a huge amount of sway, but also could easily offend the voters in Quebec who gave him such a strong mandate.

In the end, the threat of a Conservative government isn't as horrible as some left leaning voters make it out to be. Harper would be the PM, but he would have to work with the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc to pass bills, of which no party agrees with most of the Conservative social policy. The extremist element of the Reformatories would be negated and Harper would have to live up to his talk of being a moderate conservative.

However we still don't know, there are too many seats close to the edge, and as things become more polarized in the next week the undecided and "soft" supporters will be shifting from one party to the next, possibly giving the third, fourth and fifth alternatives a chance. The Green party, strong in the polls at 4-7% now has a very credible chance at winning two seats in BC. Which, although may not sound like a lot, was the same amount of seats the Progressive Conservatives walked away with after the 1993 election. A slightly extreme, but possible outcome is that the election ends up so close that 1-2 seats could make the majority, and with their social leaning, the Greens could easily work with a Liberal/NDP alliance. And with their focus on tax reduction, they could work with the conservatives. It would definitely rocket them into main stream credibility if they were a part of a coalition government, giving Canadians yet another alternative.

The Wrap and the run to the finish.

2004-06-16T15:54:00.000-04:00

The question on everyone's mind two days ago was, Will the debates change anything? Two days later, and four hours of debate and we are left with the same question.

For those that watched the debate it comes down to a matter of opinion as to who won. My thoughts were that Gilles Duceppe won the French debate, and I didn't see a clear winner in the English debate. The goals were the same, Harper needed to look moderate and prime ministerial, Martin needed to look strong and Chrétienesk, Layton needed to distinguish himself from the Liberals and keep people from strategic voting, and Duceppe...well, he needed to play spoiler.

And boy did he spoil. Gilles came out hitting, nailing each leader on returning the GST to the provinces. Hitting Harper on his support of a war Quebecers were in a huge majority against. And backed Martin into repeated corners about the sponsorship scandal, asking who the political direction was, and who the ministers involved were.

Jack went in with both fists and attacked Martin and Harper heavily, Harper for his open support of the missile shield and support of the US war in Iraq, Martin for not being clear on his position on either. Jack had some good moments against both, but took his aggressiveness over the line a couple of times when he continued to talk over Paul Martin, who was attempting to respond to his questions.

At one point, while being attacked by Jack, Paul took a step back from the podium. It looked as if he wanted to throw his hands into the air. Between Duceppe, Layton, and Harper, Martin must have drawn 80% of the attacks. During the one on ones, Layton and Harper would stop the attacks on each other to say "but at least your position is clear, unlike the Liberals". From the opening statements, before Martin had even had a chance to say a word he was already on the defensive, taking shots about the sponsorship scandal, cutting funding to healthcare and the military, cutting taxes, and wasting taxpayer’s dollars. He did a solid job of sticking to message and defending himself when he was given a chance, but he was so inundated with abuse that he was rarely given that chance. It makes me wonder if he's now rethinking his election call.

And the man who now has the most to lose and gain, Stephen Harper did exactly what he needed to do, he fended off the attacks on policy, sounded moderate, and took well tuned jabs at Martin. A few things that haven't been mentioned however are the fact that he mentioned he would use the not-withstanding clause to limit some freedoms (he used peadophiles as an example) and he supported the US's invasion of Iraq.

As we enter the final 12 days of the campaign we should see some interesting trends, as the parties fight for the undecided voters. My prediction today is that the Liberals, although battered and beaten, will be returned to office, however this time with a slim minority.

The Media's role in Election

2004-06-15T11:46:00.000-04:00

After seeing the front of the Toronto Sun "Tory wins" this morning I can only ask one question....was there a second debate last night that no one told me about? I quickly scanned the other Sun Papers to find a variety of other similar titles like "Martin French Fried", from the Calgary, and "Paul Pummeled", from Edmonton. So I looked into the other National Newspapers to see what they had to say. The National Post said "Martin fends off Attack", the Globe and Mail stated the "Leaders Zero in on Scandal", the Montréal Gazette had "Martin still on his feet" and the only other paper I could find was Le Devoir (translated) stating "First Debate, Advantage Duceppe", not a single one of them giving Harper the advantage.

Now I personally watched last nights French language debate (watched the translated version, my French isn't strong enough to listen to people talking over each other), and if I was to give anyone a win it would have been Duceppe. Being French language, the topics were heavily based about Quebec, and Gilles scored points on everyone, Martin for cutting back on healthcare to pay off the deficit, using tax havens for his former shipping line and having done nothing for Quebec in the 11 years his party has been in power, Layton for his federal stance, and Harper for infringing on women’s rights, language rights, gay rights, his plan to drop out of Kyoto, and for wanting to be part of the war in Iraq. No one was able to score any good points against him, and therefore he wins.

Heading into the debate the pressure was really on Martin and you can look at his performance in a few ways. He was heavily attacked on all sides and defended himself well, however he scored few points against the Bloc and the NDP, and in the French language debate he really needed to take the Bloc down a few notches. A few moments he looked flustered when being assaulted by all the parties, but did seemingly attempt to curry favour with the Bloc asking Duceppe if he really wanted to work with a radical westerner, and the NDP saying that their policies were similar.

Jack stepped in and cut Martin off in his best exchange of the night saying "No Mr. Martin, our policies are not similar, you've had 11 years to do the things you keep talking about and we've seen nothing but cutbacks and tax breaks, our plan is to actually do what we say." Overall Layton had a strong performance, helping to point out the inconsistencies in the Harper Plan.

Stephen Harper was on the attack last night, he came after Martin heavily, and must have used the words "moderate alternative" about 20 times though the 2 hour exchange. He failed to score any good points on any of the other leaders but in the same vein avoided answering the question when Paul tried to get an answer from him whether he would use the not withstanding clause to take rights away from people (as in gay marriages).

It does come down to personal opinion to a certain extent; however Duceppe had a clear advantage with issues for his province and the language. Martin, Harper and Layton all failed to land any serious blows in this debate. Which brings us back to the initial point of this, how does Sun Media get away with such a hugely biased view of the debate? For the last few years is seems to me that Sun Media, division of Quebecor Media, has been clearly attempting to fill the void left by the National Posts move out of the rabid right. And in this election have been giving a huge benefit to the Conservative party.

In a democracy it is the job of media to give a balanced view of the days events, and in a this case Sun Media is using it's readership to push its own view of how this election should play out. Now, the rest of our media is definitely biased, but at least they attempt to offer the alternate views as well, Sun Media is trying it's hardest to be on one hand the lowest brow newspaper chain in the country (anyone else with a sunshine girl?) and on the other the ones picking our next PM.

Shame on Sun Media for taking on the role of the Canadian Fox News.

Premier débat des chefs ce soir

2004-06-14T13:58:00.000-04:00

For those who failed French that means the first Leaders debate is tonight, and it's in French. To follow is tomorrows English Language Debate. Tonight and Tomorrow night could determine the outcome of the election, and possibly not.

Early in the history of televised debates, the winner of the debate usually saw a great jump in the numbers, however as of late this means less and less. With the media available to all of us, we don't always feel the need to watch or pay close attention to the debate. We hear about the issues on the radio, on TV, newspapers and the internet.

