What to look for in an Elected Representative

Recently during the Canadian federal election voters were asked to make a choice out of a slate of possibilities.  Voters were asked to choose someone from a list of candidates to represent them in the House of Commons in Ottawa. 

Voters in Ontario will have voted three times for muncipal, federal and provincial representatives from late 2010 to late 2011.  In each election voters were given several different shades of colour to choose from, different party platforms, different leaders and different scandals to choose from.  But how does a voter choose between them all?  The main answer is that the person who your riding ultimately chooses will represent your voice in the House of Commons, legislature or council chamber with a decent pay cheque.  Bottom line is the candidates are applying for a job and the voter is a member of the hiring comittee.  As a member of the hiring comittee each voter should be looking at the aspects outlined below.

Each candidate for election is applying for the job as representative for your community.  Normally in a job search situation resumes and cover letters are required.  In this previous federal election many candidates told us about their experience and achievements.  Candidates should tell voters of experience both inside and outside politics.  Experiences outside politics include previous jobs and volunteer opportunities involved in.  Within politics candidates should answer if they have held elected office before and what goverment comittees they have been on as a citizen or elected member.  Further on the resume portion the applicant should outline their educational achievements.  Basically the candidate should outline their previous employment, volunteer and educational experience which should show how they would be a good candidate to choose for the job.  Candidates need a good resume because they are after all applying for a position with a job description and a decent salary.

Poltics isn't always about experience.  Questions on issues during the election pop up and platforms are supposed to give the answers to these questions.  Voters should investigate the beliefs and views of their candidates as it is usually a good indicator of how these candidates will espouse their ideas on behalf of the local community. Study these platforms carefully though as many political parties recently have gone into attack mode rather than layout their beliefs.  Attack mode is easy to pick out as the parties or candidates make no mention of what they believe but point out in a negative way the beliefs of their opponents.  Often the attacks will attempt to frame and/or skew the opponents platform in a bad light.  Remember, you want to know what the candidate or political party themselves believe and not what they think of their opponent. This is because, quite frankly, if you were interested in their opponent you would be reviewing the opponent's platform and not those an opposing candidate.

In the previous election the issue of where a candidate lives have become an issue.  In the Richmond Hill riding in the previous federal election two of the four candidates did not reside in the riding they wanted to represent. In Quebec an NDP candidate who was elected lived around 400 KM away from her riding and possibly has never set foot in the riding.  The main question is: If an elected representative does not live in the riding for they represent for a decent period of time how do they intimately know the concerns, wishes, views and issues of the riding?  The main fact is they do not.  The candidate doesn't have the history or knowledge of the needs of the community and how it came to be in the recent past.  

Candidates also need to look like they are applying for the position in a professional manner.  Websites, signs and literature need to look professionally done and not completed as some student council high school election. The successfully elected candidate is going to be representing the community with a pay cheque around one hundred thousand dollars or higher along with a possible pension.  Thus, candidates should have professionally printed materials and nice looking websites that espouse their experience and platform.  Candidates should dress up everything after all as they are applying for an executive level job with a matching compensation. 

Candidates for election should also prove to voters that the community is going to be represented by their complete undivided attention.  Federal, provincial and municipal politics require vast amounts of time to listen to debate, vote, meet with constituents and respond to comments and queries.  Thus the job should have the complete undivided attention of the person holding the job description.  A great case in point recently happenned with the NDP Candidate for the riding of Newmarket-Aurora in the previous federal election.  Kassandra Bidarian was attending university courses at the University of Toronto.  She promised that next year her course load would be less than it was this year.  The main issue that arose in the community was how would Ms. Bidarian provide proper representation in Ottawa for Newmarket-Aurora while still taking courses at her university in Toronto?  The right answer was she could not.  Ms. Bidarian never really acknowledged this and this was perhaps one of the main reasons she was not elected. Elected officials are supposed to be mostly full time positions with adequate compensation for the position.  Thus the position and responsibilities they entail should have the full undivided attention of the office holder.  Any candidate who espouses a view differently doesn't deserve to be elected and the ensuing pay cheque and pension paid for by taxpayers money.

Overall political candidates have many failings including skeletons in the closet and lack of previous experience.  But failing to adhere to provide voters with information on experience, proof of residency within a riding and a professional looking presentation should not be a failing.  Failure to provide voters with these things just shows voters that the candidate could care less whether they get elected or not.  This brings up the main quesiton: If a candidate doesn't care about getting elected than how do voters know the elected candidate will care about the community they represent?

NDP Candidate: Not Ready for MP because I'm at School

 I love watching the debates in elections.  Candidates exchange views and sometimes end up looking like complete idiots.  Sometimes it is the candidates who don't show up that look like they are just not into it.  The latter occurred in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora when the same two candidates failed to show up at two different debates held back to back.  Kassandra Bidarian (NDP candidate) and Yvonne Mackie (Animal Alliance Environment Voters Candidate) both failed to show up to debates. 

No word has come forth as to why Yvonne failed to show up for the important debates held by the The Newmarket Era and Aurora Banner newspapers in Newmarket and The Auroran newspaper debate in Aurora.

Kassandra Bidarian, the NDP candidate, on the Aurora Citizen blog has responded as to why she failed to show up for the debates. Bidarian claims she is currently a student at the University of Toronto - St. George Campus doing a specialist in Philosophy, with a minor in political science, and the exam schedule has gotten in her way.  Thus she couldn't attend the debates because of the exams.  Further she claims to have a 4.0 average and wishes to continue her studies.

Ms. Bidarian repeatedly says she is a serious candidate for the riding of Newmarket-Aurora.  But, based on what I'm currently reading that doesn't appear to be the case:

1. She failed to show up for two debates claiming her exam schedule got in the way.  This may be true that there were exams on both nights of the debates and she was stuck not being able to be two places at once. 

2. From her comment on the Aurora Citizen blog:

"I am committed and I am a person dedicated to achieving all that I can. I have always committed myself to multiple avenues in the past with positive results, and if need be, I can continue that here. My educational load will be lessened next year, leaving me ample time to work as a Member of Parliament."

The above truly points out how Kassandra has lost touch with reality.  A Member of Parliament, let alone one representing a riding around Toronto, is more than a FULL TIME JOB.  Kassandra's studies in Toronto will obviously prevent her from being full time in Ottawa and serving her constituents in Newmarket-Aurora.  So when exactly, if elected, Kassandra going to find all the time to: sit in the House of Commons, comittee meetings, traveling between Newmarket-Aurora and Ottawa, appearing at community events, responding to constituent inquires and working on her studies in downtown Toronto at University of Toronto?  Will she give up sleeping to do all that?  Something has to give, either her studies or her $100,000 dollar paid position as MP will.

3. A few posters on the Aurora Citizen blog noted the lack of signs for Ms. Bidarian in the riding.  In fact some posters inquired to see if there were any out there.  Sightings have been few and far between.  Personally, travelling along Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue in Aurora I've seen only one sign for the NDP and the name on it? "Jack Layton".  So where are the signs with "Kassandra Bidarian" on them?  Kassandra responds ont he Aurora Citizen blog with:

"Unfortunately, there was a delay in retrieving signs that was out of my control. But as soon as we received them, we have been putting them around Newmarket and Aurora..."

So Kassandra failed to have her signs ready for an election that had ample warning of coming?  Political writers were expecting an election weeks before the budget and the contempt of parliament charges being table in the House of Commons.  As a political science student one would expect Kassandra to be watching closely while the politics played out on Parliament Hill with her leader Jack Layton humming and hawing over the budget and the contempt of Parliament charges. The NDP surely had given their candidates some prior warning to start the election campaign engines.  Kassandra's opponent, Lois Brown (Conservative candidate) had election signs up all along Yonge Street in Aurora by the Sunday after the election writ had been dropped.  Lois was ready, why wasn't Kassandra and NDP?  As evidenced by Kassandra's response to her continuing studies while being an MP, planning is not Kassandra's strong suit.  Otherwise her election signs would have been on order with the sign maker and all she would have to do is call them and say "start printing!"

4. Kassandra's election website is a complete joke.  The only sections she has are contact information and her biography.  Everything else on the simple one page layout is for the NDP overall party.  Even what she does have on their is a little thin.  Her contact information lists her campaign office address for "mail or document delivery only".  Thus if you want to volunteer and pick up materials to do a little canvassing or have questions you would like to meet with her office staff -- presuming she has office staff -- your out of luck. Next her biography is also very thin.  About the only thing I learned about Kassandra is:

"Kassandra represents the riding of Newmarket-Aurora for the NDP. She first became engaged in politics as the New Democratic Party Youth representative for Newmarket-Aurora. She then furthered her involvement by participating in the Ontario New Democratic Party and was the Northern Ontario Representative for Ontario New Democratic Youth. Currently enrolled in Philosophy and Political Science at the University of Toronto, she is not only a student, but also a civically engaged and passionate youth."

