Headline from Vancouver Sun’s recent endorsement of the Conservative Party (Postmedia)
Rafe Mair here – may I have your attention for a moment?
When you’re advised how to vote, common sense tells you to ask whether or not this is advice comes from a bias based upon strong personal financial commitments.
The Vancouver Sun and Province,both wholly owned by Postmedia, have declared that we should vote for Stephen Harper for economic reasons. Their cousin, the National Post followed suit in a last-minute Conservative endorsement today.It’s therefore critical that we understand where these papers are coming from.
Newspaper editorials are written by an editor on instructions from the Publisher. Postmedia has a huge commitment in this election, creating an enormous conflict of interest, thus cannot possibly be seen as remotely independent.
In sum, the owners of the Sun, the Province and the National Post are not, as they allege, independent journalists, giving you their considered, unbiased opinion, but publicly committed shills for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Woodfibre LNG (run by a big-time tax evader) and the development of fossil fuels in such manner as industry wishes.
The Canadian voter, in my respectful opinion, would be wise to bear this in mind when considering the editorial opinion of any paper owned by Postmedia, specifically the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the National Post – all of which circulate in British Columbia.
The Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill in Ottawa (Jamie McCaffrey/Flickr CC licence)
If Canadians don’t see a commitment for major change from Monday’s winner, the nastiest and most divisive election in our history, by far, will be for naught.
Change is never easy and the results are never perfect. What one looks for is improvement and the ability to make future changes in case what you’ve done didn’t work out or further refinement is required. The fact is that through neglect and abuse of the system, our very institution of freedom and democracy, Parliament, has become the sword of autocracy.
What must change?
Caucus discipline has gone too far
Parliament, that is to say MPs, must be supreme again. When you think about it, nearly all our problems can be attributed to the unrestrained dictatorship of the Prime Minister. We don’t intend to elect a Supremo, but that’s what we in fact do.
We are hypnotized by what we’ve been taught and don’t question our beliefs. We tell ourselves that Joe or Linda will make a fine MP, whereas he or she will just be another fencepost with hair. In every respect, they will do and say precisely what they are told. They will deny it but it’s 100% true. If they get into cabinet it will be because the PM put them there and can fire them at will.
If backbenchers, they will obey implicitly for, as Napoleon said, “every foot-soldier carries a marshall’s baton in his knapsack”. Every MP, even a senior cabinet minister, knows that the PM cannot only fire them at will but throw them out of Caucus, the Party, and refuse to sign their nomination papers even if their constituency unanimously re-nominates them.
They all know this and need no reminding.
The theoretical ability of the government caucus to revolt and topple the tyrant exists but, for a host of reasons, it never happens..
There can surely be no doubt that this election is about change. The question is how.
Electoral Reform’s time has come
It requires leadership dedicated to change just as Pierre Trudeau demonstrated starting in 1976. It requires patience, but not too much, for reactionaries will delay so as to kill. It must have public participation but also a leader who has the guts to make a decision when the issues are all debated.
The change must be, in the first stage, to reform of the electoral system. The Senate can wait. I believe that some sort of proportional representation (PR) – perhaps mixed with first past the post – is essential. But there are many options to be debated, after which a political decision must be made. Perhaps options can first be put to referendum as in New Zealand. Most importantly, change must be seen to be coming – there must be progress at all times.
I’m not going to outline the unfairness and lack of democracy in “First Past The Post” here – amongst many others, I have written about it extensively. Suffice it to say that its supporters are mostly backroom boys who profit with unelected power when FPTP is in place.
I have suggested an additional way to give power to MPs which, for reasons I don’t understand, raises shrieks of horror – the use of the secret ballot, the safeguard voters have – in Parliament.
Whatever your prejudice in these matters, surely we can all agree that change must happen such that our MP represents our interests, not those of the PMO. That, clearly, is the principal message of this election.
And for the first time, this goal is within reach. Both Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair have pledged electoral reform should they form government. It is up to us to hold them to that promise after election day – especially if Mr. Trudeau should continue his late surge, all the way to a majority government. Once the keys to absolute power are in his hands, he will need ample reminding of his commitment to change the mechanism by which he achieved it.
A return to decency
But there is another critical matter. We must cast aside the meanness and nastiness of the past decade and return to the civility and decency for which we were once justly famous.
A year ago, no one had heard of a niqab, yet our prime minister has fought a campaign centred on an article of women’s clothing and the implication that somehow the safety of the nation depends upon it being banned or severely restricted.
We now have second-class Canadians – God only knows how many but in the hundreds of thousands – because, like me, they have dual citizenship. I’ve lived some 83 years as a 6th generation Canadian and, suddenly, by the stroke of a pen, I’m a second-class citizen because my Dad was born in New Zealand 110 years ago. Never mind the 6 generations, why should any Canadian, no matter how old their citizenship, suffer such a humiliation?
It has not been easy becoming a multi-cultural country – indeed, it’s not always easy being one – and some wish it had never happened. But it has happened and, to our shame, our children and grandchildren have adapted much better than their elders.
Considering where we once were – when Chinese and Japanese Canadians got the vote, I’d reached Law School, while it was 4 years after I had graduated before First Nations did. How unbelievable is that when you think on it?