But Tonight Paul Martin is going to try and draw seats back away from the Bloc, while Harper attempts to win a single seat in Quebec. Layton will also be fighting to win a couple of seats away from the Bloc. Quebec in this election has become a huge battle ground because at this point it looks as if the Bloc could be holding the balance of power for whatever government ends up with the minority win. For the Liberals, the more seats they take from the Bloc the more likely they are to be able to form the government.

In a situation that the Conservative and Liberals split the seats too evenly and the NDP do not get enough seats, the Bloc will be the deciding party, giving it even more power than it had in 1993 when it became the official opposition party.

Martin will come out strongly against Harper, who will be lying as low as possible. At the same time Duceppe and Layton will be attacking Martin and trying to take further seats away from the Liberal government.

The Liberals have a lot to lose in Quebec tonight, yet even more tomorrow in the huge seat battleground of Ontario.

A Question from a Reader

2004-06-11T15:36:00.000-04:00

"Do any of the parties talk at all about retirement plans for our generation?"

The Canadian Pension Plan was set up January 1, 1966 by Liberal PM Lester B Pearson. The idea, to support Canada's seniors when they retired. Shortsightedly the governments of the 70's and 80's did not properly fund into the CPP and in the early 90's was going to be on the verge of collapse in 20 years when the Baby Boomers started withdrawing their pensions and stopped paying into it. The long story short, the CPP will either be gone, or be serverely altered by the time the youth of our country retire.

The Liberal Plan has no long term outlook, but will boost the amount paid to seniors, effectively bankrupting the system in advance of the expected collapse.

The NDP have a plan to protect the system when it collapses by making sure the employees are the preferred creditor in times of bankruptcies. They will also invest more in the pension plan through closing buisiness tax loopholes.

The Conservative has some of the most innovative ideas for the Pension Plan. The first being a complete privatisation of the program, and handing it back to the individual. Meaning essentially an RRSP. But don't worry if you don't have enough money to retire, they'll solve that problem too by removing the manditory retirement age. That's right, if you're poor don't worry, you get to work until you die.

Take a careful read here and make your choice.

The Spiral, the Ironman Returns, and missiles above your head.

2004-06-11T13:25:00.000-04:00

The Liberal Spiral has continued, the talk of a Conservative Minority is strong, and the talk of a Majority is strengthening, and if the Liberal Collapse continues, it is possible. Or at the very least we're looking at some sort of strange Coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, who in the end, this election is working out wonderfully for. The Bloc has just announced that any deal with any party would include Kyoto, making the Conservative announcement of scrapping the program a questionable one. To believe these two parties can agree on policy from opposite ends of the spectrum is a stretch and I see little possibility in holding it together for a long period of time.

The Ironman I speak of is Jean Chrétien. He made a surprise appearance in his riding to support the Liberal Candidate. He stated firmly that this will be his last public appearance, however as the specter of Conservative victory rears its head, the Liberals will do whatever it takes to defend their territory even if it means Paul Martin bowing down to Chrétien and asking for help. There is something to be said about Chrétien, in the last few elections he certainly had the benefit of the divided right, but he really never showed weakness in his elections. Martin has, multiple times, apologized to the electorate and shown himself to be human. In many countries, the US especially, the electorate like to see their leader as being slightly superhuman. Chrétien always had that arrogant air about him, and somehow managed to keep up happy about it. His policies were no different than Martin, his platform the same, but it was all about the style, and once you lose that, it's all over. However we will see if Jean comes out of retirement to help out, the bitter feud between Martin and Chrétien was long and very difficult, so Martin would really have to be desperate to beg like he would need to.

And finally to show some partisanship for a change, my friend and I attended a Jack Layton speaking event last night. To state I have not made up my final voting decision, however, I am leaning their way due to the riding I am in. The topic was Star Wars and the American Missile Defense Shield plan. I will ignore Jacks part of the speech, but I would like to bring up the points that Dr. David Suzuki was kind enough to point out.

In his speech Dr. Suzuki pointed out that we seem to be relying on technology to provide the answers, which have, in some cases been true, but in many have not. The Missile Defense Shield would be built on "fool proof" technology, meaning Free of Fools, however he mentioned the illustrious leader to the South, and proved in my mind the this would not be free of fools. Joking aside, for a technology of this sort to work properly, it would need to have the possibility of human error removed, as we do occasionally make irrational decisions, and make mistakes, so we would put the programs control in the hands of a computer. This means someone would have the job of making the software for this program, and he also pointed out that in the history of software we have never got a program right the first time. Any tiny error of this program could mean disaster to the entire planet. David Suzuki then said "It's madness to think it would work."

Racist NDP, Smog fighting Conservatives, and the Liberals who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

2004-06-10T12:40:00.000-04:00

The Liberal party is floundering badly. The projections are showing a Conservative minority at this point, and the only possible king makers would be the Bloc. The Liberals are spiraling out of control and unless the party comes together quickly, they have a real chance of being moved out of government. I'm still not sure why this is happening.

The Conservatives are still saying and doing things the majority of Canadians do not want. Today Harper announced that Canada would back out of Kyoto and focus only on smog reducing, as the Kyoto accord is based on "questionable science", funny enough the same line used by Stockwell "Doris" Day when discussing Dinosaurs walked the earth (in his world humans and dinosaurs were cohabitants only a few thousand years ago, as God created the earth Literally only a few thousand years ago). Harper will follow the US out of international agreements, and work only with the white house as following the rest of the world doesn't hold enough value when you look at our neighbours (that's right, the other 5.5 Billion people are wrong). Harper and his rabid conservatives are still talking about defending family rights (see anti-gay), defending the right of life (see pro-life), defending citizens (see tougher penalties for small time crime), fixing the healthcare system (see two tiered system), and increasing military spending (see US Imperialism). For some reason a large number of Canadians are turning towards these ideas and backing Harper. Are we really that lacking in a third option?

As of today many people would say yes, the NDP candidate Malcolm Azania for Edmonton-Strathcona is now embroiled in his own scandal as a post on an internet forum a decade ago has resurfaced. He made comments about Jews and Whites working to keep black people subjugated. In the end this does not help the NDP, as they have already been called anti-Semitic in the past as their Foreign Affairs Critic Svend Robinson supported a Palestinian rally for peace, leading the Canadian Jewish Congress to call for his resignation for his "support of terrorism". Layton has come out strongly against this, demanding Azania apologize and meet with local Jewish groups and Rabbi's. But in the end the response is too late this will not help the impression of the NDP overall and may stall their climb in the polls.

Are we willing to let the Conservatives run our country? We could very well be looking at a Bush reelection in the US, and a Conservative election in Britain in a couple of years. The last time the three friends were all conservative like that was the early 80's (Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher) and led to massive cuts in all three countries in social programs, trade barriers and led to the rampant consumerism of the 80's typified by the Board game "Go for it!" in which your entire purpose was to acquire more expensive things than your opponents. With the Neoconservative in the White House, having one at 24 Sussex could be extremely dangerous to our sovereignty. Not that I'm trying to sway anyone.

Where is my seat?

