October 17, 2011
I had to post something about the suicide of Jamie Hubley, a 15-year-old Ottawa student who killed himself on Saturday after battling depression and being constantly taunted for being openly gay.
This isn't the first time it's happened and reading about it has always bothered me. But there's something about this story that just fills me with a rage down to my very core. Apparently Jamie kept an account of his feelings on Tumblr, where he spoke of his depression and how his medications weren't working.
It bothers me more than words describe that people out there reach a point that they feel the only solution is to take their own lives. It fills me with anger to think that there are people out there who can't accept a 15-year-old boy for who he is: an openly gay teenager, who (as mentioned in the article above) made life so much more bearable for his friends, but couldn't find the strength within himself to carry on. He wrote about his pain for a month. I don't doubt that his friends and family reached out to him numerous times during that month to try and help him, but it was clearly not resonating.
Hatred and unnecessary viciousness has taken another life this weekend and it hurts me to think about it. I don't think it's going to do any help to judge school authorities and whether they did their job or not in stopping the bullying. Nor am I going to question whether the school had the appropriate support means for Jamie to turn to when his thoughts turned to suicide. But clearly, Canada and the world needs to wake up and realize that more can - and must - be done.
I know this post isn't the most well-thought out or articulate, but it's my gut reaction to the awful events. I cannot express how sad I feel for Jamie's family and friends, despite never knowing any of them. Nor can I express adequately how angry I am that there are people in this world, in the year 2011, who cannot accept people who are "different" and judge them based on who they love. It's shameful and somehow we need to collectively come together and stop it.
Monday 17 October 2011
Wednesday 5 October 2011
Election: Ontario
October 5, 2011
I realize it has been quite some time since my last post - so I apologize!
Election season across Canada is in full-swing. On Monday, P.E.I. re-elected its Liberal premier to a second majority mandate, yesterday Manitoba handed Greg Sellinger and the NDP its fourth-consecutive majority term, and people in the Northwest Territory also voted on Monday.
Tomorrow marks election day in Ontario. And while polls have come out showing that Dalton McGuinty may win a third-consecutive majority government, I think that speculation is wrong. I'm no pollster and I'm not a pundit either, but I think Ontario will have a minority government after tomorrow evening is through.
The Tories will make gains in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario, as well as make pick-ups in the 905 region. That said, the PC's shouldn't be surprised to be shutout once again in Toronto, with the lion's share of seats in the city going to the Liberals. The Liberals should (and I'm sure they are) expect to lose a number of seats in the North, with the Nippising riding heading to the PC's and the remaining bulk (aside from perhaps Sudbury) heading to the NDP.
In all, I think we're looking at about 44 Liberals, 41 PC's and 22 New Democrats in the next legislature, meaning Ontario is in for an interesting political ride over the next few months and years, as the jockeying for the next election begins as soon as the results of this one are known.
As I said - I'm not an expert, so don't take these results as a prediction made with vast number-crunching and intelligent analysis. It's just a stab at a seat projection made with considering regional differences and a quick look at the last poll from the Toronto Star.
I realize it has been quite some time since my last post - so I apologize!
Election season across Canada is in full-swing. On Monday, P.E.I. re-elected its Liberal premier to a second majority mandate, yesterday Manitoba handed Greg Sellinger and the NDP its fourth-consecutive majority term, and people in the Northwest Territory also voted on Monday.
Tomorrow marks election day in Ontario. And while polls have come out showing that Dalton McGuinty may win a third-consecutive majority government, I think that speculation is wrong. I'm no pollster and I'm not a pundit either, but I think Ontario will have a minority government after tomorrow evening is through.
The Tories will make gains in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario, as well as make pick-ups in the 905 region. That said, the PC's shouldn't be surprised to be shutout once again in Toronto, with the lion's share of seats in the city going to the Liberals. The Liberals should (and I'm sure they are) expect to lose a number of seats in the North, with the Nippising riding heading to the PC's and the remaining bulk (aside from perhaps Sudbury) heading to the NDP.
In all, I think we're looking at about 44 Liberals, 41 PC's and 22 New Democrats in the next legislature, meaning Ontario is in for an interesting political ride over the next few months and years, as the jockeying for the next election begins as soon as the results of this one are known.
As I said - I'm not an expert, so don't take these results as a prediction made with vast number-crunching and intelligent analysis. It's just a stab at a seat projection made with considering regional differences and a quick look at the last poll from the Toronto Star.