There is no requirement legally or morally that we all like, let alone love, one another. But before Harper, we’d made considerable progress towards a national habit of civility and decency – we had problems, sore points, and issues but there was a national will to see them through.
Fanning the flames of prejudice
Not from everyone, as we have seen. There are, in all of us, prejudices from the past – some deeply buried, some not so deep. They can be fanned by unscrupulous politicians, as I remember so well as a kid when Barers’ Bakery in Kerrisdale was boycotted because people thought the Dutch owners were German;kids in my school went to concentration camps because they were Japanese, even though the RCMP Commissioner stated their elders posed no threat whatever. Such was the public fear that politicians civic, provincial and federal played on it to great political profit. The newspapers were no better.
After the war, there were huge changes. South of the border there were Jackie Robinson, our hero; the horrible Emmett Till case where a young black was brutally murdered for whistling at a white girl; books like Black Like Me and To Kill a Mockingbird; the little black kids being escorted to Little Rock Central High past jeering, spitting, white adults; James Meredith, a black veteran refused admission to Ole Miss, bringing troops and deadly violence; the Peace Marchers; Selma Alabama and “Bull” Connor and George Wallace;Rosa Parks and the bus boycott; the murders of Medgar Evers and the great Martin Luther King; the riots, the burning of black churches; the Supreme Court and the Brown v. Board of Education case; Lyndon Johnson and the 1965 Civil Rights Act – just to name a few ongoing developments that led to the end of Jim Crow and saw a national attitudinal change and a steady national move to racial justice, a move that still has a long way to go.
In Canada, we abolished racial discrimination in all matters legal, leading to a 1960 Bill of Rights under John Diefenbaker and the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms; slowly but steadily The Supreme Court defined the status and land rights of First Nations; attitudes towards Indians underwent a sea change; people across the land saw tolerance, civility and fairness to all become fashionable, if scarcely mandatory. But it kept getting better, especially as kids, mostly from interracial schools, grew up.
There was no going back … was there?
Perhaps not, but here was a prime minister and a major political party in support that saw a political future in playing upon latent prejudices, creating second-class citizens in order to fan fears he could then pledge to deal with. Many of my generation thought of Barer’s Bakery andthe Dutch family put out of business because it was said they were German, I thought of 10-year-old Michiko Katayama, the little girl that sat next to me just not being there anymore and I remembered how people talked about kikes, niggers and chinks. And how the politicians fanned the flames greatly assisted by the Press. But that was then and now is now.
Was it?
Surely, if nothing else, Stephen Harper and his lemmings have taught us that it if old fears can be revived and new fears manufactured, with some help from a compliant caucus and political party, that even now it can happen again.
God forbid we give him another opportunity to pursue his nightmare.
After a lifetime of speaking his mind in politics and media, these very acts could now get Rafe Mair – and a whole lot of other, suddenly “second-class” Canadians thrown out of their country (photo: Youtube/CMHABC)
What a way to come to the end of a long life!
Thanks to Bill C-24, a breathtaking piece of legislation that the Conservative Government somehow snuck past most Canadians last year, I am now a second-class citizen, though born a sixth generation Canadian. Actually, that part doesn’t matter since the point is I was born an unqualified Canadian citizen.
What did I do to deserve this punishment?
My sin is that my father, in 1906, was born in Auckland, New Zealand. He came to Canada in 1913 as a child, grew up in the West End of Vancouver and married my Mom, a fifth-generation Canadian, in 1930. Then I made my fatal error. On December 31, 1931, in Grace Hospital, Vancouver, I was born.
How I became a second-class citizen
Fatal error because at that second my Dad passed hiscitizenship of birth on to me by operation of the law of New Zealand. No one asked my opinion.
Since then I have lived entirely in Canada, behaved as a Canadian, was educated in Canada, had four Canadian children, 8 Canadian grandchildren, a Canadian great grandchild, practiced law for 15 years as a Canadian, served as a cabinet minister in the British Columbia government and negotiated constitutional matters on its behalf, and then spent 25 years in broadcasting. I have received many honours. During that time I stayed out of jail and I think generally behaved in a manner befitting the description “good citizen”.
Now, the government of Canada has declared that I’m a second-class Canadian.
You may be one too…
I suspect there are thousands that don’t yet realize they are second-class Canadians. I say that because I remember many, many years ago I had an offer to work in the United States and discovered that if my mother claimed the American citizenship she was entitled to because of her father was an American, I could then have claimed citizenship through her. Now, the rule about Canadian second-class citizenship is not just that you may be a dual citizen but that you could be! (Just to show how silly this is, my Mom’s dad was born to English parents passing through Minneapolis to Vancouver, making him a dual citizen!)
In the system under which I was born, and which developed in my lifetime, whether one was born in Canada or not, if they were citizens, unless that citizenship was obtained by fraud, it get could not be revoked. Even then if there was fraud, it took a federal judge to make the decision after a full court hearing, whereas now a decision will be made by a single citizenship officer and there will be no opportunity for a live hearing or an appeal.
It’s said I have nothing to worry about unless I plan to be a terrorist. Why, then, you ask, would an old fart like me be worried about this?