2004-06-09T17:54:00.000-04:00

This election has seen quite a shift in opinion polls from the 60% the Liberals were carrying, to a 30/30 split between the Liberals and Conservatives. We've had old progressive conservatives supporting the Liberal candidate, Liberals supporting the NDP candidate, and NDP members joining the Liberals. It's been a lot of people changing their traditional voting pattern. And when it all falls out we will realize that the opinion polls will not determine the amount of seats, it will depend on the voters in each individual riding.

Our system of government is based on the first past the post system, meaning that if a candidate in your riding gets one vote more vote than their competition, they win. This has some very strange effects on the vote. It essentially negates the vote of the person voting for the losing competition. It will tend to lead to more majority governments as you only need a one vote majority in a riding to take 100% of the seat. Quebec is a prime example of this outcome. The Bloc has about 10% popularity overall, but when you look at only Quebec at a whole, it's closer to 40%, and they will walk away with 15-20% of the seats in parliament. The reverse of this is the NDP, whom have their support spread out throughout most of Canada at about 20%, yet will only receive about 5-10% of the seats, as that 20% will not be enough in various ridings to overcome the competition.

What this means is that the seat count in the legislature comes down to a seat by seat basis, where your vote can make a difference. It's important to understand the party platforms and the leaders, but it's also vitally important to understand each riding and what is likely to happen in your area. In the past some ridings have been decided by a handful of votes, and this election one or two seats could mean the difference between making a government or not. It's unfortunate that it's turning into a situation like this where many votes will be thrown away without regard for the voter.

So how do you fix this? Proportional Representation (PR). I won't get into the details of how it works but see this website for more details
But under a PR system (I'm going to use Mixed-Member as it is the most popular) it allows you to locally vote for your representative but as well allows you to vote for the party. The seats are chosen half by the local representative, and then the rest are topped up by the voting percentage and split up between the parties. In this case what would happen is the percent of voters would mean more, as of recently, the Conservatives would take about 32% of the seats, about 32% for the Liberals, 20% for the NDP, 10% for the Bloc, and about 6% for the Green Party. You would be constantly dealing with minority governments, however to create a government you would need to work with enough parties to build over 50% of the seats, in this case likely the Liberals, and NDP adding up to 52% of the seats. This would mean for the first time in a long time, the government is actually representing a majority of voters. It does mean that people are more likely to vote for what they desire, not just for what they think will win.

The train wreck

2004-06-08T09:37:00.000-04:00

CPAC/SES Poll, Conservatives 34%, Liberals 32%, NDP 20%, Bloc 11%, Green 4%.

The Liberals are in serious trouble. They're losing ground everywhere they go, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Their main contenders, the Conservatives, are not running an effective campaign, they're slipping everywhere they go, and showing their true colours whenever they speak. However, for some reason, Paul Martin cannot get it right.

The Split

Perhaps the reason is that the Liberal Party itself has been so badly shaken the last year and a half. Martin wanted to be Prime Minister too soon, and forced out Chrétien, the man who led the Liberals to three majority governments. Martin split the party in half and has spent the last year trying to tie it back together through some very questionable means.

Democratic Deficit

Paul Martin came out about 8 months ago and said he wanted to reduce the democratic deficit. More free votes in parliament, more citizen input, and the possibility of electoral reforms. Since then Paul's gone on a rampage, overriding local riding votes and placing his own people in at the candidates, cutting off the local constituents views. This has led to widespread disagreement within the party, and has led to Sunday’s announcement by the Brampton-Springdale Liberal riding association that they would be supporting the NDP. This isn't the first instance as another riding association in North Toronto barely voted down a motion to support the local conservative candidate. Paul's appointments are backfiring all over Canada.

Change

I think in the end, that Canada wants a change. It happens everywhere in the democratic world, after a long period of time with one party people want to keep them honest and therefore vote someone else into power.

Not capitalizing

Martin and the Liberals are not capitalizing on Conservative mistakes. Cheryl Gallant (see yesterdays post for more on this rabid nutbar) said yesterday that abortion was akin to the beheading of Berg in Iraq. Gallant and a few of her Reform party members have offered the Liberals fantastic opportunities to brutalize the Conservatives, but for some reason have been unable to make it stick.

Early Prediction

The Liberals will begin to slow the conservative momentum and shift it back in their favour. This will shift in part thanks to the Conservative statements about immigration, abortion and language rights, which should show their effect in the next few days. It will be a Liberal Minority; the real question now is which party will have enough to balance for the Majority. Some seat predictions I saw yesterday showed the Liberals and NDP coming short for a Majority, leaving the Conservative/Bloc coalition a possibility.

Stay tuned, it's just getting interesting.

From Minority Conservative to Majority Liberal

2004-06-07T09:54:00.000-04:00

The one thing that I find facinating about elections is the fact that perceptions of what is happening change so rapidly. One morning everyone is speaking about Paul Martin having blown the election and ending up handing the government over to the Conservatives, yet only a few days later the Conservatives are again out of the running. No polls have come out, so how do we all know this? It's what's being termed...The A-Bomb.

Stephen Harper was doing very well. From clearing up his remarks about the "culture of defeat" in the maritimes. To speaking fluent french the Quebec ridings, finally giving the Conservatives some credibility in la belle province, and wooing Ontarians into a calm that probably will still leave him seats in Ontario (a first for a while). He even managed to side step multiple gaffs by his members about opening up the language debate and other touchy issues.

The A-bomb is about Abortion, and this could pull the emergency break on the momentum Steve was getting. For some reason he didn't avoid the question. For some reason he was silly enough to answer the question honestly. He said that he would allow free votes on private members bills dealing with issues such as abortion and capital punishment.

This may not sounds like much, as most private members bills don't make it past their first reading in parliament, but just the spector of possibility is enough to make most moderate conservatives slip back across the line to the Liberals. The Conservatives are really starting to show their true colours that they've spraypainted with a thin layer of "moderate".

Even yesterday Cheryl Gallant from the Ottawa area stated that "I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed" when asked about the newly amended hate law that bans the incitement of genocide or hatred against an "identifiable group" defined by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin and, now, sexual orientation. Her reasoning that the sexual orientation clause, intended for protection of homosexuals, could be used to protect pedophiles. How anyone could fall for this rediculous jump in logic is beyond me. Pedophilia has multiple and broad sweeping bills aimed at severe punishment for anyone involved, this law protecting people from hated could never be used to override the laws that have already been put into place to protect children.

This has shown to me one thing. The moderate conservatives of the Progressive Conservative have been effectively moved out, and the rabid fundamentalists who were part of the birth of the Reform party have taken the reigns. A party should not have to be continually reminding you that the sexist, racist, discriminatory behavour of it members is only "their opinion and not the opinion of the party". When you look at voting records, previous statements and the overall party history you can clearly see that although the official party platform protects everyone's right, the true feelings of the party members is much different.

As in the past, come election day the urban voters of BC and Ontario will see the rest of the country leaning to the conservatives and the cold feet will kick in shifting again Liberal and continuing their run as the official government, even if it is a much tighter race.

Our list of future broken promises

2004-06-04T11:38:00.000-04:00

With the release of the various party platforms, it's time to do a sanity check on the promises laid out and the realities of what have been said.