Tuesday 2 August 2011
Nycole Turmel and the Bloc Québécois
August 2, 2011
Two posts within two days - clearly must be something going on!
Earlier today, the Globe and Mail broke the story that interim NDP leader and Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel was a member of the Bloc Québécois up until January of this year.
Relatively quickly, those paying attention to Canadian politics took to social media to sound-off on the issue. There are quite a few outside of Québec who don't support the NDP who see this as an issue. Those within the province, it's likely not to bother.
I'm not an NDP supporter and nor am I an apologist for Nycole Turmel; however, at the end of the day this is such a non-issue.
People change their political opinions all the time. We saw it when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor (although, I don't think that was a change of opinion - that was opportunism at its finest). Ditto for David Emerson. Scott Brison was a Progressive Conservative, crossed the floor to the Liberals and ran for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
Hell - the Liberals are currently led by one of the more famous "floor-crossers" of all-time in Bob Rae. If I was a moderate Liberal, I'd be furious that I was now led by a former socialist (insert sarcasm module here).
While I know that the Conservatives will use this issue (unfortunately) to try and score some political points, the Liberals would be stupid to do so. Why?
I hate to do it, but I have to bring up the 2008 attempt by Stéphane Dion to form a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The only way that government, if it had formed, to survive would have been to rely on support from the Bloc Québécois caucus. Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc, although not a part of the government, signed the coalition agreement and were planning to support the coalition on confidence measures through until 2011. It was convenient for the Liberal Party, at the time, to utilize the Bloc. Now that this might help them, I've no doubt they'll go on the attack - and they will look foolish for doing it.
This, at the end of the day, is such a non-issue. While it highlights the work that the NDP opposition has to do in order to actually have some credibility, I could care less where you came from as a politician - it's where you want to take the country that matters. If she says she is a federalist, than I believe her.
Two posts within two days - clearly must be something going on!
Earlier today, the Globe and Mail broke the story that interim NDP leader and Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel was a member of the Bloc Québécois up until January of this year.
Relatively quickly, those paying attention to Canadian politics took to social media to sound-off on the issue. There are quite a few outside of Québec who don't support the NDP who see this as an issue. Those within the province, it's likely not to bother.
I'm not an NDP supporter and nor am I an apologist for Nycole Turmel; however, at the end of the day this is such a non-issue.
People change their political opinions all the time. We saw it when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor (although, I don't think that was a change of opinion - that was opportunism at its finest). Ditto for David Emerson. Scott Brison was a Progressive Conservative, crossed the floor to the Liberals and ran for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
Hell - the Liberals are currently led by one of the more famous "floor-crossers" of all-time in Bob Rae. If I was a moderate Liberal, I'd be furious that I was now led by a former socialist (insert sarcasm module here).
While I know that the Conservatives will use this issue (unfortunately) to try and score some political points, the Liberals would be stupid to do so. Why?
I hate to do it, but I have to bring up the 2008 attempt by Stéphane Dion to form a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The only way that government, if it had formed, to survive would have been to rely on support from the Bloc Québécois caucus. Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc, although not a part of the government, signed the coalition agreement and were planning to support the coalition on confidence measures through until 2011. It was convenient for the Liberal Party, at the time, to utilize the Bloc. Now that this might help them, I've no doubt they'll go on the attack - and they will look foolish for doing it.
This, at the end of the day, is such a non-issue. While it highlights the work that the NDP opposition has to do in order to actually have some credibility, I could care less where you came from as a politician - it's where you want to take the country that matters. If she says she is a federalist, than I believe her.
Monday 1 August 2011
Provincial Politics
August 1, 2011
It is now officially August - and in just over eight weeks, Ontario will head to the polls and decide whether to return Dalton McGuinty's Liberals to office or elect a new government (while many say the only other contender is Tim Hudak and the PC's, I don't want to write off the NDP just yet).
To be entirely honest, my opinion of Dalton McGuinty is not very high; I think he has been an economic disaster for the province - both before, during and after the recession - and I do not trust him with public finances, given the massive deficit and Ontario becoming a "have-not" province. Before Liberal supporters comment and try to sway me, let me say this: I've already heard the Liberal talking points about 60 per cent of the jobs created in Canada being here in Ontario. What I haven't heard is how you plan to make Ontario a "have" province and how you plan to reduce the massive deficit.