I have every reason to believe that given an opportunity I will qualify quite nicely. Let me tell you how.
Do I really have to ask that question given of the behaviour of the Harper government, especially in the last couple of years? Now, I must admit I don’t plan to wear a veil or convert to Islam or other such “un-Canadian” acts.
One of my problems – and I candidly admit it – is that I am so angry I have trouble keeping my emotions under control.
What did I do to deserve this? How come because my father was born in a country that automatically conferred its citizenship on his children, I become subject to special rules in the country in which I was born and have spent my entire life? By the same token, why should anybody who only took their citizenship yesterday be subjected to this humiliation?
Citizenship is a right…or it’s supposed to be
During my lifetime, citizenship has expanded to the point it has become a right, not a privilege as the government says, and a right which, once earned, is permanent.
At one time, one became a citizen just by being a British subject. But that was rightfully changed, then citizenship was finally granted to people who couldn’t hitherto get it because of their skin colour such as Chinese Canadians, Japanese Canadians and so on. Gadfrey, Daniel! We even “granted” citizenship to First Nations who had been here for millennia. Come to think on that, First Nations are members of two nations – are they dual citizens too? Where will their “terrorists” be deported to? Have these Harper geniuses thought of this?
We eliminated the distinctions between Canadians of recent immigration and those born here. We went all way from a very limited citizenship to an all-inclusive one where we all accepted one another as Canadians no matter where we came from or when.
We accepted people of whatever race, colour or creed without question. At least that was the theory.
Now, for God’s sake, we find that if a woman wears a certain piece of clothing, she is assumed to be about to murder us in our sleep or at least she is supporting people bent up on that!
No longer are our fellow citizens presumed to be peaceful and loyal but quite the opposite if they happen to be, for example, Muslims. If they are Muslims that wear garb consistent with that religion, then, of course, it is almost certain they’re out to get us.
What the hell is happening to Canada?
In my lifetime I have seen us go from a highly restrictive country to one which gradually changed its approach to newcomers to the point where we were all Canadians together, all working to eliminate the discrimination that too often comes with difference.
I look at class pictures of my 8 grandchildren as they’ve grown up and have a feeling of pride seeing the different faces of obvious different origins. I talk to my grandchildren about tolerance and decency and I’m proud of the approach they take.
I have never said nor would I that we must all love one another. Nor am I any better than anyone else – I must fight my own Devils inculcated in me from childhood. But I do fight them and most people I know fight them. So, I daresay, do most of you.
What the hell was the matter with this result? Where is this enormous danger that requires us to turn on Canadians of a different faith than our own and assume they’re about to do the country harm?
I apologize for being so passionate on this issue but after all this time and having reached this stage of life I simply cannot understand what has happened to my citizenship, my country, and so many of my fellow citizens who support people who would destroy the goodwill so carefully and so painstakingly built up over all the years I’ve been alive.
With only a couple of weeks left in the Canadian federal election, voters are starting to ask fundamental questions about where the major parties stand on important issues like climate change. Canadians already rank climate and environment as a top issue both during and between election cycles.
Pressure is mounting for Canada to play a leadership role at these negotiations, with major trading partners like China and the United States already jointly announcing their emission reduction goals and commitments in advance of the talks.
And Canadians are showing a desire for strong climate leadership. Even provinces like Alberta are defying stereotypes by showing a broad public desire for climate action. A recent poll by EKOS found that 53 per cent of Albertans support stronger climate policies and about the same support an economy-wide carbon tax to help solve the problem.
Environmental group Environmental Defence recently issued a new report that outlines where each of the major parties stand on climate. Here DeSmog Canada breaks those climate positions down with further analysis of each party’s election platform:
Liberal Party and Trudeau on Climate Change
When it comes to actual carbon emission reduction targets the Liberal Party has been rather vague so far in this election, making a promise that they will “provide national leadership and join with the provinces and territories to take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.”
In their election platform, Trudeau and the Liberals have committed to a $2 billion Low Carbon Economy Trust that will fund projects that help reduce carbon emissions.
On the international policy side, the Liberals say they will attend the Paris climate summit and within 90 days “establish a pan-Canadian framework for combatting climate change.”
The Liberals also state in their election platform that they support the G20 commitment to phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels in the medium-term and that they will work with the U.S. and Mexico to develop a long-term North American clean energy and environmental agreement.
NDP and Mulcair on Climate Change
The NDP has committed to a nation-wide cap-and-trade system that includes a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major sources like the Alberta oilsands. According to the Environmental Defence report, the NDP’s plan puts Canada on track to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 34 per cent by 2025, with a baseline measure of 1990. By 2050, the NDP plan on climate change would see Canada’s emissions drop by 80 per cent. These targets and commitments would be legislated making them much more difficult to reverse by future governments.
The NDP also commits to establishing “Green Bonds” which would allow Canadians to “invest up to $4.5 billion over four years in ‘clean energy, climate resilient infrastructure, commercial and industrial energy retrofits, and other sustainable development projects.'”
A further $1.5 billion would be spent over the next four years in “green programs” like retrofitting homes to be more energy efficient and local clean energy projects for northern and remote communities.