Jack Layton's vision for Canada is a wide sweeping and very social view for the future. Massive increases in healthcare, social programs, child welfare, green energy and education. With a promise to keep the budget balanced, the NDP will pay for this by closing tax loopholes, and raising the taxes on the wealthiest Canadians. His fiscal plan has a lot of merit; however there are some large portions of his plan that are relying one money that is typically hard to count on. In addition to this, this websites Renewable Energy consultant was quick to point out that there is a lack of specifics when it comes to the renewable energy program and it could lead to confusion and extra unnecessary cost when setting up the program. This comes across to most as a typical tax and spend NDP platform, even if it does have some new initiatives.

The Liberal platform is virtually a reprinting of the previous three Liberal "Red Books" which they have released during the last few election campaigns, this prompted both the NDP and Conservatives to point out that the Liberals failed to implement those promises. They aren't looking to spend as much as the NDP on their social platform, but are also not planning on raising taxes, which begs the question, how are they planning on paying for it? Our Renewable Energy Consultant was happy with the Liberal plan, as it had more specifics and helped to open the door to Independent Energy producers which would help drive innovation and lower cost. The Liberal platform promises massive spending increases, no new taxes and balanced budgets, to look at the history, very few of these promises will ever see the light of day.

Stephen Harper's conservative platform is so far the weakest of the three, not in policy, but in specifics. He has announced plans to increase the military, scrap the gun registry, and at the same time reduce taxes. The problem with the platform is that after the initial statements there are virtually no details about how the Conservative programs will be implemented, especially the tax reductions. It is common sense that to reduce taxes some program must be cut, the conservatives are yet to inform us what would be removed. Even more concerning is in the last day abortion has become a topic of conversation. Although not willing to tackle it directly, Harper stated that if private members bills were to be tabled, he would allow a free vote. This really isn't a concern unless the conservatives had a majority, as all other parties have stated that they have no interest in removing women's right to choose.

Do we believe the promises of the parties and expect them to live up to them, or is it the intent that's enough to get our votes?

Who's to say their opinion isn't valid?

2004-06-03T11:24:00.000-04:00

The Green Party is crying foul these days over their exclusion from the televised debates, my question is, what makes them deserving of being there?

The technical reasons for the Green Party being given a chance are many. The Green Party has members running in every riding throughout Canada, unlike the Bloc, and they are polling at close to 5% of the popular vote. There is an empty seat from the 2000 election as the PC's and Reform have merged, so there is a fifth spot available. In addition, at various times the NDP, Bloc, PC's and Reform have been invited to the debates even though they did not hold official party status.

The political reasons, I believe, are even stronger. In a democracy the most important right is of free speech, and the people of Canada have voted in large and consistent numbers in favour of the Green party. 5% doesn't sound like a lot, but count out 20 voters, one of them votes Green, and if the worldwide Greens can be looked at as an example, 5% quickly leads to 10% and a few seats, which can easily lead to cooperation within a coalition government, this leads to a wider variety of people's voices being heard, engaging the voters and strengthening peoples interest in the system.

However, there are some very good reasons to leave the Green party out in the cold. The Green Party is yet to find a single seat in the House of Commons, which tends to be the real legitimization of a party. Until that time they will be looked at as a non-contender to the majority of voters. Although they have up to 5%, that support can be soft in some area, and they could fall below the 5% mark when the votes get counted. And the fact that we now have only 4 spots in the debate is important, in the past it seems as if there have been too many people involved in the debate, and it degrades into a yelling match with each person trying to get their point across over the volume of the other four.

Politically, this also makes sense for the parties involved. The more the Green party is given a say, the more likely they are to draw votes away. The Conservatives would seemingly want to vote split the left, leaving them with a greater proportion of the votes, but the right benefited from the split on the right by driving the Liberal policies to the right to pick up on voters confused by the mess. In the case of the Greens and NDP fighting it out, the Liberals may tend to float back left and pick up those votes, while at the same time retaining the "red Tories" they have picked up from the merger of the right. The NDP and Bloc don't want the Greens involved as they carry many similar policies and only stand to lose votes from the disaffected voters looking for change, but looking for a similar platform. Even the Liberal party stands to lose, as the Green party has a very environmental policy, but also a fiscal responsibility, which tends to place them as a centrist party, and with the massive amount of Liberal voters who are angry, this could be a legitimate option.

Although the electorate would be better served by a wider variety of voices, I believe we need some criteria for the debates. What do you think, should it be a number of seats? Percent of vote? Or simply running in all 308 ridings in Canada?

Speak your mind here.

"Politics make strange bedfellows."

2004-06-02T12:32:00.000-04:00

When said Charles Dudley Warner said that late in the 19th century he had a situation like this in mind. The situation I'm speaking about is our impending election and the speculation of the last 24 hours. When the Ipsos-Reid poll came out only 48 hours ago the realization that not only do the Liberals have a good chance of losing their majority government, but also have the chance of losing the government. There is now a clear possibility of a minority Conservative government. No more than a month ago only the most optimistic conservative member would have said this was possible. Now Steven Harper has a real chance of being Canada's next Prime Minister. However, a minority government is a different breed for the conservatives. The Liberals always know that in minority government the NDP are usually willing to work with them, to lend them the seats to make up for the majority needed to get bills through. In fact, this has been when the NDP have been the most affective.

On bit of history that didn't stand out as necessary when I was speaking of Liberal and NDP history. This was the time of Lester B. Pearson, and Trudeau, there were era's of minority government which pushed Canada towards social programs like the charter of rights and freedoms, and universal healthcare. These initiatives were worked on hand in hand with the Liberal and less, but still important the NDP. The Liberals know with the right initiatives they could get the NDP to work with them.

The Conservatives have been less successful with coalition governments, if only for the fact that there have not been two right wing governments to partner up. The talk of the last 24 hours has been that the Conservatives may be thinking about which strangers may be willing to jump into bed with them. Enter the Bloc.

You're probably wondering how that makes sense, didn't I tell you only yesterday that the Bloc had similar policies to the NDP? Well yes, I did, but the main difference being that the Bloc's main agenda is to protect Quebec from English Canadian interference. Still don't see the connection?

In January 2001, Stephen Harper co-signed a letter to Ralph Klein urging him to "build firewalls around Alberta." The point of which, limiting the extent to which a “hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.” In the letter Klein was asked to pull out of the Canada Pension Plan, set up a provincial Tax system independent of the Ottawa collection system, to replace the RCMP with an only Albertan police force. He also asked Klein to create a provincial health care plan, independent of Canada's.

Essentially what we're looking at are two parties with strong ideals of provincial autonomy, which can have some good, and bad, side effects. Let us assume they allow the provinces to make most of their own decisions about things like the CPP, Tax collection, Police and Health care. The positive effect would be that the provinces would be able to customize services to the varied climates in Canada. The people would have a more direct say in what happens in their province and community instead of the present feeling most have that the people from Ottawa make the choices for everyone in Canada.

The downside of all of this is potentially the collapse of those social systems of which Canadian's are so proud. To understand this, we first must understand Equalization Payments. The basis idea to this is that in Canada we have a basic level of service that is required for various programs like Health Care, security, welfare, etc. The Canadian government collects taxes from the provinces, and then distributes the money back to the provinces to meet those service levels. There will always be an unbalanced collection of funds, as some provinces will have stronger or more efficient economies for one reason or another. Up until the late 70's the two provinces paying into the system were Ontario and Quebec, which helped to fuel the separatism movement as Quebecers felt they were unfairly supporting English Canada. The balance has shifted and the only two provinces paying more into the system then they are getting out of it are Ontario and Alberta. Enter the Reform Party, and Harpers Firewall plan.