My other issue with Dalton McGuinty is this - his government is very much a fan of the "nanny state." I fully support regulation when it makes sense (such as on guns), but the Liberals seem to over-regulate and have done so since coming to office in 2003. Pesticides? Fine, they have a negative impact on the environment; pit bulls was a ridiculous one and so is the junk food ban in Ontario schools, coming into effect September 2011. It seems the Liberals are comfortable telling me what to do and when to do it; I don't like that one bit.
However... Tim Hudak and the PC's seem to think the way to win the election is to simply be angry about the last eight years and try to stir up that anger and hope it motivates people to clobber McGuinty. While it is very true that the easiest way to get people to vote is to get them pissed them off at the incumbent, simply not being McGuinty isn't enough. Furthermore, the PC's have some pretty reckless policies themselves.
Yes, I support the Green Energy Act (GEA) that the Liberals have brought in. It makes good economic sense and good environmental sense. I know the PC's are railing on about the impact the GEA has on energy prices, but the Pembina Institute has released a study that debunks that. In fact, the study shows that because of the GEA, Ontarians will likely save money over the next 15 years.
Are there flaws with the GEA? Of course. It puts a lot of power in the hands of the provincial government and has an impact on local communities. But the NDP have addressed this by proposing to give back power to the municipalities. The PC's, instead of vowing to kill this legislation (and risk legal challenges for already in-progress contracts), should borrow the NDP policy.
This of course, brings me to the NDP itself. Andrea Horwath very well could be the wild card in this race. She hasn't received a lot of media attention since becoming the leader of the Ontario NDP and an election campaign is her chance to make herself known. With the success of the NDP federally, there is potential for the ONDP to benefit as well. We'll have to see how Horwath uses her federal partners to assist the campaign.
It will also be interesting to see how the Ontario Green Party, under new leader Mike Schreiner, does in this campaign. There are a few seats where the party is competitive, including Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound, so if they can maneuver resources into seats where they have a chance, there very well could be some Green in the new legislature.
Because I try to be somewhat balanced in providing readers with sources to make their own decisions, I encourage you to check out the Progressive Conservative platform and the NDP platform. The policy section of the Ontario Liberal website was unresponsive at the time of writing this post, but their website is available here. Lastly, the Green Party platform is available as well.
It is now officially August - and in just over eight weeks, Ontario will head to the polls and decide whether to return Dalton McGuinty's Liberals to office or elect a new government (while many say the only other contender is Tim Hudak and the PC's, I don't want to write off the NDP just yet).
To be entirely honest, my opinion of Dalton McGuinty is not very high; I think he has been an economic disaster for the province - both before, during and after the recession - and I do not trust him with public finances, given the massive deficit and Ontario becoming a "have-not" province. Before Liberal supporters comment and try to sway me, let me say this: I've already heard the Liberal talking points about 60 per cent of the jobs created in Canada being here in Ontario. What I haven't heard is how you plan to make Ontario a "have" province and how you plan to reduce the massive deficit.
My other issue with Dalton McGuinty is this - his government is very much a fan of the "nanny state." I fully support regulation when it makes sense (such as on guns), but the Liberals seem to over-regulate and have done so since coming to office in 2003. Pesticides? Fine, they have a negative impact on the environment; pit bulls was a ridiculous one and so is the junk food ban in Ontario schools, coming into effect September 2011. It seems the Liberals are comfortable telling me what to do and when to do it; I don't like that one bit.
However... Tim Hudak and the PC's seem to think the way to win the election is to simply be angry about the last eight years and try to stir up that anger and hope it motivates people to clobber McGuinty. While it is very true that the easiest way to get people to vote is to get them pissed them off at the incumbent, simply not being McGuinty isn't enough. Furthermore, the PC's have some pretty reckless policies themselves.
Yes, I support the Green Energy Act (GEA) that the Liberals have brought in. It makes good economic sense and good environmental sense. I know the PC's are railing on about the impact the GEA has on energy prices, but the Pembina Institute has released a study that debunks that. In fact, the study shows that because of the GEA, Ontarians will likely save money over the next 15 years.
Are there flaws with the GEA? Of course. It puts a lot of power in the hands of the provincial government and has an impact on local communities. But the NDP have addressed this by proposing to give back power to the municipalities. The PC's, instead of vowing to kill this legislation (and risk legal challenges for already in-progress contracts), should borrow the NDP policy.