Conservative Party and Harper on Climate Change
As the incumbent party, it is fair to judge the Conservative party’s performance on their record to date, even more so than their election promises. While Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been mildly better on climate change in the last couple years (by, for example, agreeing with other G7 nations to phase out fossil fuels by 2100), the bar has been set rather low. This isn’t help by the fact that members of the Conservative party still consider climate change a theory consisting of “alarmist claims.”
Under the Harper government, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have ever so slightly dropped, but as the CBC points out in a recent analysis of claims on climate change made by Stephen Harper, those slight reductions had nothing to do with policy actions by the Conservatives and were instead a result of the major economic recession in 2008 and 2009.
As for Harper’s commitment in this federal election on climate change, his party highlights the commitment they put forward for the Paris negotiations that would see Canada reduce its emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 measured on a baseline of 2005. However, the Conservatives have made this commitment on a sector-by-sector basis and one of the sectors left out of this commitment is the Alberta oilsands, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.
Emissions from the oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions have increased 79 per cent since 2005. They currently account for nine per cent of Canada’s total emissions and that portion is expected to jump to 14 per cent by 2020.
The Conservatives have announced some funding for green projects, like a Public Transit Fund, but say funding for that program would not start until 2017.
Green Party and May on Climate Change
No surprisingly, the Green Party offers a very ambitious set of commitments on climate change, proposing emission reductions that are more than double those of Conservative Party of Canada. The Green Party plan would see Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reduced by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 and by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Green Party also commits to a “fee-and-dividend” system, which is similar to a cap-and-trade system and would set an initial price on carbon of $50 per tonne across all sectors, including the Alberta oilsands.
As for investing in green programs, Elizabeth May and the Greens would commit $500 million a year to a “Green Climate Fund” that would assist developing nations in addressing climate change, an additional $180 million a year in clean energy research and development and $1 billion a year for a “Green Technology Commercialization Grants.”
The Green Party would also reintroduce tax credits for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient, create a national plan for public transportation and provide tax incentives for renewable energy storage facilities and for the manufacturing and purchase of electric and plug-in hybrid cars.
If climate change is an important issue to you, there is one big thing you can do. Bigger, I would argue than changing your lightbulbs or buying a hybrid car and the like. The single biggest thing you can do to help fight climate change in Canada is to vote for the party you think is going to make the biggest difference.
Check out each party’s platform for more details. While you’re at itmake sure you’re registered to voteand don’t forget to put October 19th in your calendar!
Many a pundit has pointed out that the worst thing that could happen for Stephen Harper in the homestretch of the federal election campaign is for either of his opponents’ support to collapse, consolidating progressive votes around a single challenger. Well, if recent polls are any indication, that’s precisely what is happening – and Justin Trudeau appears to be the chosen one.
Just look at CBC’s Poll Tracker (as of Oct. 6): Out of the eight national polls conducted in October, Trudeau has topped 6 of them while Mulcair has placed a distant third in all but one. Three of the four most recent national polls have Trudeau at 35% or more, with a several point lead over Harper (granted these are all within the margin for error, but still…).
Trudeau has averaged 33.25% over these eight polls to Mulcair’s 25% and Harper’s 31.9%. Now, national polls are far less germane than local ones and the Conservatives’ famous ground game is likely to turn out their base on election day. For these reasons, despite Justin’s consistent edge in the national polls, as of today, CBC’s Poll Tracker is predicting 8 more seats for Harper in what would be a relatively weak minority government. But if Mulcair’s numbers were to tumble any further, that could increase Trudeau’s seat count and bolster the case for strategic voting, making a majority government hopeless for Harper, and, quite possibly, even a minority one.
What happened?
Earlier on in the campaign, the safe “progressive” money was on Mulcair (I put that in quotes to acknowledge that a vote for Trudeau and a vote for Mulcair are not one and the same in terms of policy), as he led a tight three-way race for much of the first half and voters seemed reluctant to put their faith in a young Trudeau whose inexperience was a favourite target for Harper’s election advertising.
But a few things have changed since then. Trudeau adopted a tougher posture in later debates, in response to critics’ concerns that he was too soft in the first one. Meanwhile, the Niqab controversy – the wildcard of the campaign – appears to have hurt Mulcair worse than Trudeau, despite the fact that they’ve essentially taken the same position. This is because the issue has tracked more with Quebec voters, whom Mulcair was relying on more heavily than Trudeau.
This time around, Strategic Voting may be real
Lastly, it’s possible that in this anomaly of federal elections, the notion of strategic voting – which typically fares better on paper than in practice – could finally be manifesting itself. Well-organized groups like Leadnow have run a strong ground game driving the initiative and the unprecedented splitting of the polls may be enough to make it a factor in 2015.
Now, strategic voting means that how candidates are looking in a specific riding is ultimately far more important than what national polls are saying heading into election day. Voters intent on unseating Harper may be more justified in backing the NDP – especially in many BC and Quebec ridings – or the Liberals in places like Ontario and Atlantic Canada. But with the national polls the way they’re looking today, there will likely be a growing number of ridings where Trudeau is the answer.
Lesser of two evils?