Under what's known as the Harper plan, the provinces would have the ability to opt in and out of programs at they like, only paying for those they feel are required for them. This would virtually eliminate the equalization system leaving Canada with an American style “Have” and “Have Not” system. The poorest of provinces and territories would not be able to meet the basic services levels and would have to start pulling out of required programs, slowly spiraling them into virtual third world provinces, while the provinces with the extra funds would continue to grow their wealth, showing an ever further disproportion from the other provinces. The healthcare system would be separated into provincial departments and we would see the rise of private health care in some provinces and a strict adherence in others, again leading to a patchwork of provincial systems.

Canadian's in general are proud of our level of social services, and the fact that we can get them from one coast to the other without interrupted service. This coalition would have the ability to take away the foundation upon which it is built. And to take this view to an even further extreme, the division of wealth in the provinces would also have the potential to destabilize the confederation to the unlikely, but possible conclusion of the separation of Canada.

I know this sounds extreme, and it is unlikely to happen, however it is necessary to understand the true motives behind people's actions, and their possible consequences.

Think I'm out to lunch? Let me know.

So what do you want from the politicians?

2004-06-01T10:45:00.000-04:00

In Exactly four weeks from today we will be waking up to the ramifications of our election. Presently we are looking at a very real possibility of a minority government. In fact, this could go either way right now. The Liberals looked like a strong majority only 6 months ago are now down to 34% (Ipsos-Reid poll broadcast on CTV News, May 31), from the mid 40's. That's a 12% shift, which can mean a difference between a majority, minority or even a Conservative government. And I think it's important to also look at the possibility that the split between the Liberals and Conservatives will allow the NDP to come up the middle.

So you may ask, what is the difference between the parties? The Answer depends on which area of interest, so I will go over a few of the major interests of Canadians. I will not be speaking about the Bloc, as their policies are similar to the NDP with a few minor additions of language and culture rights, as well as separation from Canada.

Healthcare

The Liberals want to increase spending, and reduce wait times; they have announced billions of dollars in funding increases. Surprisingly similar to the billions Paul Martin cut as finance minister.
The Conservatives will allow "select" services to be privatized to increase efficiencies. This is the first step towards a two tier system, however the conservatives claim these are only a few services and it would not change the core system.
The NDP will increase spending and clamp down on privatization, keeping the control in the governments hands. The Green party is the same here.

Defense

The Liberals again plan to increase spending, but will keep the military with the same mission statement as they have had for the last decade. They have not announced where they stand on the missile shield.
The Conservatives plan large increases in the military from 50 to 80 thousand troops and are want to hand more control of the military to the house. Keep in mind, leader Stephen Harper stated on March 26, 2003, “We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein.” He also plans to be a part of the missile shield
The NDP would only use the military for protection and for UN mandates. The US would be on it's own with the missile shield. The Greens agree.

Taxes

The Liberals plan no changes with taxes.
The Conservatives want to lower taxes below the US mark, virtually impossible without gutting most of our social services.
The NDP will raise taxes on the richest (think over 100K a year), and close business tax loopholes.
The Greens will reduce personal taxes, and tax businesses on a "usage" basis. Meaning the more you use, and the more you pollute, the more you pay.

US Relations

The Liberals are looking to mend fences from the Chrétien era.
The Conservatives want much closer ties to the US.
The NDP think we should be friends, but friends don't always have to agree. Especially when your friend is the worlds biggest bully. The Greens agree.

Electoral Reforms

The Liberals want to "reduce the democratic deficit", and are doing this through unilateral postings, refusing a free vote on proportional representation (PR), and quieting it's members when they disagree with party platform.
The Conservatives want PR (for now, I think this story would change if they were in power), would also lock the election date to a four year time.
The NDP also want PR and a locked election date. (Should the Conservatives end up with a minority look for the NDP to push these issues to the forefront). Greens are again similar.

Governmental Reforms

The Liberals are again reducing the deficit, how exactly, I'm still looking into.
The Conservatives would swap Canada’s parliamentary system for a congressional system with an unelected cabinet. Harper was heard to exclaim "The difference between the calibre and experience of the Bush cabinet – or even the worst American cabinet in recent years – to any Canadian equivalent is embarrassing to us." ** Hard core diatribe - This scares me more that any other issue from Harpers Conservatives, the issue being that the White House claims to be, but is not accountable for their actions. In the case of the 9/11 inquiry George Bush met the committee in private, not under oath and with Cheney next to him. He has yet to answer direct questions on Iraq, what was known about 9/11 before it happened, and a variety of shady energy deals set up with Enron (to name just a few issues). In Canada's parliament every minister has to stand in the house and answer to his actions. If you want to see the two systems at work, look at the abuse Blair has gone through in Britain (they have a similar system to us) in answering for his actions, while Bush was given a virtual free ride for almost a year. **
The NDP would allow more free votes, same as the Greens

Social Policy

When it comes to Marijuana, the Liberals are thinking about decriminalizing, although are dragging their feet. As for gay rights, they were talking about civil unions, or marriage, but many Liberal backbenchers voted for a bill stating Marriage was a union of man and woman. If you want to know where your MP voted post their name below and I'll let you know.
The Conservatives would step in line with the war on drugs in the US, making punishments for small marijuana possession harsher. Gay's would be protected from discrimination, but would not be allowed marital status. The option of civil unions is still to be determined.
The NDP and Greens would allow gay marriages, and legalize marijuana.

Environmental Policy

The Liberals have signed onto Kyoto, but otherwise have a weak environmental record, allowing urban sprawl and corporate pollution. They have also not done anything to encourage people to get out of their cars, and reduce energy consumption.
The Conservatives look at the environment as a resource to be used. They will do nothing to limit consumption, sprawl, or overuse of cars and trucks. They voted against the Kyoto Protocol, and would likely be looking for ways to back out of this "costly" program.
The NDP supports the Kyoto protocol and would work for change. In their plan they would allow tax breaks for families and businesses retrofitting to reduce energy use. There would be a large infusion of cash for transit including a larger percent of the gas tax. Urban sprawl would be limited, and they would work to reduce auto emissions.
The Green party has the strongest and best laid plans for environmental policy. They have similar ideas to the NDP but take it a few steps further. Development would be required to fit into a very structured framework (much like many countries in Europe), emissions would be reduced, and businesses reducing pollution and helping others to reduce pollution would be benefited with tax breaks. Conversely those people and businesses bent on pollution would see their taxes skyrocket, encouraging them to be better citizens. Renewable and green energy would have heavy government investments, and the Greens would be working to reduce our dependency on oil. The side effects of this would have many benefits from eliminating the need to trade with the repressive regimes in the Middle East, and reducing pollution would help to lighten the load ont he healthcare system. It also has many socical benefits which I could speak about for hours, but I don't want to bore all of you.

These are really the main issues however if there is one that you want to know about, or one here you want expanded on, please let me know.