The rest of the bafflegab in her biography is what she believes in.  There isn't one word on what past positions she has held in terms of employment or any volunteer organizations she belongs to.  She apparently is a blank slate applying for a $100,000 job position with only political volunteer campaigning experience behind her.  And, sadly, that is all she has on her website pertaining to her. 

As far as I can tell based the previous federal election, the NDP in Newmarket-Aurora has trouble finding candidates to run.   Kassandra Bidarian is obviously just a filler for the NDP in this particular riding. She responds to the questions at the Aurora Citizen blog about her candidcy by outlining how she became a candidate:

"I want to make it clear that it is not just “anyone willing to be a candidate”, but that there was a long democratic process involved. Firstly, I had to fill out detailed papers containing my information and have them approved by Ottawa. Secondly, there had to be a nomination meeting with the New Democratic Party members of Newmarket and Aurora. During this meeting, I explained my credentials and what I plan to do and I was democratically voted in, unanimously. Thirdly, I had to obtain about 120 signatures from residents in Newmarket and Aurora, which basically stated they are giving me their permission to be a candidate for their riding. 

Prior to all of the above, I was already involved within the party attending caucus’, being politically active, and speaking up for the youth and issues we faced. I was also the Youth Representative for Newmarket and on the executive of Ontario New Democratic Youth. To further my experience, I am also attending University of Toronto-St.George Campus and doing a specialist in Philosophy with a minor in Political Science. So the statement that “anyone willing to be a candidate” can, is completely false. If anyone had any concerns over my candidacy, they could have asked."

The above just shows again how out of touch with reality she is.  Perhaps she had to receive 120 signatures and fill out "detailed papers" in order to be approved to be a candidate for the NDP for Newmarket-Aurora for the federal election.  But I would imagine so did Lois Brown, Kyle Peterson (Liberal candidate) and the others.  These other candidates also opened campaign offices that people could visit or work from.  They also have their signs out in relatively reasonable amount of time wich meant prospective voters didn't have to search for their signs.  She also points out her continous learning by taking courses in Philosophy and politics which I've already outlined previously will be an issue if she is elected in terms of her time management. 

But the most laughable two sentences of Kassandra's response to the questions of her candidacy is:

"So the statement that “anyone willing to be a candidate” can, is completely false. If anyone had any concerns over my candidacy, they could have asked."

Kassandra is completly wrong.  The NDP in Newmarket-Aurora was presented with one possible candidate, Kassandra.  There was nobody else stepping forward.  The NDP membership, presuming their is such a thing in Newmarket-Aurora, had one choice as there was no mention in the media or anywhere else of any other candidate stepping forward to compete at the nomination meeting.   So Kassandra was the only person to step forward and thus was the only "anyone willing to be a candidate".  Without her the NDP would have been forced to concede they do not have a candidate in all ridings across Canada and thus couldn't be considered to be a national party. Thus, the statement "anyone willing to be a candidate" is true in Kassandra's case. 

Finally the statement of "If anyone had any concerns over my candidacy, they could have asked" is also hillarious.  Up until the election writ was dropped nobody knew who Kassandra was.  So who would exactly they ask?  The local riding office which is a house on a residential street where only mail and documents can be sent?  There is no name associated and there is no local riding association website that I can find to put inquiries to.  Thus is there really a riding association President for the NDP?  Not that I can tell or at least not someone who is willing to put their name to it. So voters had to wait to question her candidcy until she announced she was running for the NDP and failed miserably at debating and properly launching her campaign.  Hence why the questions are now coming forth a week or two before voting day.

Kassandra Bidarian is obviously not ready to be elected MP for Newmarket-Aurora.  She failed to show up for two seperate debates blaming her exam schedule.  She failed to have campaign signs out and nailed in.  Her local riding association who one would expect to be supporting her, doesn't even have a named President that is findable via a Google search. She doesn't have a campaign office at all.  She also believes she can reduce her course load to continue studying at the University of Toronto while being an MP in Ottawa.  Yet with all of the above she believes she can be a serious candidate for MP of Newmarket-Aurora. Kassandra Bidarian is an idealist who is not ready to be elected MP.  She should stay in school and learn politics, the real world of time management and how to properly campaign.  Kassandra Bidarian needs to chock this campaign up to the school of hard knocks and move on.

Who to Vote For: The Federal Edition

Another election is upon us.  In Ontario it will be the third election in just about a year.  Last October was the municipal election, currently there is a federal election underway and in October a provincial election is scheduled.  And yet some of us, like Vaughan, will have seen four elections in that time frame.

I currently reside in Richmond Hill and have been investigating which one of the four candidates to vote for and what each of the parties they represent stand for.  Through this investigation I've come up with nothing. You would think when candidates are applying for a job that pays over one hundred thousand dollars per year the parties and candidates would bring their "A Game" to the table.

First the incumbent for Richmond Hill, Bryon Wilfert (Liberal). Bryon claims on his website he has been an MP in Ottawa for this area for over ten years.  At least he puts out his political involvement with various committees and positions he has held in the past.  However, what had Bryon done outside of politics like in the private sector as a businessman or volunteer.  About all we know about Bryon is that he has been honoured with various honourary chairs and memberships in over ten volunteer organizations.  However, this doesn't say whether he was originally a volunteer or member of these organizations for a certain amount of time and did good works with them or did these organizations just honorarily bestow these memberships on him whilly nilly.  About the only thing I know about Bryon is that he has a mother who needed hospital care and he has been involved in politics for a long period of time both municipally and federally.  Too bad there is nothing else on his website that I can see as being more in touch with the community. 

Bryon's other problem is his leader, Michael Ignatieff, who has failed to attend House of Commons votes over seventy percent of the time.  So Bryon's leader and, I would surmise, his supposed muse for politics who is supposed to show his MPs how it is done has a worse attendance record for votes in the House of Commons than the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.  Stephen of course did miss votes but at least he has other duties like meeting with foreign dignataries at home and overseas as well as other similar Prime Ministerial duties.  I can't imagine what more important duties Michael Ignatieff would have as the leader of Official Opposition than being in the House of Commons ensuring the government of the day is held to account and voting as the constituents he represents sees fit.

The next two candidates have the same issue and it is a major one.  Neither of the following candidates lives in the Richmond Hill riding. If you do not live in the riding you wish to represent. How can someone represent an area if they do not even live there?  How can someone know intimately what the issues are in the riding if they have not experienced them for themselves?   Both Costas Menegakis (Conservative) and Cameron Hastings (Green) live in Richmond Hill.  Costas lives in neighbouring Markham while Cameron lives in Scarborough. 

Cameron has a major issue as even his own volunteers don't seem to know where the Richmond Hill riding starts and stops.  This past Sunday I viewed campaign signs for Cameron at the corner of Yonge Street & Bernard Avenue in the town of Richmond Hill.  Today I saw signs on the west side of Bathurst Street & Autumn Hill Blvd.  The problem is neither of these locations is within the riding of Richmond Hill as set out by Elections Canada.  The Yonge & Bernard location is within the riding of Oak Ridges-Markham and the Bathurst and Autumn Hill is in the riding of Thornhill.  None of the opposing parties candidates made this mistake. 

So neither Costas or Cameron I can really trust as they do not even live in the riding they are running for.  In fact it appears their parties merely parachuted them into the riding. 

This leaves the NDP candidate of Adam DeVita.  Adam I have yet to hear from in terms of campaign literature or in person by any of his campaign volunteers or himself.  All I've seen of his campaign is lawn signs up and down Yonge Street.  I have yet to see one on actual front lawn of a supporter.  This is opposed to his competition who have lawn signs on several neighbourhood lawns in front of houses.  As well, his website is the local riding associations website and he doesn't seem to have one of his own.  Of his campaign website he has a sparse bio stating he has lived in Richmond Hill for 35 years and he works in the technology sector.  However, he doesn't say much beyond being a member of Richmond Hill United Church as his volunteer work.  He also doesn't mention what his platorm is as a candidate for Richmond Hill. The only thing he really has on it in terms of platform is broad NDP policies placed on an electronic version of campaign literature with such a poor layout that it should be turned over to a high school student to improve. Bottom line, if you want a job that pays over 100,000 at least put a little effort into it.

In Richmond Hill the question comes down to the following, who do you want to represent you?