For some, the idea of throwing their support behind Trudeau will be stretch. This is one of the main challenges with strategic voting – not all anti-Harper parties and candidates are created equal. Many “progressive” Canadians – myself included – have acknowledged their discomfort with some of Mr. Trudeau’s policies in the past, most notably in recent times his position on Bill C-51. And environmentally, both Mulcair and Trudeau have tip-toed around pipelines and the oilsands/tar sands and disappointed critics of trade deals with their lack of vocal opposition.
But the question is whether self-identifying progressive voters believe that Trudeau, when compared with another Harper Government – especially a majority one – is indeed the lesser of two evils. If so, and polling trends continue along this trajectory, he has more than a fair chance of following in his famous father’s footsteps to 24 Sussex Drive.
But, as they say, in politics, two weeks is an eternity.
I find myself, late in this election campaign, ashamed to be a Canadian. As a longtime supporter of the rights of Quebec going back to days where I was involved in constitutional affairs in this country, I find myself utterly appalled at their creation and fanning of the “niqab” issue.
Let’s make no mistake about it, this is racism pure and simple. When I read Jason Kenney saying, “If anything’s dangerous, it would be legitimizing a medieval tribal custom that treats women as property rather than people,” I want to throw up.
What has happened to this country under Stephen Harper, the instigator of this disgrace? What’s happened to a nation famous for tolerance, understanding, and I suppose most importantly of all, minding one’s own business?
Don’t we see what’s happening to us? Don’t we have the ability to look back at our glorious history with regard to relations between peoples and see that we are being corrupted?
I once hosted a 39-part TV series on religions and can tell you that after examining 38+ atheism I came to the conclusion that every single tenet of faith stretched credulity to the utmost, yet what really stuck out was the willingness of all Canadians to tolerate the beliefs – or lack of them – of their fellow citizens.
Given the history of other parts of the world, many of whose citizens are now Canadians, this for me set Canada apart as a very special place. That Mr. Harper, the prime minister of the country, would raise a woman’s veil as a matter of public safety is so appalling that I, who has made his living with words for 60 years, am speechless. Somehow, I feel unclean.
Fortunately, there is a bit of courage around. Mr. Mulcair in Quebec has shown that rare commodity in standing up for what is right, knowing that every utterance was costing him and his party votes.
Similarly, Mr. Trudeau, in the traditions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the simple raw decency for which Canadians have hitherto been known, has also taken the road of courage not convenience.
I expect that Mr. Harper will win the election on this issue. In doing so, he will destroy our hard-earned reputation as a nation of tolerance, generosity of spirit, and fair play – sully the reputation of a country respected the world over for its ability to live and let live.
This election, too, will pass. When it does and the final words are written, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau will stand high amongst their fellow citizens while Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe – and John Weston, my MP – will stand out as cheap politicos who would inflame the passions of the public and sacrifice the nation’s self respect in order to satisfy personal ambition.
Justin Trudeau (Photo: John McCallum/Flickr/Som Jandu) and Tom Mulcair (Photo: BCNDP/Flickr)
By Doug Carrick
The Conservatives may be a disaster at governing a nation, but they are experts at manipulating electoral wins. In the last two elections they improved their position by 6% in the weeks just before the elections – providing victories in both cases. It may happen again.
Off to see the Wizard
The Conservatives are noted for their propaganda and negative advertising. The corporate media will explain the wisdom of “staying the course”. And now the Conservatives have recruited the highly successful spin-doctor from Australia, Lynton Crosby, also known as the Wizard of Oz or the Lizard of Oz. In Australia, he is sometimes called the “attack dingo” and in Britain, a “political rottweiler”. His favourite phrase is “below the radar”, meaning sneaky.
So we better brace ourselves for a struggle. He was behind four successive conservative wins in Australia and also behind the majority win of David Cameron in the recent British election. Lynton Crosby is a winner…and we might be the losers!
Three-way race tightening
The polls, at the time of writing, show Canadians to be in a vulnerable position: the NDP are at 32%, Conservatives 30%, Liberals 30%, Greens 5% and Bloc Quebecois 3%. If the Conservatives make their usual 6% increase (with Lynton Crosby’s help), they will end up with 36% – knocking the NDP down to 29% and the Liberals down to 28%. In other words – another Conservative victory.
Power in working together
This situation is a threat, but only if we lose sight of the real battle. The critical struggle is between the vast majority of progressive Canadians (70%) and the corporate controlled Conservatives (30%). It is the struggle of the combined forces of Liberals, NDP and Greens to regain a caring society. But we must work together for the common cause, through strategic voting.
There is terrific power through strategic voting. The Conservatives may gain 6% through a propaganda campaign, but that is nothing compared with what Canadians can do through strategic voting. In the last election the Conservatives had won 21 seats in BC, but are currently polling to win only 7 seats. In four of these ridings, the Conservatives are leading by only 2%, 4%, 6% and 7% – and could easily be defeated by a relative handful of voters swinging their votes to the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives. There is real power by working together. Divided we fall.
Change is within reach
Strategic voting can defeat almost any Conservative candidate in Canada. In this election, we must abandon our old habits of voting for the party we think is best. Instead, we should vote for what is best for Canada – removing the Conservatives. Does it really matter whether the Liberals win a few more seats than the NDP or vice versa? They are both essentially progressive parties, and so are the Greens. They all promise to bring in electoral reform. They all are concerned about climate change; they all are concerned about the unfair distribution of wealth; and they all believe that peace-keeping is more important than war-making. They all want the restoration of democracy. These are exceedingly important issues – but not shared by the Harper Conservatives.