Youth and the disturbing trend of Screwing the Vote

2004-05-31T14:52:00.000-04:00

One of the biggest problems facing us today is the lack of interest in politics by a growing number of people, even a bigger problem is the youth vote, which year after year, election after election, is slipping. The youth (ages 18-30) are showing a startling disinterest in virtually everything. Even worse is the specific lack of interest by young Women. The reasons for not voting are varied and plenty, from a lack of interest, a lack of trust, or a fact that the election isn’t important enough to draw them from their personal lives and these will never go away. People have other interests, people will always distrust leaders, and people will always have lives outside of work and politics that draw away from their time, what we need to do is figure out ways of showing how Your Single Vote CAN make a difference and give you a reason to feel that your opinion is not only important but worthy of the politicians listening to.

Predetermined Outcome

Probably one of the largest reasons why people don’t vote is that they feel that the outcome has already been determined. As of 12 months ago it seemed as if Paul Martin was going to walk away with a majority government, and securing another term for the Liberals in office. One year later, a newly merged party, new leaders for all parties and a few scandals and suddenly we’ve got a horse race. The Liberals have slipped into the low 40’s of popularity, and depending on how that plays out seat by seat, could easily fall into minority status. So you’re already thinking, so what? So Paul Martin is still PM, and the Liberals are the governing party, no difference right? Well not quite. Yes, they will still have the largest amount of seats, but they will need friends from other parties to agree to their initiatives to get bills through parliament. This is good for democracy, as a larger percentage of voters would be represented by the consensus, (if you want to know the exacts on how this works let me know, but it’s basically a matter of math and I don’t feel like boring you with it). The outcome of many ridings is still to be determined on voting day, and your vote can help move a seat which could be that single determining factor between a majority and a minority government.

Lack of Trust

You’re right, I’m not going to argue with you politicians, in general, cannot be trusted. Why we let them get away with it is beyond me, but we do. So if you’re not voting because of a lack of trust in those politicians, vote for someone new. Find someone fresh to politics that hasn’t been given a chance in parliament and give them your vote. Every time you vote against someone who has lied or misled you, you help create a landscape conducive to honest politicians.

Not enough time

I find that this one is more of an excuse rather than a real reason, polling stations are usually within walking distance of your house, and work is Legally Bound to give you time to go vote. However, in those circumstances where this is actually the case, there are advanced polls, and mail in polls, which allows you the flexibility to continue with your life. If anyone has problems along these lines, please feel free to engage me, I will personally get you the information you require to get this done.

Don’t know enough

This one is easy enough dealt with; if you’re reading this site you’re already solving this problem. For everyone else, send them the link ;) .

One Vote doesn’t make a difference

Although similar to the predetermined outcome, this has a slightly different answer. Your vote can again make the difference between a minority and majority government as some seats in the past have been determined by a handful of voters. More importantly than that, ever if you feel you candidate cannot win, your vote if important to the party your candidate is running for.

The Elections Canada act had the finance rules changed since the last election and what this means is that every vote for a political party will bring $1.75 in federal funding in the next election. Every vote counts to these guys, especially if it is not one of the major parties. Someone like the Green party, who are struggling for recognition, could end up with an extra $500,000 with enough people voting for them. Which means, although your voice may not be heard in parliament due to your vote, it will be heard louder through the next election.

You don’t have anything to say

I think this is probably the most disappointing answer to hear when someone says they’re not voting. I personally think everyone has something to say and your voice should be heard, that’s the whole point of democracy. I think we fall into the that people feel the need to vote for one of the major parties to have their voice heard. Yes, if you vote for the Absolutely Absurd Party you will be counted in the “other” category on election night, but unlike the last election, the Green party will carry a large enough vote to be counted as the Greens in a lot of the ridings. By not voting at all you give the major political parties the ok to keep doing things as have been done, but by voting for a different party that fits closer to what you believe you’re making change by showing everyone else what you want done.

Lack of interest

The problem with the lack of interest is that most people don’t like the political system and how it works, and it’s understandable. About 4 minutes of watching the house on CPAC is enough to drive the average person into a low level coma, and believe me, when that Honourable Minister from Crooked-Nose-Bull-South Saskatchewan gets up to speak his piece on Bill 274’s impact on the parking lot at 4th and main, I really couldn’t care less. This is part of the system though, and the reason why you elect a representative for your riding instead of 30 million Canadians voting on bill referendums every few weeks. What you should look at isn’t the fact that the politicians and the system are boring and uninteresting, you should be looking at how the decisions they make affect your life. Are you tired of seeing homeless people in your neighbourhood? Well vote NDP, dealing with homelessness is part of their platform. Are you tired of waiting in line at a hospital when you’d rather have the option of paying to have someone help you? Then vote Conservative, they want to bring in for profit health care services that will lower wait times at hospitals. And if you’re concerned that people who are good friends of Liberal politicians aren’t making enough money, then vote Liberal so they can spread your tax dollars around to those deserving people who just happen to be Liberal supporters.

And to do my own bit of fear mongering, the likes of which those just south of us are so content to dwell on these days, I would like to quote Adolph Hitler “People who do not take an active interest in Politics, have no right to complain about the outcome.” He was later heard to say “What luck for the rulers that men do not think.” He lived by these words, and the people of Germany have learned their lesson and have one of the largest voter turnouts in Europe.

Specifically addressing the young Women’s lack of interest, Universal Suffrage was adopted at the beginning of the century, and in law making women people and citizens for the first time. This allowed women a direct say in the politics of the day, and also lays the burden of responsibility on women, as well as men. Politics should not be left to the men, if you want to know why open any history book to any page to find out why. Getting involved is the best way of keeping men from making any more bad decisions.

The warning in this is, if you don’t get involved, and allow others to make the decisions on your behalf, you are still responsible and liable for what the country does on your behalf whether you voted for them or not. Decisions will be made that will affect you life, you should stand up and tell them what you want your life to be like.

Am I missing anything that keeps you from voting?

Who the hell are you and give me one good reason to vote for you?

2004-05-31T10:28:00.000-04:00

Today a brief view of the other registered, non-registered and side parties.

First, the one non-major party with a chance at seats (albeit slim, but still a very viable alternative)

The Green Party

In 1980, 11 candidates, mostly in Atlantic Canada began the Small Party of Canada, the idea being that small is beautiful. The ran on a similar platform to the global Green Party. Three years later the Green Party was born as a British Columbian provincial party, shortly followed by the Ontario Greens. In 1984 the Greens stepped into the Federal Stage, taking over 1% of the vote. In 1988 the Parti Vert ran a number of candidates in Québec and won 2.4% of the vote. The party virtually disintegrated in the 90’s held up by the British Columbia Green Party, only recently to begin to rebound. In 2003 they elected Jim Harris as leader and since then have been creating a stronger coalition across the country. The Greens have been on the verge of winning a few seats in BC, and are showing strongly across the country between 1 – 5%. The Green party’s platform is founded on environmentalism, social justice and non-violence, and differs from the NDP by not being anti-business. Considered by many to be a non-player, they have a great potential for the future using the same platform that has had members elected in many countries in Europe.

And onto the third string parties, who will be lumped into the “Other” category on election night, not strong enough to be a spoiler like the Green Party.