1. Someone whose leader believes it is fine to not be in the House of Commons for over seventy percent of all votes?

2. Do you want someone who doesn't live in the riding?

3. Do you want someone who believes the entire process is a high school assignment?

Who to vote for in Richmond Hill is all in how you answer the above questions.

Election Fever: Vaughan

Back in February I pointed out that Ontarians have had Election Fever.  But Ontario is not the worst hit by election fever at all.  Compared to the entire province of Ontario which has had three elections, sections of the City of Vaughan in Ontario will have had four elections in just barely more than a year. 

As this article points out, sections of the City of Vaughan will have an election every 3.5 months in about a years time.  Residents of the riding of Vaughan have been through a recent municipal election and are due for a provincial election in October 2011 as well as a now expected federal election sometime in 2011 whenever the current Conservative government falls.  Add to this the resignation of Liberal MP for Vaughan, Maurizio Bevilacqua, which caused a By-Election soon after last years Municipal Election.  Bevilacqua resigned his seat in order to successfully run for the position of Mayor of Vaughan.

With typical election campaigns averaging sixty to ninety days in length residents of Vaughan typically go through one election campaign, get a fifteen to thirty day breather before having their dinners interrupted by knocks on the door and/or phone calls from their campaigning candidates.  I would imagine that this would cause a lot of people to either unplug their phone or hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on their front door nobs for a little well deserved rest and relaxation.

Another issue with the frequent elections is voter apathy.  The "heck I just went to polls" mentality sets in.  This is derived from voters forgetting to vote because they just did for another election.  As well voters just may become apathetic and tune out the issues as they are now tired of hearing the problems and/or solutions for their communities and wish to tune it all out.  This is especially the case in Vaughan where the frequency in the elections is so high and the controversy over the politics at the municipal level and the high profile personality of Julian Fantino in the recent federal by-election would leave any voter a little fatigued.

So please have some sympathy for the voters in the City of Vaughan as turnout at the polls drops.  They will have been through a large political circus in little over a years time. You would get apathatic too if you had four elections in just over a year.

Election Fever

"ELECTION!"

Seems to be the most popular and least popular word in Canada right now.

Last year Ontarians had municipal elections to elect local government.  In Toronto Rob Ford took over and has been cleaning house since David Miller has left.  News for Rob though, the campaigns over and you have four years to do whatever you do.  So you can stop campaigning and dropping "Stop the Gravy Train!" antics (sloganeering?) and start looking for some CHACHING (read: money) savings for the 2012 budget because, as of this writing, there is over eight hundred million dollar shortfall that must be made up by this time next year in order to balance the 2012 budget. 

Further in Municipal politics, in Aurora the Phyllis Morris which seems to have restored order to council under new Aurora Mayor Geoff Dawe after the previous fractious term.   So far this term it has been only Wendy Gaertner who has stirred the pot by going on and on with questions to staff ad nauseaum to try, as she puts it, "clarify" her thinking.  Other councillors have pointed out that staff have been ready willing and able to answer questions and provide material to councillors before a council meeting is held.  Councillor Evelyn Buck, who has been previously Aurora Mayor and Councillor, has pointed out the only reason to ask a question of staff at a council meeting is to show information that will further a debate point and not to research out your point.  Bottom line to Wendy, council meetings are for presenting your points, making a collective decision and moving onto the next item.  Time for contemplating which way the wind blows on an issue is at General Committee or various other comittees and doing your homework with staff assistance during office hours at the town hall.  If you cannot understand this concept, please resign right now so someone that does can occupy your chair and the town's business can move forward.

Later this year is an Ontario provincial election.  The main issues in the election are going to be increasing electricity rates and the HST.  Premier Dalton McGuinty has overseen increases in electricity rates of over fifty percent in the past four years plus is promising further increases to electricity rates in the next five years as well.  All of this, McGuinty says, to invest in new green infrastructure like wind mills on the lake and gas powered plants.  Dalton McGuinty also oversaw the imposition of the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) which takes the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the old Ontario Provincial Sales Tax (PST) and melds them into one tax that is imposed on anything the GST was on before.  This meant the Ontarians saw a further eight percent increase to their electiricity and Natural Gas bills as previously these bills didn't have the old PST imposed on them.  Overall, Dalton McGuinty has a lot of explaining to do for these items and others.  But what does Dalton do?  He asks what the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) are going to do in the future? Where is there plan?  Do the PC's have a plan?  PC leader Tim Hudak says the PC plan will be released in due time once it has been formulated, revised and released. Dalton, the real question here is do you have a plan?  What is that plan? A clear plan for Ontario is what is needed in these troubled economic times.  So put the Liberal party plan out there for the voters to decide on and stop worrying what the other side can do.  The election is when the decision will be made and the election can only be a good thing.

Federally, there is a 2011 Budget coming out soon.  The Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois are refusing to support the budget no matter what.  The Conservative government, in a minority position in the House of Commons, needs another party to the budget to get it passed, if not, as per the Constitution, an election must be called.  With Liberals and Bloc Quebecois out of the picture the only party left is the NDP.  NDP leader Jack Layton has met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in consulation over what the budget would look like.   The decision is now up to Stephen Harper, does he put some of the items the NDP is hoping for into the budget to get it passed?  Or not.  If not, an election, that most Canadians don't want. will be called.  If Stephen puts some of the items into the budget, will it be enough for the NDP to support the budget and allow Parliament to continue on?  Probably as the NDP, for financial and health reasons doesn't want an election at this time.  Financial?  Canadians have had four federal elections in just over ten years and three of those have resulted in minority parlimaments under either a Liberal or Conservative government with threats of a coalition government mixed in for good measure.  Health?  Jack Layton is currently undergoing cancer treatment and obviously would rather concentrate his time and energy on that instead of criss crossing Canada over a months time in election mode.

So there you have it, us poor saps in Ontario by the end of 2011 may, but not necessarily definately, will have gone through three elections in about a years time.  It almost makes you wonder who the guy at the front door is trying to do...sell you something you don't need or get elected.  If it is the latter then I have a questions before you can start..who are you? and which ballot exactly are you on? Now what are going to do exactly?  Thanks...bye...I got three or four more of you coming by and I still have to cook dinner.

Elections...it is enough to make almost anyone feverish.

The Need to Prorogue the Canadian Parliament

Recently the Governor General of Canada has prorogued the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons, leading up to the end of November, was in chaos. The opposition parties, the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, were threatening to pass a vote of non-confidence against the minority government, the Conservatives. The Opposition parties brought forth a plan where, following the defeat of the government, a governing coalition made up of all the oppisition parties under a signed off on contract.

The Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, had a couple of options to choose from when Prime Minister Steven Harper came knocking on the Friday before the Monday non-confidance vote. The Prime Minister wanted the Governor General to either prorogue Parliament (i.e. end the current Parliamentry session) and start a new session at the end of January or, if the Governor General refused, to call a National General Election at the earliest convenience. Of course, the opposition parties requested a meeting with the Governor General as well, this meeting was rejected by her excellency.

The Govenor General choose the option to prorogue Parliament. The need to prorogue Parliament was obvious, the House of Commons had decended into chaos and wouldn't last longer than a week before a change in government would be required. This could either be done through inviting the Liberals to form a coalition government or calling another general election.

The coalition government option didn't sit well as the liklihood of a coalition government lasting one to two years appear slim. This was because that considering after the October 2008 general election all parties promised to work together coperatively, but less than a month later, political chaos erupted. So the Governor General probably believed that the coalition parties might split over some issue and poltical crisis would ensue yet again.

The general election option was panned by the Governor General as well for the simple fact that less than two months earlier a National General Election had been held with the election of the minority Conservative government. To make matters worst the 2008 General election had one of the worst percentages of voter turnout in Canadian history.

This left Michaëlle Jean with only one option and a needed plan of further options of the first option failed. The plan was to prorogue Parliament until the end of January. This would allow the opposition parties and the government time to put their differences aside and hopefully negotiate a federal budget and a set of priorities for 2009.

So far this option hasn't been going so well. The Liberals have dumped Stephan Dion and, since everyone including the church mouse has dropped out, acclaimed Michael Ignatieff as party leader. Ignatieff has been doggedly stayed partisan while arguing that the Conservatives are no good dirty devils. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have invited the opposition parties to bring forth ideas for a federal budget for the end of January. The Liberals, on the other hand, claim that it is up to the Conservatives to bring forth possible ideas for the budget and that "the ball is in their court." Meanwhile, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have been pretty quiet since the House of Commons has been prorogued. Hopefully in the coming weeks all Parlimentarians will catch the holiday spirit and remember their promise after the fall 2008 election to work together. Then, hopefully, the Members of Parliament will agree negotiate a federal budget and other priorities in the new year. However, even on the slim chance negotiations will work, there probably will be disagreement and partisan bickering erupting sooner rather than later. But at least the Governor General can be seen as attempting to give Parliamentarians a chance to come together to reconcile the existing Parliament.