Great things can happen with the removal of the Conservatives. And what a boost to our self esteem! To think that we were the ones who faced up to the problem and made the critical change – no longer wimps putting up with unacceptable values. All of this will happen…as long as we do not split the progressive vote.
And for those who feel that voting is frustrating and insignificant, you can be assured that every vote done strategically will actually count. Every vote goes directly to defeat the Conservatives. Just vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservatives – and that will make the difference.
Doug Carrick writes regular articles for the Hornby Island “First Edition”, the Denman Island “Flagstone” and occasionally for the “Island Tides” and other publications.
At least one Baby Boomer hopes to see Harper exit the political stage on Oct. 19 (Flickr/Stephen Harper)
This is for my fellow baby boomers. Yes, I mean you +55ers – the ones who lived through the 60’s and 70’s and even remember some of it. Think back to those days. Do you remember “Make Love Not War”, “Ban The Bomb” or how about “Power to the People” or “Never Trust Anyone Over Thirty”? Do you remember what your priorities were back then – your values, your ideals?
We were going to change the world and, for a short time, we did. Ours was the generation that stopped a war. Although Canada stayed out of Vietnam, we welcomed over 30,000 Americans who came here to avoid killing and being killed and we gave refuge to more than 50,000 “boat people” after Vietnam fell. We stood up for civil rights and women’s equality. We marched for a nuclear free world and even started Greenpeace, right here in Vancouver, because we thought saving our planet was important. But as I think about this election and the state our country is in, I remember a few years ago my son telling me that his generation was sick to death of hearing about all the noble things our generation had done and asking the question, “What have you done lately?”
Thinking about that question today, the only answer I can come up with is that we SOLD OUT!
It would be bad enough to say we sat idly by as our government destroyed our democracy with bills like the Orwellian-named “Fair Elections” Act; eliminated our freedoms by passing its anti-terrorist bill C-51; passed Bill C-24, making it possible for someone like Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi to be stripped of Canadian citizenship even though he was born in Toronto; muzzled or vindictively destroyed anyone who disagreed with them (Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen); turned the peacekeeping forces that we were so proud of into a war machine; gutted environmental protections for the benefit of big (mostly foreign) corporations; sold off our natural resources (along with our wheat board) to other countries; allowed entire industries to be wiped out and well paid jobs to be shipped to third world countries; widened the income inequality gap; increased the number of homeless and allowed 1 in 5 children to live in poverty; slashed social programs and eliminated safety nets (healthcare, EI, support for veterans, the national child care program); increased the age of eligibility for OAS and changed retirement age for CPP; took aim at women by slashing funding, closing offices and removing “equality” from the stated goals of the Status of Women ministry; drastically cut funding of the CBC and the arts (because “nobody cares about the arts”); made secondary education less and less affordable for anyone but the privileged upper class; waged war on First Nations by cancelling the Kelowna Accord, ignoring Supreme Court decisions and refusing to uphold laws and policies set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (even refusing to ensure they had the barest necessities such as access to clean drinking water); and abandoned our injured veterans saying we had “no moral obligation” to them.
It would be bad enough to say that we ignored their secrecy (European and TPP trade agreements; avoiding the media or screening their questions; gagging scientists, federal public servants and their own MPs; delaying, restricting or denying public and media requests under the Access to Information act); their lies (F-35 stealth fighter jets); their corruption ($50 million in taxpayers’ money funnelled into Tony Clement’s riding under the guise of G8 expenses, the artificial lake); their misuse of funds and attitudes of entitlement (Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice, Peter McKay’s personal use of military helicopters); the laws they broke (Harper breaking his own fixed-date election law, the In-and-Out scandal in which the party exceeded national campaign spending limits by moving funds through local ridings, Robocalls); their criminal charges and convictions (Dean Del Mastro – Harper’s “ethics” spokesman jailed for crimes committed while sitting as an MP, top aide Bruce Carson convicted of 5 counts of fraud); Harper appointing Senators in clear violation of requirements regarding residency and the consistent pattern of unethical conduct of other Harper appointees.
It would be bad enough to say we did not pay attention to all the other abuses of this government, such as being found in contempt of Parliament (for refusing to release costs on programs to opposition MPs); proroguing Parliament 4 times and shutting it down for 181 days; re-naming the Government of Canada the Harper Government; eliminating the long-form census; omnibus bills; attacks on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; spying on environmental and aboriginal activists; auditing charities and non-profits (all of them environmental, civil society, anti-poverty, foreign aid and human rights groups); using tax dollars to fund political ads and propaganda for oil companies; retroactively passing legislation to protect themselves from crimes already committed (the shredding of long gun registry data); and last but certainly not least, the Senate scandal (the $90,000 cheque, who knew about it and when, attempts to interfere with an official audit).