Canadian Action Party

Out of the trauma of the mid 90’s Green Party was born the National Party, with a strong anti-Nafta agenda. The National Party lived only 3 years, but did participate in the 1993 election. In 1997 the Canadian Action Party was founded by members of the National Party with similar anti-free trade, environmental policy. The 2000 election saw them run 70 candidates and garnering 27,000 votes across Canada.

Marijuana Party

The only party sponsored by Doritos, the Marijuana Party’s platform has two goals. Legalize marijuana, and then help other countries legalize. Led by Marc Boris St. Maurice, they… um….was that the door man? No, Dave’s not here man!

Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada

I know they’re going to be angry at me lumping them together, but seriously, the Communist Party is based on a Marxist-Leninist platform, and the Marxist-Leninist Party is based on a Marxist-Leninist platform, yet for some reason, these two parties can’t seem to get it together, as if they can’t at least agree to work together until they become a second tier party like the Green Party.

From here these groups are not official parties, but are running people under that name.

Christian Heritage Party

These people have taken the bible at it’s literal word and want that to be law. Their thinly veiled racist, sexist and discriminatory behaviour is at least mostly ignored by Canadians.

Libertarian Party of Canada

The Party that Snoop Dogg really likes. The platform is essentially liberation, from laws. Slightly more organized than Anarchy they really want to legalize everything (drugs, prostitution, fast driving), tax nothing and allow things to work it out naturally.

Progressive Canadian Party

The Progressives are a splinter from the Alliance/PC merger, and are claiming to be carrying the PC torch for the future. They could, potentially be listed as part of the Conservative History, but lets first see if they survive the election.

And onto the Parties that are not allowed to be Parties, or don’t want to be

Natural Law Party of Canada

To my dismay, the Natural Law Party has decided not to run this election. In previous elections they have always managed about 3 minutes of airtime with their Yogic Flying, and discussions of how they are planning on saving the planet through yoga. They will be missed.

Absolutely Absurd Party

And just when you think politics is about to send you into a coma, the Absolutely Absurd Party shows up. In the footsteps of my all-time personal favorite party, the Rhino’s, who had the brilliant platform of making illiteracy the third official language, the Absolutely absurd party arrives on the scene just in time to remind us that Canadians have a great sense of humour when it comes to politics. Led by King Absurd The 1st aka “get off the couch you lazy bastard”, the AAP will raffle off Senate seats (tickets $3 for 1, or 4 for $10), make the sloth the official animal, and replace the Queen with Don Cherry on all of our money.

Most people write these parties off as fringe parties, but the fringe candidate has the ability to ask the questions that no contender can ask, and can help to bring up issues that are important to Canadians. They also help to lighten the mood in a lot of cases, when you get annoyed at the big leaders slinging mud at each other, step back and find out what these guys are doing and it’s guaranteed to at least give you the breathing room you need from those stodgy SOB’s tripping over themselves for our vote.

** Side Note ** For anyone thinking fringe candidates are pointless please look at the Toronto Mayoral Elections of 2000 where Mel Lastman had no “mainstream” competition, Enza, the cross dresser came in second.

The Perennial Bridesmaid

2004-05-31T10:06:00.000-04:00

The New Democratic Party History

Socialism in Canadian Politics first got a solid footing during the 1930’s. It was the time of the great depression and people were looking for alternatives to the capitalist societies of the last century. In 1932 the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) was formed under the eye of J.S. Woodworth who was to retain leadership until 1942. Although the CCF received few seats in Ontario and Quebec, the Liberal and Conservative strongholds, the Prairie Provinces took a liking to the CCF which was founded in Saskatchewan. Between 1935 and 1942, Tommy Douglas was a member of parliament in the CCF until her returned to lead the Saskatchewan provincial CCF party. June 15, 1944 Tommy Douglas (known by socialists as “The Godfather”) swept 47 of Saskatchewan’s 53 seats, creating the first democratically elected Socialist government in North America. Douglas is the man who indirectly led to many of the 60’s Liberals Social changes as he implemented Universal Hospitalization (a precursor to Universal Health Care) and Medicare. Countering the typical view held of Socialists, not only did Douglas increase services, but he also reduced sales taxes and reduced the provincial debt by $20 Million. The CCF later merged with the Canadian Labour Congress movement and formed the New Democratic Party in 1961 with Tommy Douglas as its leader. In 1975 Ed Broadbent took the helm and led the NDP to a 30 seat parliament in 184, only 10 behind the Liberal party, and then again in 1988 with 43 seats, to date the largest NDP win in Canada. After he stepped down in 1989 the NDP elected Audrey McLaughlin as the first woman to lead a major federal party.

The 90’s were to be a time of change for the NDP, as disaffected voters turned to the NDP Governments of Bob Rae in Ontario and Michael Harcourt in BC. This turned out to be a bad thing for the NDP, as these governments were unable to keep their election promises to their voter base and when the Federal Election of 1993 came about Canadians were more interested in getting rid of Brian Mulroney’s PC’s, not helping the NDP. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals capitalized on the weakness of both the PC’s and NDP to win his majority. The NDP dropped from 43 to 9 seats, losing official party status. Alexa McDonough took over the leadership in 1995 and helped to rebound the party to 20 seats. The NDP was to see much of their support dissolve into multiple different groups as the environmental arm shifted to the Green Party, who does not have big unions to answer to, the New Politics Initiative (NPI) with similar goals but a different approach to change, and general youth dissatisfaction to the political system in general.

In 2003 the NDP elected Jack Layton their new leader, with a strong environmental policy and ties to the NPI, the NDP shifted back to their base and have been expanding membership since then. Jack, known as half of the husband and wife Toronto city councilor team for the last 10 years in Toronto was known to constantly ride his bike to work and sports a mustache that no man uncomfortable with his sexuality would have. Although the NDP have solid support across the board (15-20%) it is difficult for them to win seats as they are spread out fairly evenly throughout the country, concentrated slightly in urban centers.

Vote for us, because we want nothing to do with you.

2004-05-28T09:55:00.000-04:00

Bloc Québécois History

To understand the foundations of the Bloc Québécois (BQ) you really have to look back to long before the foundation of Canada to the battle between the English and French for control of North America. Suffice to say the French settlers under English control have had many issues to raise with the government in an attempt to retain their culture and society. The foundations of the political entity, the BQ, start back in 1963 when the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) first struck in Montreal. In 1966 Daniel Johnson is elected Premier under the slogan Equality or independence, emboldening the separatist movement. To add more fuel to the fire of sovereignty French President Charles to Gaulle cries to the Québec people “Vive le Québec libre!” This leads to the Parti Québécois (PQ), the provincial party dedicated to separatism. 1970 was a watershed year for Québec in October when the FLQ kidnap and kill the Québécois employment minister and federalist Pierre Laporte. PM Pierre Trudeau reacts by enacting the War Measures Act and has many innocent citizens arrested and thrown into jail. With tanks and soldiers on the street, people arrested at their houses in the middle of the night, Pierre Trudeau makes a bold statement still heard today in Québec when asked how far he was willing to go, “Just watch me”. The events are know known as the October Crisis.