If things don't go well after the prorogation period or if after a negotiated settlement has been achieved, a vote of non-confidence is likely. This would then allow the coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois a chance to form the government. The time period caused by the above would also allow the coalition to show the Governor General that the coalition has been able to stay together for a decent time period, make plans for a new parliamentry session and form a cohesive governing group. However, as recent Canadian political history will note, the Liberals, NDP and the Conservatives can never seem to agree for any long periods of time. If the coalition falls a part the last option is only possible.

Finally, after the Conservative government and the coalition government have failed, there is only a general election possible. The Governor General will be seen to have excercised every available option to her. Also, this will show Canadians that their local member of parliament failed to live up to their promise of working together with other members of parliament to make Canadian parliament work for all Canadians. If Members of Parliament have failed to come together after the above has been undertaken, then they have proven that they cannot even govern a banana republic nevermind been a member of a democratically elected government.

Ottawa kills portrait gallery

TheStar.com Canada Ottawa kills portrait gallery

The Toronto Star reports today that the Conservative government has ended the project for a National Portrait gallery that had been launched by the then Liberal government in 2001. Since 2001 the National Portrait gallery has been suffering from bureaucratic ineptitude and cost overuns (as pointed out in an earlier post of mine on "The Art of Rant" here).

The death of the National Portrait gallery is not surprising since all that has come about after last year's federal request for private developers to tender ideas for the gallery was silence. Basically the idea was for private developers propose how a city like Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and others would host the National Portrait gallery with the federal government choosing the best idea and funding it from there. This was despite the former United States embassy, sitting directly across Wellington Street from Parliament Hill, sitting empty and originally slated to host the gallery.

Before the Conservative govenment floated that idea, the Portrait gallery had been slaighted for the old US embassy which the Americans vacated in 2001 to their new digs on Sussex Drive in the Byward Market of Ottawa. The gallery, as announced by the Liberal government at that time was supposed to be open in 2005 in the embassy, but nothing ever came of it except the old American flag being lowered and a Canadian flag going up and some overpriced paintwork on the walls.

In the end, it seems all the idea of a National Portrait gallery turned out to be was a waste of a couple million of taxpayers dollars and valiant dreams that went nowhere.

If you want to vote NDP in Newmarket-Aurora..

If you want to vote for the NDP in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora your out of luck. That is because as of this moment, the NDP do not have a confirmed candidate in the riding of Newmarket Aurora. I first noticed this when reading the local media and noted there wasn't any mention of an NDP candidate in this area or had seen any signs go up in the first week of the election campaign. So I started to look online in a couple of places.

The first spot I looked was the local newspaper's website for information as they had been advertising in their paper to have extensive coverage of the ridings within York Region. I clicked on the "Newmarket-Aurora" section of their website only to find four candidates running, none of which included an NDP candidate. Yet, I noted, the slightly less popular Green Party had a candidate in this riding. So I gave up my search there.

I wondered if perhaps the NDP in Newmarket-Aurora had been caught without a candidate in this area or any type of campaign organizing function to get the word out. But surely the first place to ensure NDP candidate would make themselves known is with Elections Canada. But apparently the list of candidates is not firmed up until September 25th at the latest and there were no official registered candidates in the Newmarket-Aurora riding as of this blog entry. But I have a feeling Elections Canada is a little behind in registering candidates as I imagine there would be a slew of pending applications coming in from accross Canadathat need to be processed.

Also this past week, I had noted the last provincial election's NDP candidate for Newmarket-Aurora, Mike Seaward, was around more than a little normal. I had seen him on the bus and in the local plaza. However, there seemed to be no campaign material (e.g. buttons, t-shirt, etc.) around him. So I guess he wasn't running. The last federal election's NDP candidate for Newmarket-Aurora, Ed Chudak, hasn't been heard from as of yet, so I doubt he is running either.

I also checked with the NDP's website and it only lists the local NDP riding president's contact information. I did note other ridings in Ontario did have candidates listed but there were quite a few ridings that amazingly enough still didn't have candidates selected. One would think the fact Newmarket-Aurora and several other ridings having not selected candidates after a full week of campaigning would be alarming for the NDP Party leadership.

I guess the NDP has given up on the Newmarket-Aurora area. This is mainly true because all the other parties in the riding have candidates already campaigning in the riding for a week already whereas the NDP campaign hasn't even gotten going in this riding as of yet. This the NDP is now handicapped by a week compared to the other campaigns who already have one week of campaigning in hand. Besides, the NDP may have given up on the riding considering the NDP has never won the riding of Newmarket-Aurora or its predessors that either the towns of Aurora or Newmarket have been part of. So even if the NDP tried to start a campaign, the party doesn't have a hope of winning in this riding. But the mystery of where the NDP is in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora is at least intriguing!

Coming Federal Election? You betcha!

There is a distinct smell in Canada of a possible federal election coming up. The clues are out there and they sure point to an election call coming soon. Last week and this week saw Prime Minister Steven Harper meet with the three opposition leaders at his residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa. In a nutshell, all the meetings were less than an hour in length and results of these meetings were far from positive. Then this week suddenly there are major announcements of funding for items to resolve issues of crime, health and job losses. A federal election does seem imminent especially when these clues are investigated a little further.

Steven Harper's meeting with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on Labour Day Monday, lasted less than 30 minutes and, as the Toronto Star reports, produced nothing. EvenLiberal Leader Stephan Dion is convinced there is an election when, as the Toronto Star reported: "Asked if an election was inevitable, Dion replied, 'Yes, we all know that.'" Yet the Conservatives continue to deny an election is coming.

If there wasn't an election in the forefront, then Stephen Harper would be requesting the meetings with Opposition Leaders to possibly come to some compromise on some issues. In these meetings Harper would probably have a list of priorities that he would like to see if the opposition leaders might be able to negotiate on. From these and possible future negotiations there would be leglislation created and passed in the House of Commons and the current minority parliament would continue. But this doesn't seem to be happening as Dion's and the other party leader's meetings were less than an hour and all the Opposition Leaders left 24 Sussex with very little impression that the current minority Parliament would continue. This is the first clue a federal election is more than likely this fall.

This week the federal Conservatives have started making major funding announcements. These funding announcements include (click the links to read more on the announcements):

1. Peter McKay was in Calgary announcing each of 30 soldiers who participated in Cold War weapons testing would receive $28,000 in compensation.

2. Steven Harper promising a probe into the Maple Leaf tainted meet fiasco. The Toronto Star believes this probe is being done so as to not cause problems for the Conservatives on the upcoming election trail.

3. Steven Harper in Windsor announcing $80 million dollars to reopen a car plant.

4. Stockwell Day was in Toronto promising $4.9 million towards a three and half year pilot project to prevent youth in vulnerable neighbhouroods from joining gangs.

Promises of this magnitude coming in rapid succession by a government, in the past, usually occurred when the Governor General was about to be asked to disolve Parliament and start a federal general election.

Finally, if there was ever any doubt, campaign election ads by the Conservatives have been launched. These adds seem to run about three times per half hour on major Canadian networks (e.g. CTV, CBC, etc.). The real question is not if an election is coming, but when? Who knows, but the media seems to be doing a lot of speculating. So stay tuned! This fall could be fun!

So you want to sell me a cell phone

Recently the Canadian government ended an auction where prospective cellular phone companies bid on bandwith for their operations. Within the next year new cellphone companies owned by Sasktel, Quebecor and others. The companies will require that time in order to arrange the infrastructure, plans and advertising campaigns to launch their new cell phone operations.

In order to be fair to everyone wishing for yet another cell phone subscriber, here is what I'm looking for in a cell phone (idea ironically stolen from high priced lawyer Edward Greenspan in his column in today's Toronto Sun and also published in the Edmonton Sun):

1. Do not charge me a "system access fee." A cell phone plan that pays per month should already have access to your company's system without any additional charge. If the cell phone doesn't, I will be forced to create my own system with two tin cans and a piece of string. If you can't give me access to your system, then what's the use of the cell phone? To use as an expensive paperweight?