Yes, it would be bad enough to say we just ignored all of these things (and more) but the truth is that not only did we do nothing to stop them, we gave them our support! We became the establishment that we fought against – those people over 30 that we did not trust (and for good reason). We voted for this government and according to polls, we are the one age group that is overwhelmingly going to vote for them again.
Now, I realize that not all of you voted for the former Reformers, who have convincingly painted themselves as the Conservative party of old, and I realize that not all of you will vote for them on October 19th, but for those of you who will, I have a few questions.
1. Why? Why would you support a government as secretive, corrupt and hellbent on destroying our freedoms as this one? Someone suggested to me that it is because you care more about your money than anything else but that simply does not make any sense. When Harper took over, the economy was growing at 3% a year, there was a surplus of over $13-billion and our debt was $492-billion (and falling). Since being elected, he has run 6 straight deficits and the federal debt is now $615-billion (and rising). Whether he admits it or not, we are in a recession with our loonie tanking, unemployment climbing and commodity prices plunging. Why would you trust a government with this kind of a track record to keep your money safe?
2. When? When did you abandon your values and decide that lying, cheating, stealing and breaking the law were not a problem? When did you stop caring about other people and become okay with our military bombing innocent civilians, with children in this country starving, seniors having to choose between groceries and medication, people having to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads, with healthcare cuts that forced mental patients onto the streets, with jobs being given to temporary foreign workers while qualified Canadians went unemployed and with a dead child being washed up on a beach on the other side of the world while we ignore a refugee crisis that we are at least partially responsible for creating with our bombs?
3. Do you have grandchildren? Do you care if they grow up to be honest, ethical, compassionate adults? Do you teach them values? Do you teach them your “new” values – the ones that you accept from your government – that the end justifies the means and it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, break the law and do anything else you have to do in order to get what you want? Or do you teach them to do as I say, not as I do because that always works out so well?
4. How? How do you plan on explaining to your grandchildren that you didn’t care? You didn’t care enough about their future to stand up for healthcare, education, the environment, their rights, democracy and for honesty and decency? How will you answer if they ask why you didn’t love them enough to protect them?
5. And finally, can you give me just one reason to justify voting for this man who vowed that no one would recognize Canada when he was finished. Did you really hate our country that much the way it was?
Canadians used to have much to be proud of and we can be proud again. Our country’s best days do not have to be behind us. October 19th may be the most important election of our lifetime. We have a choice. We can continue down this path of destruction, giving up our ideals, our freedoms, our democracy and our very identity or we can change direction and start repairing the damage, healing the wounds and restoring our standing in the world.
This is our chance to show that our generation still has values we are willing to stand up for and we can still make a difference. It is your opportunity to show your grandchildren that their futures matter and you will do everything in your power to protect them. By living your values, you will be leaving them a legacy. They will learn by your example and will never have to ask why you didn’t care.
PM Stephen Harper addresses a youth delegation (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
To: The Rt. Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minister,
Most issues we face today we’ve faced before.
For an older person like myself there is a strong sense of déjà vu. We’ve been through deficits and surpluses; prosperity and recessions; government overspending andgovernment parsimony; and there’s always a list of special issues to be replaced by new special issues in time for the next election.
The sign of a great leader is one who takes a very large, seemingly insoluble problem and deals with it in the interests of the nation. Not many have done that in our history – mostly we just muddle along, watching the United States and the UK, and keeping our heads down.
Canada stingy on constitutional reform
We’ve been shockingly inattentive to our corporate make up, or Constitution. The United States has amended its constitution 33 times since 1787. Great Britain, through its flexible constitution, is constantly amending theirs. We act as if to do so would be like performing self surgery without an anesthetic.
In our recent history the only major constitutional surgery was done by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 when the Constitution was patriated from the United Kingdom to Canada. I was a member of Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet Ministers on the Confederation (2 from each province, 2 from the federal government) and watched the process unfold. Much was done during those years to address difficulties but since the deal breakers were the Amending Formula and The Charter, most work was there, with other matters to be dealt with in due course.
MPs are powerless
PM Harper enters the House behind Governor General David Johnston for a Speech from the Throne (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
Since then – and much of the blame for this has been deservedly laid at your feet – the Commons has become a nest of political eunuchs where no longer men and women meet to deal with issues of their choosing but a place about as democratic as the Reichstag in the 1930s.
I do not exaggerate, Mr. Prime Minister. The plain fact is that a government MP has no power whatsoever and is now your pet poodle. He says what you tell him to say, asks what you order him to ask, and otherwise keeps his mouth shut. No Tory MP dares question a government decision on the Commons floor, even if it’s vital to his constituency.
On behalf of many in our community on Howe Sound, where tankers are proposed, and approved by you, I asked your MP, John Weston, in writing, to explain this dramatic discriminatory practice. He refused to do so!
Why, Prime Minister, why? Are you actually ashamed of your untenable Eastern bias but not man enough to admit it?
Committees’ role disappears
On another matter, The Parliamentary Committee, which we inherited from the UK House of Commons, is supposed to be the way backbench MPs can hold the government’s feet to the fire.
As you know, Sir, this simply doesn’t happen. The Committee has been stolen from the backbencher and made a dummy, with you the ventriloquist since you, not the MPs, select the Chair and no uncomfortable agenda arises without you stepping in to stop it.