This of course, brings me to the NDP itself. Andrea Horwath very well could be the wild card in this race. She hasn't received a lot of media attention since becoming the leader of the Ontario NDP and an election campaign is her chance to make herself known. With the success of the NDP federally, there is potential for the ONDP to benefit as well. We'll have to see how Horwath uses her federal partners to assist the campaign.
It will also be interesting to see how the Ontario Green Party, under new leader Mike Schreiner, does in this campaign. There are a few seats where the party is competitive, including Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound, so if they can maneuver resources into seats where they have a chance, there very well could be some Green in the new legislature.
Because I try to be somewhat balanced in providing readers with sources to make their own decisions, I encourage you to check out the Progressive Conservative platform and the NDP platform. The policy section of the Ontario Liberal website was unresponsive at the time of writing this post, but their website is available here. Lastly, the Green Party platform is available as well.
Tuesday 26 July 2011
The Fords' Toronto
July 26, 2011
So much for Monday's being the day that I write, eh? Anyways... I wanted to write about the latest stories involving Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford. I get the sense that Toronto is becoming rather polarized with Mayor Ford at the helm and his brother seemingly in the wings helping out with the agenda.
I'm going to try to strike a middle-of-the-road approach with this post. Yes, I'll be critical of the two, but I'll also give credit where it's due. It is my hope that the comment section of this blog doesn't turn into the comment section of the Toronto Sun...
First, let's start with Doug Ford and his comments regarding Toronto libraries. As the city looks to cut costs, one of the plethora of options is to privatize and/or shut down libraries across the city. When Canadian author Margaret Atwood took to her Twitter account to promote a campaign to save the libraries, so many people responded that the website linking to the petition crashed.
Doug Ford's response to all this? Well, to criticize Atwood and essentially telling her to seek a mandate before speaking out again. Ford also is on the record as saying there are more libraries in his ward than Tim Horton's, which was later shown not to be the case.
As I said in my last post, I have no problem with the privatization of certain things - as long as they are services that make sense to be privatized. Libraries certainly do not make sense. They belong in the hands of the public. They don't just serve as a place where books are "kept," they are centres for learning, they are meeting places and more. Privatization opens up yearly fees for borrowing books and for less options, in my opinion.
So, while I have no problem with the privatization of garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance workers, vital public services - like libraries - must remain in the hands of the public.
In Mayor Rob Ford news, a rather bizarre story came out today where he is accused of giving a woman a "one-finger salute." While the story hasn't been proven, the mayor took to Twitter (seems to be a trend, lately) to call it a "misunderstanding." I'm not sure how it can be a misunderstanding - either he did it or he didn't, but I will not make judgement until the story comes out in its entirety.
The bigger issue in all of this is, as I mentioned earlier, the polarization of Toronto politics. While it seems to be a trend (a left-right divide in the federal parliament now as well), it's becoming pretty clear that, in Toronto, it isn't healthy.
Ford and the new administration have implemented policy I support. From a selfish perspective, I was able to register my car here after moving to the city, with the repeal of the $60 car tax. And I do support, discussed already, privatization of certain services that will have no impact on the current levels provided (or perhaps even improve upon them). But when there's talk of selling off and closing libraries, it's time to put a foot down.
I eagerly look forward to the responses from Ford Nation, telling me how wrong I am...
So much for Monday's being the day that I write, eh? Anyways... I wanted to write about the latest stories involving Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford. I get the sense that Toronto is becoming rather polarized with Mayor Ford at the helm and his brother seemingly in the wings helping out with the agenda.
I'm going to try to strike a middle-of-the-road approach with this post. Yes, I'll be critical of the two, but I'll also give credit where it's due. It is my hope that the comment section of this blog doesn't turn into the comment section of the Toronto Sun...
First, let's start with Doug Ford and his comments regarding Toronto libraries. As the city looks to cut costs, one of the plethora of options is to privatize and/or shut down libraries across the city. When Canadian author Margaret Atwood took to her Twitter account to promote a campaign to save the libraries, so many people responded that the website linking to the petition crashed.
Doug Ford's response to all this? Well, to criticize Atwood and essentially telling her to seek a mandate before speaking out again. Ford also is on the record as saying there are more libraries in his ward than Tim Horton's, which was later shown not to be the case.