2. No small print a the bottom of the adds. Just give me the price I'm expected to pay on a monthly basis and how long the contract is for. Give me the straight goods, straight up without any funny business requiring a magnifying glass and a dictionary to understand. If I wanted small print and big words, I would head to the nearest university library's medical section. Also, quite frankly, I don't care about the: system access fee, text fee, 911 emergency access fee, Frank's cut of my bill, etc. Just give me the final price AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE!

3. Comparable products and prices to other countries. Recently Rogers released in Canada, after more than a year of availability in the United States, the IPHONE! However, Rogers got lambasted over it's rate plans online because the rate plants were substantially higher than what AT&T provided it's customers in the United States.

4. Customer Service! Rogers and Bell have pitiful records of customer service especially in terms of their base services (i.e. what their company was founded upon). Ellen Roseman, the Toronto Star's Consumer Affairs Columnist has raised these issues on Bell (phone service) and Rogers (cable service) and so have the readers on her blog. If I have a problem with my cell phone service (e.g. billing, reception, electronic problems, etc.) I want answers not apologies further issues that only get me frustrated.

5. SERVICE! I do not want to be wandering along Yonge Street anywhere from Bradford to the Toronto Star building and have a "dropped call". The same with anywhere on Highway 401 in Ontario. If you cannot guarentee service along these two routes at a bare minimum, then don't even apply. If your asking why? Then please cease your operation now as your truly not in the cell phone "service" industry.

So if your a Canadian cell phone company or are a prospective cell phone company, please review the above, and feel free to post your plans, if they adhere to the plans above, in the comment section.

Karlheinz Schreiber is making Canadian history

Karlheinz Schreiber has made a name for himself in Canadian history in several calculated moves. Here is just a snippet of history Schreiber has made:

1. Not since the 1910′s has a Speaker’s Warrant been issued by the House of Commons Speaker. Schreiber was compelled to come to Ottawa in order to appear before the House of Commons’ Ethics Committee.

2. Caused a possible political scandal to erupt over money. The last Conservative government to have problems with money was probably Sir John A. Macdonald and the Pacific Scandal. The Liberals, however, recently had a money scandal with known as the “Sponsorship Scandal” or “Adscam”. But at least in Canada political money scandals involving Prime Ministers are few and far between.

3. A man facing charges of tax evasion, bribery and other charges in a foreign country (Germany) is at the centre of a Canadian public inquiry and scandal. I have no recollection in Canadian, or for that matter world history, of a man so deep in financial law trouble holding hostage a major political institution like Schreiber currently has the Canadian Parliamentary and Judicial system.

Schreiber is quite a manipulative gentleman who has managed to stave off extradition to Germany to face the German judicial system since 1999. He has appealed his way all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada so far in the judicial system. Realizing he is almost out of options, Schreiber has now turned to the political system. Hence, he is now trying to work the Canadian political system by placing allegations on one of Canada’s former Prime Ministers. This has caused the Canadian political system to come to a crawl as all eyes are on shifty felon’s next calculated moves.

Schreiber knows he is in trouble over the charges in Germany and in Canada. Schreiber also figures that since he will someday have to face the music in Germany over the allegations over shady financial dealings, he might as well have some fun in the meantime. What more fun can a guy have than tie up the Canadian judicial system by using one of Canada’s top lawyers, Edward Greenspan (the same lawyer who defended Conrad Black in Chicago) and then compel a public inquiry to be called. Even more fun is saying that you are willing to talk in order to bring forth the complete story then, when warranted by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, to appear before the House of Commons Ethics Committee, to clam up and refuse to talk without his papers. How convenient is Schreiber saying that he is more than willing to talk and then, when allowed to do so before a Parliamentary Committee, he refuses to do saying he has to review some of the over thirty thousand documents he has in his possession.

So House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken arranges that Schreiber may retreive the documents from Schreiber’s townhouse in order to be read in custody at the Ottawa detention centre. However, Schreiber’s lawyer Edward Greenspan says this is unacceptable as the documents could be stolen by other inmates while Schreiber is in the detention centre. Greenspan wants Schreiber under house arrest in order to review the documents. Mr. Greenspan should be asked how the documents could be stolen if Mr. Schreiber is escorted to and from the detention centre by now less than two police escorts (not to mention a media entourage that any Hollywood star would be proud of) and has his own private jail cell that normally holds two inmantes.

Karlheinz Schreiber will be called before the House of Commons Ethics Committee again this coming Tuesday. More questions will be asked by MPs from all political parties. Schreiber will take his sweet time in order to manipulate his way through the committee hearings. Schreiber will continue to string along the committee by providing juicy details at times and refusing to elaborate at other times in order to keep the MPs hung on his every word. This will probably frustrate many MPs on the Ethics Committee who wanted Schreiber to talk. Schreiber, however, wants to string this out as long as possible because he wants to remain in Canada in order to avoid the stress of having to face the German court system. Besides, what better way to have fun than to bring a major democratic country’s political institution to a halt as well as appear in major newspapers and on television stations accross the country. Since November 30th to today (December 1st) there have been over two thousand articles and television pieces written on Schreiber according a Google News search. Hows that for media exposure?

A felon has brought the Canadian political system to a halt and has successfully tied up the Canadian judicial system since 1999. Who else in Canadian History has done that? If mobster Al Capone were alive today he surely would be smiling at Karlheinz Schreiber’s judicial and political gamesmanships. Capone would be impressed that Schreiber has avoided being deported for what will soon be almost ten years when it is all over, been as politically wiley as many great politicians like William Lyon Mackenzie King in dealing with the Canadian Parliament, and all the while making a name for oneself in both the media and the history books. Schreiber is making history indeed, now the main question is how long will he be able to make history before being deported to Germany? That is the most interesting question that only time, which will eventually become history, will tell.

Who to Vote For?

With the election coming this Wednesday in Ontario (October 10th) I’m a little confused as to who to vote for. In past elections, both federal and provincial, I usually had my mind made up the week before the election on whose name I would put my “X” next to. As of this morning I’m left in doubt.

The last two federal elections in my riding the factor of Belinda Stronach was there. The first time she ran as a Conservative I supported her and the second time I didn’t vote for her. The second election I felt stabbed in the back that as a constituent she never consulted us about the switch from the Conservatives to the Liberals.

Provincially I thought the province was going downhill by running up deficits and the provincial debt. So I voted according to my beliefs economically that the province needed to right the financial ship in order to avoid bankruptcy.

So this election what have I thought about when deciding on possibilities of where to place my vote?

The possiblities of electing a local candidate in Aurora to a Cabinet seat to seem to be slim to none. In my hometown of Aurora for the past couple of elections seems to have lucked out with electing two cabinet ministers under two different administrations, Al Paladini (Conservative’s Transportation Minister) and Greg Sorbara (Liberal’s Finance Minister). This time will most likely be different as the Conservatives are not likely to win the election due to their faith based school platform fiasco, thus Frank Klees is unlikely to attain Cabinet. The Liberals? Christina Bisanz is not likely to make cabinet as she would be a rookie politician if elected. The NDP? Mike Seaward doesn’t have a hope in winning this riding even on his third attempt especially since in the last election he only garnered little more than 7% of the vote. So there is little hope in electing a cabinet minister in my riding with the way things stand so I cannot stratigically place my vote that way.

Perhaps I should investigate the party platforms in Ontario. Should I vote Liberal to elect Christina Bisanz in order to at least have an MPP on the government side of the benches? Not likely since Dalton McGuinty has lost a lot of my trust with such issues as raising taxes after he promised not to in the last election; handing out taxpayers money to groups that have some links to the Liberal party and without very little paperwork to explain why the money was handed out; the problems with Bob Edmonds and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the fact the provincial Minister responsible for this organization refused to ask any questions of what was going on; Liberal Cabininet Minister Harinder Takhar being the first politician admonished by the provincial Integrity Commissioner; and on and on it goes. So this election I definately won’t vote Liberal.

The Conservatives I had potentially thought of voting because I didn’t like the Liberals recent political history in Ontario. However, the whole flip-flop on faith based schools by Conservative Leader John Tory. Tory calls it real leadership by allowing a free vote in the Ontario Legislature. I beg to differ as he came out originally that all faith based schools should receive funding. I believe only true public schools should receive funding. The Catholic school system? A Constitutional Amendment for Ontario should be undertaken to remove the right to fund the Catholic school system. The main basis for my argument is that the Catholic school system in Ontario discriminates. One example is even I’m a certified teacher in Ontario, under the Ontario College of Teachers, I’m not allowed to teach in a Catholic school because I’m not a follower of the Catholic faith. As a publicly funded system receiving provincial tax dollars via the educational funding formula does that seem right to you? And John Tory makes no mention that if, under his faith based schools plan, whether or not these old private schools/new publicly funded schools will be able to exclude people based on gender, race, religion, etc. This would seem to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Canadian Constitution. This is only just one issue that I totally dissagree with.