The next few years pass, and René Lévesque leading the PQ holds Québec’s first referendum, 60% decide to remain with Canada. In 1990 seeing that a Québec based party can only affect Québec; Lucien Bouchard founds the Bloc Québécois as a Federal cousin of the Parti Québécois. Thanks to the disintegration of the right after Brian Mulroney in 1993 Jean Chrétien was elected PM with a huge majority government, with the amazing side effect of having the Bloc Québécois, with Lucien Bouchard as its leader, as the official opposition party. Bouchard suffered a personal blow in 1994 when he lost a leg to the flesh eating disease, whom some believe was an assassination attempt on him by CSIS. In 1995, riding the wave of Federal and Provincial successes, the BQ, and PQ hold another referendum, this time to a miniscule majority of 50.6% wanting to stay in Canada. The PQ leader Jacques Parizeau goes on to blame the English and immigrants for the loss and retires, handing the party over to Lucien Bouchard. Less than a decade later the PQ looses its quarter century hold on Québec and hands the power back to the Liberal party, under Jean Charest, a one time Federal Leader of the Progressive Conservative party. To this day the Bloc maintains a large amount of the federal seats in Québec, which has always been a major battle ground in Federal Elections.

As the Bloc only runs candidates in Québec it would be impossible for them to form a majority government, but certainly play the great role of spoiler. The Bloc has only had three leaders to this date, Lucien Bouchard, Michel Gauthier and current leader Gilles Duceppe.

** Side note for the day **
MP resigns as Conservative language critic

Comments by the Conservative Language Critic about revamping the need to offer bilingual services in some areas of the country will effect greatly the chances of the Conservative party in Quebec. French Canadians could see this as another assualt of English Canada on French Culture. Stay tuned for more as it happens.

That couple that just can't stay together

2004-05-27T12:35:00.000-04:00

Conservative History

July 1 (Yes, Canada Day), 1867, John Alexander Macdonald (Known colloquially as John Eh?) became the First Prime Minister of Canada under the “Liberal-Conservative” nomenclature, which was to change about as many times as the Conservative party was to hold power. The Liberal-Conservatives were a coalition of British Blues, and Tories, the nickname carried by the Progressive Conservatives until recently (this will probably hold, but I have not heard it used since the most recent merger…yes the most recent merger, hang on).

The Liberal-Conservatives split apart in the early 1890’s, the blues went off to form the Unionist Party, and the Conservatives moved onto the party of the same name. A little over 20 years later, Robert Borden our 8th Prime Minister walked from the Conservatives to the Unionists, to become Prime Minister again. Shortly after that the party reformed as the National Liberal and Conservative Party under the reign of Arthur Meighen, who led the party to split again into the Conservative Party and the Progressives. After 22 years of Liberal governments they reformed to produce the Progressive Conservative Party, which took power under John Diefenbaker in 1957. Joe Clark held this party together until he handed it off to Brian Mulroney in 1982. Mulroney, having spent most of his time dealing with the Quebec question, and NAFTA, left Western Canada alienated, leading to the creation of the Reform Party, under the watchful eye of the always entertaining Preston Manning. An attempt to stop the vote splitting on the right by the Reform party led to them renaming themselves the Alliance, and the Conservative Party reelecting Joe Clark as their leader. The Alliance Party elected Stockwell Day, whom announcing his platform of having nation wide referendums was blindsided by the scathingly brilliant “This Hour has 22 minutes” by throwing a referendum to have Stockwell Day’s first name changed to Doris. Last year, after leadership changes by booth parties to Peter McKay and Steven Harper, they merged into the Conservative Party of Canada.

The last elected Conservative government was under Brian Mulroney, who was responsible for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the failed attempt at a country wide accepted constitution known as the Meech Lake Accord. Seeing his popularity waning he passed the reigns over to Kim Campbell, our first Female Prime Minister.

The Conservatives will be remembered for typically being thrown out of office in anger, splitting into differing factions only to turn the government over to the Liberals who spend the next ten years in power.

Notable Conservative Prime Ministers

Sir John Alexander Macdonald - The first Prime Minister
Sir Charles Tupper - Shortest PM at 2 months 7 days
John George Diefenbaker - Noted for the Diefen-Bucks (ask your parents)
Charles Joseph Clark - Made about 8 runs at being Prime Minister
Martin Brian Mulroney - NAFTA, GST, Meech Lake, what more could you ask for?
Kim Avril Phaedra Campbell - First Female PM

33 days Left!

2004-05-26T22:40:00.000-04:00

And we're off!

In 33 Days we Canadians will be running to the voting booths to (hopefully) have our voices heard. Because of this I will be dedicating this site for the four weeks to my impressions of the run up to the election.

I will cover off a number of topics like the Parties themselves, the Leaders and their pasts, the Platforms, and the most important issue, the Electorate.

Today I am going to start in with our illustrious leader and the party he leads The Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberal History

Nov. 5, 1873 the Second Prime Minister of Canada, Alexander Mackenzie started a long tradition of Liberal Prime Ministers. The Liberal Party has held office for longer stretches than any other party and is one of the oldest continuous parties, having formed from the "Grits" a British party, a nickname still held by the party.

The Liberals have been responsible for many of Canada's progressive programs such as our Welfare system, Peace Keeping, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Universal healthcare.

In 1993 having swept the greatly unpopular Progressive Conservative Party on promises of reviewing the North American Free Trade Agreement, and rescinding the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Liberals under Jean Chrétien were given a massive majority government. Through large spending cuts, with Paul Martin as Finance minister, the Liberals began to reduce the budget deficit initially started in the 50's under the PC government of John Diefenbaker. It would be a almost 4 years but this government would break almost four decades of deficits and begin to pay off the massive accumulated debt. The Liberals went onto two additional majority governments thanks partly to the disintegration of the Conservative Right into the Western Based Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. Jean Chrétien will be able to claim to be the one to barely stave off another attempt by Quebec to separate from Canada with 49% of the French Canadian Quebecers voting to separate.

In the last few years the Liberals have been victims of their own power, plagued by patronage scandals and infighting over the last year. Slightly over a year ago the battle for Prime Minister began as the Paul Martin camp began to push out the Jean Chrétien group, this infighting has created division in the party, however they have managed to hold themselves together as one party. In January the Quebec Sponsorship scandal hit the news, where 200 million dollars was sent to Quebec after the referendum but in the end showed the Canadian public a government bent on power and paying off their friends. Only a year ago they looked as if they were bound for another massive majority, but now Paul Martin is now in a very tight battle with the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada and the millions of disaffected voters through out Canada.

Paul Martin is presently running on his history of a very successful finance minister from the Chrétien government, and the man to restore the massive funding cuts for which Jean Chrétien’s finance minister was responsible.

Notable Liberal Prime Ministers

Sir Wilfred Laurier - The guy on the 5 Spot
William Lyon Mackenzie King - The longest serving Prime Minister at a whopping 21 years 4 1/2 months (that's 7 elections)
Lester Bowles Pearson - Creator of "Peace Keepers"
Pierre Elliott Trudeau - by many considered the greatest Prime Minister, and by everyone at least one of the most colourful PM's
Jean Joseph Jacques Chrétien - Spent over a decade as Prime Minister
Paul Joseph Martin - Presently in Power

Comments? Please Post them here.