As I said in my last post, I have no problem with the privatization of certain things - as long as they are services that make sense to be privatized. Libraries certainly do not make sense. They belong in the hands of the public. They don't just serve as a place where books are "kept," they are centres for learning, they are meeting places and more. Privatization opens up yearly fees for borrowing books and for less options, in my opinion.
So, while I have no problem with the privatization of garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance workers, vital public services - like libraries - must remain in the hands of the public.
In Mayor Rob Ford news, a rather bizarre story came out today where he is accused of giving a woman a "one-finger salute." While the story hasn't been proven, the mayor took to Twitter (seems to be a trend, lately) to call it a "misunderstanding." I'm not sure how it can be a misunderstanding - either he did it or he didn't, but I will not make judgement until the story comes out in its entirety.
The bigger issue in all of this is, as I mentioned earlier, the polarization of Toronto politics. While it seems to be a trend (a left-right divide in the federal parliament now as well), it's becoming pretty clear that, in Toronto, it isn't healthy.
Ford and the new administration have implemented policy I support. From a selfish perspective, I was able to register my car here after moving to the city, with the repeal of the $60 car tax. And I do support, discussed already, privatization of certain services that will have no impact on the current levels provided (or perhaps even improve upon them). But when there's talk of selling off and closing libraries, it's time to put a foot down.
I eagerly look forward to the responses from Ford Nation, telling me how wrong I am...
Monday 11 July 2011
Slash and Burn - Welcome to Toronto
July 11, 2011
It looks like Monday will be the day that I post. Unless something vitally important piques my interest (or if I have an opinion that's busting to come out), I'll use this day to share my thoughts. Once summer ends and we all get back to our regular lives, I'll post more frequently.
This week, I want to talk about the core service review that the city contracted out to KPMG. Some of the recommendations in the report are, in a word, ridiculous.
Some of my 'favourites' all surround environmental programs and include:
Are there good ideas in the report? Of course. There are two ideas that I think have some great merit and should be implemented:
I, for one, hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented for the sake of the city.
For a full copy of the KPMG report, you can visit here. Bullet points in italics are sourced directly from the Toronto Star.
It looks like Monday will be the day that I post. Unless something vitally important piques my interest (or if I have an opinion that's busting to come out), I'll use this day to share my thoughts. Once summer ends and we all get back to our regular lives, I'll post more frequently.
This week, I want to talk about the core service review that the city contracted out to KPMG. Some of the recommendations in the report are, in a word, ridiculous.
Some of my 'favourites' all surround environmental programs and include:
- Backing off Toronto’s “very aggressive” target of directing 70 per cent of household waste away from landfill through recycling; this is insane. As more and more people look for ways to "go green", why would we divert recycling programs? If anything, we should be doing more to encourage people to reduce their use, reuse what they can and recycle as many things as we can.
- Eliminate community “environment days” hosted by councillors in each of their wards; again, why? I'd rather pay more in taxes to have a greener planet and I think a lot of people would agree.
- End collection of toxic goods at environment days and cancel the “Toxic Taxi” that does household pickup for residents with large quantities of hazardous waste; as KPMG notes in the report, this is likely to lead to more toxic goods in landfills. Not good.
Are there good ideas in the report? Of course. There are two ideas that I think have some great merit and should be implemented:
- Scrap the four free tags each household gets per year for overflow garbage bags; By all means. This forces people to throw less away or pay the consequences. Money earned from those who do purchase these tags can - and should - be diverted back into waste reduction programs.
- Outsource facility security services and grass cutting; I have no problem with the privitization of certain things. Security and grass cutting are two things that I don't think many people would find a problem with contracting out - as long as it is cheaper than having the city do it.
I, for one, hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented for the sake of the city.
For a full copy of the KPMG report, you can visit here. Bullet points in italics are sourced directly from the Toronto Star.
Monday 4 July 2011
Rob Ford and Pride
July 4, 2011
First - if there are any Americans out there, let me wish you a Happy Independence Day.
It was quite the weekend in Toronto - Canada Day and Pride all rolled in to one. Having never been to Pride, I checked it out with some friends and had a blast. But enough about my personal life, let's get straight to today's topic, Rob Ford and his refusal to attend the Pride parade.
From what I've read, every single Mayor of the City of Toronto has attended the event since it first started (if that fact is wrong, please correct me). Do I think Rob Ford's no-show is his way of saying he doesn't like or support LGBTQ rights? No.