The NDP are way to left leaning for my vote. The NDP in the early 1990s almost bankrupted this province under Premier Bob Rae’s leadership. Howard Hampton, the current Ontario NDP leader was Bob Rae’s Finance Minister. So would Howie bankrupt the province again with all his funding promises? Probably. Howard has also wanted to bring in more taxes against the rich and corporations that provide jobs in this province which would probably further drive job creating corporations out of the province. With large corporations like General Motors already starting close down and leave the province, whill a union backed NDP government help anything? Probably not, just look at the mess the city of Toronto is in financially with NDP card carrier Mayor David Miller at the helm. Toronto refuses to contract out work and insists, when it does contract out, that union level wages be paid by the contractors. This causes problems because these wages are ten to twenty percent more than what it would be for wages to be done right next door in the city of Mississauga. So under a provincial government lead by Howard Hampton and the NDP, provincial wages are more likely to up meaning more taxes would have to be paid by taxpayers or more debt in order to fund these wage hikes. My vote will definately not go to the NDP.

The Green Party? I only know of the Green Party by the name of “Frank De Jong”. I have barely heard of their platform even though I read the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun on a daily basis. My local candidate for the Green Party? I have no clue who he or she is. If your not going to make yourself known when trying to get elected with either pamphlets, signs or media appearances then why would I bother voting for you. I know there will be some who say the media seem to shut out the Greens, but really in this day and age, where are the Greens with their pamphlets and signs made of recycled paper or plastic then to make their platform known?

So I cannot base my vote on the party platforms as I have severe disagreements with most of them.

Who to vote for in Ontario? I’m not really sure, I may have to go down to Wal-Mart to pick-up a dart board in order to figure out who to vote for. Or even better why not try at least one of these methods in Aurora that the Toronto Star did in Toronto: visit here, here, here and here. Ah that’s the ticket on who to vote for! Problem solved!

Toronto Star: "National Gallery...in a Garage"

The Toronto Star is notoriously a Liberal paper in its reporting and editorializing. So it is not surprising to find the Star’s Peter Goddard lambasting the federal Conservatives over the National Portrait Gallery not being funded for completion in his column in today’s paper.

In the column, Goddard tells the tail of woe of the National Portrait Gallery having to be hosted in a garage located off a back alley in downtown Toronto. Goddard, in the column calls this fact the gallery is hosted in such awful conditions a travesty which is true.

Goddard only mentions, in passing, the idea of former Liberal Heritage Minister Sheila Copps idea of a opening the portrait gallery in the old US Embassy building being launched in 2001. Then, for some reason, he lays the entire issue at the feet of today’s Conservative government. Goddard is right to blame the Stephen Harper government for cutting the $44 million in order to launch the national portrait gallery. But he believes this to be “more Tory political payback”. But really, is it all Conservative party problem?

Sheila Copps launched the idea for a National Portrait gallery in 2001 and nothing happened except the old US flag came down and a new Canadian flag went up. Since then nothing much has happened to the building. So why didn’t the Liberals get the museum up and running? Was it because of lack of money? Not likely since Paul Martin stressed it was the Liberals who slayed the deficit and now were running significant surpluses. Surely some of the money from the surpluses could have been invested in the museum to get it up and running. But perhaps with the problems the health care system was seeing, funding a new museum was not politically palatable at the time. So hence the Liberals kept putting it off and putting it off.

Fast forward to today, and it seems, according to Goddard, the Conservatives are to blame for not funding this new museum. Goddard unfairly believes the entire problem is with the Conservatives. But why shouldn’t the Liberals, who were in power the majority of the time between 2001 and today (2007) also share the blame?

Goddard also mentions a further tidbit of information, $44 million. It takes forty four million dollars to get this museum up and running? Lets figure out what the forty-four million might be used for:

1. Purchasing land and a building? Nope, the Canadian government already became owner of the former US embassy in 2001.

2. Renovations of the building? I would suggest the building already meets fire code for an office building. Perhaps only some minor renovations would be required for space and accessibility purposes but that should cost more than two million dollars tops. Two million is also probably on the very high side.

3. Purchasing portraits and art work? The Montrose Portrait Gallery of Canada, on their website, notes “The National Portrait Gallery of Canada has thousands of lovely portraits and millions of lovely photos” already. So why spend more money to acquire even more portraits if thousands of portraits and millions of these photos are currently collecting dust?

4. All portraits need picture frame hooks. So perhaps a good portion of the forty-four million dollars is to go towards the picture frame hooks and the hammers needed to mount them on the wall. No doubt there will be highly paid union jobs needed to put these portraits up on the wall. The portraits placings, of course being a government operation, would require hours of special committee meetings and bureaucrats to fuss over. This doesn’t even include the time to discuss what paint colours to use for the walls itself!

So in order to save everyone time and money, I hereby volunteer to do my part for the National Portrait Gallery of Canada and volunteer my time and my hammer in order to get these portraits on the wall of the old US Embassy. I figure a team of 5 to 10 of us could each take a room and hang the probably already framed portraits on the walls of the old embassy building.

But of course the Portrait Gallery of Canada being a Liberal idea and a government operation, my suggestion will never see the light of day. But of course the spending of forty four million dollars down the toilet will never be the fault of the Liberals. The Liberals will only blame the Conservatives of course, once the Conservatives come to power that is. Otherwise, just like Goddard and the Toronto Star, while the Liberals form government, its all HUSH! HUSH!

Ipperwash Inquiry: A Journalistic Inquiry

On Thursday the findings of the Government of Ontario‘s official Inquiry into the events of the native occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park during 1995 were released.

Ipperwash Provincial Park is located in southwestern Ontario on the shores of Lake Huron just south of the community of Grand Bend, Ontario. Back in the summer of 1995 tensions were brewing between the Stoney Point Natives and the federal government over a military base. The federal government had been promising to return the military base to native control once the Second World War had ended. However, around fifty years later the Stoney Point Natives were getting antsy. A group of the natives moved into the military base and occupied it. The military, sensing tensions were growing, had smartly moved out of the base smartly beforehand. However, the natives grew even more restless and began eyeing the next door Ipperwash Provincial Park. Labour Day weekend saw the natives move into and occupy the provincial park claiming there were native buriel grounds.

Friday morning the Toronto media published both the usual stories reporting on the inquiry’s findings as well as presenting analysis by their columnists. The Toronto Star‘s Queen’s Park Columnist, Ian Urquhart, blames the Ipperwash Affair almost entirely on then Ontario Premier Mike Harris. Urquhart’s main thesis that: “…[the] pressure from Harris to resolve the matter quickly contributed to the eventual outcome” of the Ipperwash clash. Urquhart goes onto point at that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), because of Harris’ pressure to resolve the native occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park quickly, were thus forced to storm the park and remove the occupying group of natives. This prevented the police from negotiating with the native occupiers like the current provincial Liberal government is doing with the native occupation of Caledonia Ontario.

Ian Urquhart even points out that the Ipperwash Inquiry’s main stinging criticism of Mike Harris by writing: “For good measure, Linden also chooses not to believe Harris’s denial that he ever said, “I want the f—ing Indians out of the park.” Good Measure? Seems Urquhart only adds this little tidbit of information just to throw in some more anti-Mike Harris rhetoric to his column. Basically Urquhart uses this column to rail against the Conservative “law and order approach

On Friday the Toronto Star‘s Friday Editorial is not as scathing as their own columnist Ian Urquhart. The Star’s editorial attempts to answer the question of ‘what went wrong at Ipperwash? The editorial points to the three things as being the reason the whole Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation ended up in a very negative affair:

“…the impatience of former Ontario premier Mike Harris, cultural insensitivity in the Ontario Provincial Police and federal foot-dragging on aboriginal land issues.”

The editorial goes onto outline how each played its part and how the inquiry’s findings can lead to better actions by government in response to similar occupations like the Ipperwash affair. Why is the Star editorial correct?  Usually in explosive situations like the native occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park there are several factors that lead to confrontation and not just one, as the Editorial outlines.

The first factor was that the newly elected Conservative government of Mike Harris wanted to solve the situation quickly. So the OPP felt the pressure from the provincial government to solve problem.
However, the pressure posed another problem, the commanders at the Ontario Provincial Police didn't have experience or knowledge of the history and cultural background of the native protesters. This pressure meant the police were being called upon to act quickly and, thus, were unable to bring in native historians and other experts to do some background research in order to establish how to best handle the situation. The OPP forced by haste were unable to even negotiate with the native occupiers of the provincial park and really had no other option but to storm the park. Add into the mix rumours of possible firearm possession by the native occupiers, a perfect storm had begun to brew.