Independent thinking: a political death sentence
It goes much further – I fear I have only scratched the surface. If a Tory MP does what his conscience dictates and it crosses your policy, he risks of being tossed out of caucus, the party, and never again allowed to run for the party – a political death sentence. Your MPs know that and it assures you 100% control of their minds and souls, never mind their actions! How the hell can such a person be my Member of Parliament?
The consequence of all of this is that the Tory MP, elected by citizens to represent their issues, at all times does precisely what you tell him to do.
There are also the practical considerations of the carrot and the stick. It’s entirely in your hands as to which MP is promoted to parliamentary secretary or cabinet minister or any other office. It is up to you alone whether they’re fired – no cause need be shown, there’s no severance pay. You have unconstrained control, a privileged hitherto reserved to God.
Even lesser matters such as going to a warm island in the winter to attend a useless conference is yours to offer the MP who behaves himself.
UK MPs far more rebellious than Canadians
What are you afraid of? In the Mother of Parliaments, Prime Ministers often lose votes, even “three line whip” votes, and life goes on. They don’t resign but call a confidence vote which has been the practice here since Lester Pearson.
Here’s some history of lost major votes in the UK:
In the 1st Harold Wilson government (1965-70) – six times
In the Edward Heath government (1970-74) 6 times
In the 2nd Harold Wilson government, (1974-6) – 25 times
His successor, Jim Callaghan (1976-9), 34 times
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) 4 times
John Major (1990-97) 6 times
Tony Blair (1997-07) 4 times
Gordon Brown (2007-11) 3 times
In the last 4 years, David Cameron was beaten 6 times
Remember, in all of those defeats, a “three-line whip” was in effect and members were ordered to vote for the government, “or else”.
Opportunity for a positive legacy
Tom Mulcair supports electoral reform, as do the Greens and Grits
Now, prime minister, you can go down in history as a great prime minister if you sincerely commit to serious reform and are reelected.
I should note that your NDP, Liberal and Green counterparts have each backed proportional representation or some variety of serious electoral reform should they form government this October. Change is clearly in the air on this front. My concern here is what happens should you defy recent polls and form government again yourself.
Nobody expects you to have the magic bullet. To redo the way we elect MPs and the powers we give them is open to many options which must be thrashed out. The power of the PM and the cabinet is another matter of debate. There are those who stand firmly for proportional representation or a combination of that and first past the post and there are those who want transferable ballots and so on. I daresay, however, you will be hard-pressed to find too many, excepting party hacks, supporting retention of the present system.
There must be Reform! The stakes are very high, sir, since despite what you might think from 34 Sussex Drive, there is a lot of unrest in the land. Surely, the days when less than 40% of the popular vote achieve 100% of the power must be put behind us. Is there any wonder so many Canadians don’t bother to vote?
I close by saying this, prime minister: I don’t think you want to do this. I believe that you enjoy your position as a dictator, with everyone around you obeying you in all matters, large or small. I don’t think you could stand your own MPs being critical of your policies, much less voting against your wishes.
You, sir, are quite prepared to put the ego of Stephen Harper ahead of the best interests of the country.
Prove me wrong by pledging major reform to Parliament and the voting system.
I’ll not hold my breath, nor, I daresay, will many other Canadians.
Editor’s note: This letter is open to republication by any group or individual, without permission required from the author or publisher.
Green candidate Ken Melamed doesn’t see a future for Woodfibre LNG (facebook/Mitch Stookey)
Local NDP and Green candidates are steadfastly opposed to the Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, reveals a recent series of one-on-one interviews.
Meanwhile, the Liberal candidate for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, is on the fence, while Tory incumbent John Weston remains predictably supportive of the controversial project.
According to the survey (see full results here), conducted by Propeller Strategy – a non-profit group with a focus on environmental and public interest issues in BC – former West Vancouver Mayor Goldsmith-Jones has “four conditions that would need to be in place before Woodfibre LNG could be properly reviewed.”
[quote]The criteria included a marine strategy, a climate strategy, genuine consultation and most importantly an audit is needed of the new environmental laws resulting from changes made by the Conservative government.[/quote]
But for NDP candidate Larry Koopman and the Greens’ Ken Melamed, a former Whistler Mayor, the answer is a hard “No”, as Woodfibre clearly lacks the social licence required to proceed.
Woodfibre wrong for many reasons
Woodfibre LNG would see large tankers travelling up Howe Sound (Eoin Finn)
According to a media release from Propeller Strategy, the “LNG export industry is not appropriate for BC,” says Melamed, nor is it “consistent with the values of Canadians and a strong economic policy.”
Propeller conducted a similar survey of municipal candidates throughout the region before last year’s election, which revealed that a staggering 94% of respondents were opposed to Woodfibre. Those indications were borne out post-election, as Squamish took a harder tack with Woodfibre, denying permits to build an expanded pipeline connected to the project through the Squamish estuary.
Propeller’s Stan Proboszcz, who carried out the interviews with several constituents in attendance, commented, “Important local issues are often absent from federal election campaigns.”
[quote]Woodfibre LNG will put the local economy, environment and citizen safety at risk, and voters deserve clear positions from all candidates on this issue before the election.[/quote]