But how did the whole situation become so bad? As the the Toronto Star notes the slowness of the federal government in resolving native land claims is the main problem. Had the federal government set up a process of negotiating the land claims of this particular area of the province, perhaps the natives would have seen some form of progress and an occupation would have been unnecessary. Had the federal government kept their word and vacated the military base voluntarily, perhaps the provincial park may never have been occupied. However, because the federal government failed to both set up land claim negotiations and failed to vacate the military base in a timely fashion, the natives of this area of the province became restless.

Over at the Toronto Sun, Queen’s Park Columnist Christina Blizzard believes the OPP are more to blame. Right off the top of her column she points out the Ipperwash Inquiry dismisses any involvement of the Mike Harris government in ending the dispute. Blizzard believes the lack of communication by the OPP and the cultural insensitivity of the whole Ontario Provincial Police were the main reasons for the Ipperwash occupation ending the way it did.

Is Blizzard right? Perhaps there was no pressure from the Harris government felt by those within the OPP who were in charge of the situation at Ipperwash. Perhaps the Commissioner of the OPP felt the pressure and didn't let the political pressure filter down to those in charge of policing the occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park. On this basis the real factor in the Ipperwash situation were the officers in charge of the policing situation rushed to solve the problem at Ipperwash. The rush to solve the problem meant they decided to solve the problem instead of taking their time to investigate options into how best solve the situation. This ultimately meant the idea of negotiation was never considered.

The hypothesis that the Conservative government didn't interfere in the Ipperwash fiasco is the basis of the Toronto Sun’s Friday Editorial/Point of View. The editorial tries to ensure the all reasons the Ipperwash Inquiry found for the provincial Conservative government under Mike Harris was not blame are laid out. The attempt to show Mike Harris was not pressuring the OPP in the Ipperwash situation by the editorial is in quite the contrast to the Toronto Star’s Ian Urquhart column mentioned above. Urquhart basically only quotes a very minute section of the report on the involvement of Mike Harris. This is in contrast to the Toronto Sun Editorial that provides a whole paragraph excerpt from the inquiry’s report:

“Although Premier Harris was critical of the police, I do not find he interfered with or gave inappropriate directions to the police at Ipperwash … the premier did not inappropriately direct the OPP on its operations … or enter the law enforcement domain of the police. Although one may disagree with his view, it was legitimate for the Premier to take the position that the First Nations people were illegally occupying the park, and that he wanted them out of Ipperwash as soon as possible. He did not give direction on the manner in which the OPP should enforce the law; how, when and what arrests should be made; tactical decisions; or other actions the police should take to end the occupation … it was not inappropriate for the Premier to direct the Ontario government to seek an injunction (against the occupation) as soon as possible.”

With all these conflicting points of view from journalists and editorialists of two Toronto dailies, who is right?

The real answer lies with which source do you believe is correct. Personally, the Ipperwash Incident unraveled in a chronological sequence of events:

1. The federal government, who under the Canadian Constitution, looks after native issues failed in peacefully negotiating a land claim swap with the Stoney Point natives for this area of the province since the early 1900s. Lands seem to change hands between both public and private interests quite a bit in this area without input from the natives of the area

2. The federal government failed to close the Ipperwash Military base and return to the land to the Stoney Point natives following the Second World War. The natives were quite patient for over fifty years. However, near the end of the fifty years the native grew restless and saw no end in sight to the military occupying the military base.

3. The natives moved into occupy the military base. The Canadian military, hearing rumours of a possible confrontation over the military base, smartly moved out of the military base weeks before the occupation.

4. A group of the natives occupying the military base started eyeing the adjacent Ipperwash Provincial Park as another piece of land ripe for a native occupation. After all the Ipperwash Provincial Park had always been considered a site of a former native burial ground. With the occupation of the military base next door, the natives could occupy both the military base and provincial park all at once.

5. The OPP wanted to ensure the situation was quickly brought under control. When the natives had moved into the military base it was one thing. But now the natives had moved into Ipperwash Provincial Park, the optics of the situation showed that the provincial police had lost control of the situation. So the OPP wanted to swiftly move into and at least remove the natives from the provincial park portion of the occupation and leave the federal government to deal with the occupation of the military base.

6. There was some pressure felt from the provincial Conservative government. However, this pressure only came in the form of, as the Toronto Sun Editorial quoted from the Inquiry’s report,”…it was legitimate for the Premier to take the position that the First Nations people were illegally occupying the park, and that he wanted them out of Ipperwash as soon as possible.” Thus, the OPP knew the provincial government was moving towards having the occupation declared illegal anyway and action would need to be taken sooner rather than later. Was the pressure coming from the Premier’s Office ordering the OPP to move in right away? No, the Premier, as the inquiry and Sun columnist Christina Blizzard point out, no direct order was given. But there appears to be some indirect pressure from the provincial government for the OPP to solve the situation.

7. The OPP moved in quickly to quell the situation at the Ipperwash Provincial Park. Rumours of the native occupiers with guns meant that heavily armed OPP officers were used. As the OPP moved into Ipperwash Provincial Park one night, a firearm was thought to be observed. This led to the killing of Stoney Point native Dudley George.

8. The Conservative government denied any responsibility in the killing of Dudley George.

9. The Liberal government is elected in 2003 and starts an official public inquiry into the shooting of Dudley George and the occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park.

This chain of events seems to meet both the Toronto Star‘s editorial beliefs of more than one factor leading to the situation blowing up at Ipperwash Provincial Park, Ian Urquhart’s belief that then Premier Mike Harris had some involvement, the Toronto Sun’s Editorial of little involvement of Mike Harris and Christina Blizzard’s belief that the OPP were the main bunglers of the whole situation. I have used the two Toronto dailies’ analysis of the situation to inform my own opinion on what happened in the fiasco at Ipperwash Provincial Park that ultimately lead to the death of Dudley George.

If one were to only read one publication and not the other, the reader would not see the conflicting analysis of the other publication as to what might have happened. So, sometimes, it pays to read the analysis of one major daily. This is especially the case on major political issues like the Ipperwash Inquiry where partisan sides tend to come out.

The governments of the future need to learn as much from the situation that erupted at Ipperwash, that future land claim disputes are not handled this way. Then possibly the if a situations like the ones that presented themselves at the Ipperwash are not repeated. This would also prevent another report having to be issued that is very similar to the one issued on Thursday.

Belinda Stronach Gone from Politics?

Belinda Stronach officially announced this past week she will not run as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

Ms. Stronach has had quite the political career in such a short time. This political career included:

1. Running for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

2. Crossing the floor of the House of Commons from the Conservatives to the governing Liberals. She even managed to assume a cabinet position which only angered some long serving Liberals who resided on the back benches of the government. Why did she become a Liberal?

3. Her recent notice of quitting politics has some critics wondering if Belinda is choosing to leave because she doesn’t see a possibility of winning the next election with Stephane Dion as leader of the Liberals.

The feeling in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora, where I reside, is quite wide ranging.

Some people wish her well in her new job as Vice-President of Magna International. Magna is one of the major employers in the riding and people feel with her at the helm and the possibility of Magna purchasing Chrysler, Magna is going to grow even more. So they see her not running for re-election is a positive thing because she will be doing more in her new position with Magna.

Others wish Belinda good riddance! These people point out Belinda ran and was elected as a Conservative and then crossed the floor to the Liberals without holding an election. These people continue to point out she basically backstabbed the voters of the riding. So these people are particularly happy because they are finally getting rid of her from Canadian politics.

Her leaving politics only further convinces me that her attention span continues to be short and need to be periodically in the news headlines is still there. Need prior proof of this? Click here for a prior posting on this idea.

Whats to come for Belinda Stronach at Magna? Is the sale of Chrysler to Magna mean she will head up the new project on behalf of her father?

The interesting thing would be if she does become the new head of Chrysler. The question everyone is asking is if Chrysler is headed by Belinda, will it rise again to success or fail? Who knows, only time will tell.

What we do know is that the name “Belinda Stronach” will continue to be in the media and her attention will shift, yet again, to other endeavors in either a professional or charitable fashion.

Free Tax Filing Online?

The NDP is the new consumer advocate for Canadians. First it was challenging banks over the charging of ATM fees in Canada. Now the NDP have set their sights on Canadians filing their taxes.

The NDP point out that in order for Canadians to file their taxes over the internet, they must purchase commercial software or have their taxes prepared by a private organization (i.e. H&R Block). The NDP note that there currently is not a no cost way to file personal income taxes.

The Revenue Minister, Carol Skelton, says Canadians already have access to free software via the Canadian Revenue Agency’s website. Try navigating this particular website to find the free software to download or file your tax return via the web browser. If the software is there, it is hard to find even for a person with two university degrees. So how is the average Canadian supposed to navigate the website in order to file their taxes online?

Perhaps the real need is to make the website less about announcing and promoting the new tax incentives for transit and for seniors and more on providing a user friendly free way for the average Canadian to file their taxes. Or perhaps a seperate user friendly website with a seperate easy to remember URL should be created so the average Canadian can file their taxes online. This new website should be advertised on television during tax season.

The website, the NDP contends, would save thousands of Canadian trees as taxpayers would more likely file their taxes online rather than having to read and fill out reams in a paper edition. In fact the Revenue Agency would save money in not having to print so many paper editions.

But of course, being a government agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, like the banks, wouldn’t be able to come up with anything user friendly that would also save people time and money.

Caught Red Handed!

The York University student newspaper The Excalibur broke the story in this weeks newspaper that at least two student union presidents sucessfully attended a press conference by posing as journalists.

Chris Bently, the Minister for Training, Colleges & Universities, was holding a press conference about financial aid and scholarships for university and college students. But before he approached the podium to begin his speech, he was interupted by student government members from accross the province. Bently was forced to cancel the press conference.

The student union president York University, Corrie Sakaluk, and the University of Toronto's Vice-President External, Emily Shelton were allowed into the press conference because they claimed they were journalists from either the University of Toronto's The Varsity and York University's The Excalibur.

However, neither of these student politicians were even affiliated with the newspapers. In Sakaluk's case, she is not allowed to be a journalist for The Excalibur because under the newspapers' constitution this would create a conflict of interest between the newspaper and the student union in terms of press coverage.

Of course the optics of this look very bad on these student leaders. But what is worse is Corrie Sakalak refuses to admit she did anything wrong by telling The Excalibur:

"...I don't feel like I did anything wrong. I think that I made a strategic decision, and I think that it was an important way of ensuring that the voice that the students I represent come to the people and receive the media coverage that they deserve to receive..."-- found in this article.

Sakuluk apparently has no problem committing fraud by passing herself off as something she is obviously not, a journalist. Even worse she was caught by the organization who she claimed to be a member of, The Excalibur. The question in this case is: will Excalibur take Sakaluk to court over this?

An even bigger question is what is Sakaluk, as president of York's student union, is: can she be trusted with the spending of the thousands of dollars in student union money? Obviously if she cannot express regret in lying to a provincial official, Chris Bently, then why should the students of York trust her with one red cent of their money?

Further, if Sakaluk is going to get into politics in the future at either the municipal, provincial, federal or international level, how can she be trusted? Sakaluk has been caught red handed in this case and should immediately resign her position as President of the York Federation of Students. Failure of her resignation to occur, the council of the Federation of Students should remover her in office (which it can legally due under section 5.5 of the York Federation of Students' Bylaws). It would be a great disservice to both the interest of democracy and the students of York University if either of these options of removing Sakaluk doesn't occur.

What is even more disturbing is that Corrie Sakaluk isn't the only one caught red handed in the case of this press conference. This is disturbing because if the student leaders are going onto run in future elections in government, how are the voters supposed to trust these guys with their hard earned taxpayer's dollar? If this is the future of Canadian politics, Canada is in deep trouble.

From Worst to First in Wind Generation

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan

TheStar.com – opinion – From worst to first in wind generation

For current governments in both Ottawa and Toronto it has been very easy to blame the previous administrations for today’s problems.

Stephen Harper continuously points out that the Liberals under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien signed the Kyoto accord but never actually did anything about having Canada trying to reach Kyoto’s targets in reducing air pollution.

In Ontario the Liberals under Dalton McGuinty are doing the same by pointing out the previous Conservative administration’s failings. An example of this can be found in today’s Toronto Star in the Letters to the Editor where Energy Minister Dwight Duncan writes about the increasing move toward wind generation in Ontario.

Duncan claims, by way of a report written by a third party organization, that there was “mismanagement and poor planning by the former Conservative government between 1995 and 2002″ in terms of the investment of green power. But of course Duncan points out that the current McGuinty government is far superior in terms of green power.

Now to see how Duncan proves his point that the McGuinty government is superior in terms of green energy than the previous Conservative government:

1. “That government did not invest in clean, green power. Instead, it belched out more power from dirty coal plants. Under their watch, emissions rose by more than 125 per cent. …In three years, we have reduced Ontario’s reliance on coal plants by more than 32 per cent.”

This claim by Duncan is true in terms of statistics. However, sometimes statistics don’t tell the whole story. Between 1995 and 2002 the Conservative government was forced to shut down quite a few nuclear reactors at the Pickering, Darlington & Bruce power plants following a damning energy report into the workings of the former Ontario Hydro. Since the demand for electricity didn't meet the reduction in electrical generation, because of the shutting down of the reactors, something had to be done to keep the lights on in Ontario. The coal fired electrical generating plants were fired up to try and replace the lost generation of the nuclear reactors. Thus, air pollution from the coal plants increased because of the necessity to keep these plants running for longer periods of time.

Once the nuclear reactors were refurbished and brought back online, the coal fired plants could slowly be shut down again. Of course it took a long time to refurbish the nuclear reactors. By the time enough nuclear reactors had been brought back online, a change in administration had occurred and the Conservatives were voted out of office the Liberals took power. The Liberals were able to reduce the amount of pollution generated by the coal fired plants because the nuclear reactors could were back up and generating.

Duncan seems to conveniently to miss this piece of history in energy generation within Ontario in his letter. But of course if Duncan did include this fact, he wouldn't be able to blame the Conservatives for “mismanagement and poor planning.”

2. “We’ve gone from worst to first when it comes to wind generation.”

Congratulations from going from worst to first in terms of wind generation! Now perhaps the current government can start to shut down even more coal fired plants by 2007 through the use of wind power.

During the last provincial election of course, the Liberals promised to phase out coal power by 2007. Dwight Duncan was the energy minister who was forced to break this promise and delay it to 2009 and then until 2014. So the main question is, if Ontario is the leader in terms of wind generation, then how come the promise to close all the coal fired power plants has been pushed back on at least two occasions? Also, the current Liberal government have released an energy plan that calls for the continued and even an increased reliance on the nuclear power instead of putting a reliance on wind and solar power. The move towards wind and solar would probably provide an even more reliable source of electricity than nuclear. As the Conservative government found out nuclear cannot be totally reliable as the reactors will need to be shut down for long periods of refurbishment. But then again that wouldn’t be convenient at this period in time for the Liberals to point out.

3. “While so many other jurisdictions are expanding their reliance on coal, we’re reducing ours. Ontario stands as the only jurisdiction in the world not building more coal-fire generation, but phasing it out. We’ll eliminate coal as quickly as we can, balanced with the need to ensure a continued, reliable supply of electricity.”

The current government should be applauded for trying to reduce the reliance coal power as well as trying to balance the need for a supply of electricity. If the current government had of made good on its pledge to totally shut down the coal fired plants, the province would be in an energy crisis year round instead of during certain times in the summer.

Did the previous Conservative government consider a reliable supply of electricity during their time in government? Sure they did. That is why following the damning report on hydro that forced Ontario Hydro to close down quite a number of nuclear reactors, they fired up the coal powered plants even more. If the Conservatives had of not fired up the coal fired plants, an energy crisis would have ensued and Ontarians probably would have been in the dark for quite some time. But of course, again, Mr. Duncan conveniently forgets this.

After four years in power the Liberals should stop blaming the previous administration. Instead they should be concentrating on how to keep the promises they made during the previous provincial election. Conveniently, the Ontario Conservative party has been keeping track of the top fifty broken promises that the McGuinty government have done. So perhaps the Ontario Liberals should quit slagging the previous administration and concentrate on fixing their own shortcomings.

Are the federal Conservatives free of blame in terms of slagging the previous Liberal administartion? No they are not. If the federal Conservatives were any good at properly point out that “we are better than they were” in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, the would have come up with a better “made in Canada plan” for reducing greenhouse gases than the toothless plan that was introduced in 2006 to Parliament.

Thus, sometimes slagging the previous administration can seem to be politically expedient, but also can come back to bite you if you fail to either mention the reasons behind the statistics or come up with a better plan to improve upon the current situation.