I think his refusal to go to the parade is based on politics and politics alone. We know that the core Rob Ford voter is likely to be a social and fiscal conservative. What do social conservatives tend to have a big problem with? LGBTQ people. While I don't think Rob Ford would have upset his base to the point of losing them three years from now, I think he and his staff knew that his showing up would anger them. And to be frank, that's downright sad and pathetic.
While Ford and everyone else knows that his strength comes from the suburban wards, he had a duty to be at the parade. Whether he likes it or not, he is the Mayor of all Torontonians: gay, trans, straight or otherwise. He doesn't get to pick and choose who he represents. LGBTQ Torontonians pay taxes too, Mayor Ford. What happened to "Respect for Taxpayers"?
So, do I think Rob Ford had a malicious intent by not showing up? No. But was it sad? Very.
And that's the simplistic, Coles notes version of today's opinion.
First - if there are any Americans out there, let me wish you a Happy Independence Day.
It was quite the weekend in Toronto - Canada Day and Pride all rolled in to one. Having never been to Pride, I checked it out with some friends and had a blast. But enough about my personal life, let's get straight to today's topic, Rob Ford and his refusal to attend the Pride parade.
From what I've read, every single Mayor of the City of Toronto has attended the event since it first started (if that fact is wrong, please correct me). Do I think Rob Ford's no-show is his way of saying he doesn't like or support LGBTQ rights? No.
I think his refusal to go to the parade is based on politics and politics alone. We know that the core Rob Ford voter is likely to be a social and fiscal conservative. What do social conservatives tend to have a big problem with? LGBTQ people. While I don't think Rob Ford would have upset his base to the point of losing them three years from now, I think he and his staff knew that his showing up would anger them. And to be frank, that's downright sad and pathetic.
While Ford and everyone else knows that his strength comes from the suburban wards, he had a duty to be at the parade. Whether he likes it or not, he is the Mayor of all Torontonians: gay, trans, straight or otherwise. He doesn't get to pick and choose who he represents. LGBTQ Torontonians pay taxes too, Mayor Ford. What happened to "Respect for Taxpayers"?
So, do I think Rob Ford had a malicious intent by not showing up? No. But was it sad? Very.
And that's the simplistic, Coles notes version of today's opinion.
Tuesday 21 June 2011
The Senate
June 21, 2011
Back to the political topics... The government tabled its legislation to reform the Senate today.
The bill sets out a one-time, nine-year term for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008 and lays out framework for voluntary provincial senatorial elections. While this sort of fulfills the Conservative plan for an elected senate, it may not go far enough for those who want an "E-E-E" upper chamber.
I once supported an elected senate. The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that I think the NDP has the best policy on the Senate: just get rid of it. The Senate has always been a proving ground for rewarding party loyalists, insiders and activists with a plum posting and a set-for-life salary.
Provincial legislatures have survived without an upper chamber; the Senate doesn't really provide the "sober second thought" that it is supposedly tasked with. Instead, it has become a rubber stamp for almost all government legislation (although it will be interesting to see how they handle this bill, if and when it reaches them).
Senatorial elections will not only be difficult to manage, but will (not might - will) create legislative gridlock. Imagine if, at the height of the sponsorship scandal, we somehow elected a Conservative Senate and had a Liberal government in the House of Commons. Surely, legislation would have been stalled and possibly defeated, solely for partisan purposes.
What's more, an elected Senate could become yet another platform for Québec separatists. Yes, I know the recent election results show that the separatist message is being rejected, but we don't know if that will be forever...
So, it's time to forget about reforming the Senate. Let's just get rid of it. I think it's the ultimate austerity measure...
Back to the political topics... The government tabled its legislation to reform the Senate today.
The bill sets out a one-time, nine-year term for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008 and lays out framework for voluntary provincial senatorial elections. While this sort of fulfills the Conservative plan for an elected senate, it may not go far enough for those who want an "E-E-E" upper chamber.
I once supported an elected senate. The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that I think the NDP has the best policy on the Senate: just get rid of it. The Senate has always been a proving ground for rewarding party loyalists, insiders and activists with a plum posting and a set-for-life salary.
Provincial legislatures have survived without an upper chamber; the Senate doesn't really provide the "sober second thought" that it is supposedly tasked with. Instead, it has become a rubber stamp for almost all government legislation (although it will be interesting to see how they handle this bill, if and when it reaches them).
Senatorial elections will not only be difficult to manage, but will (not might - will) create legislative gridlock. Imagine if, at the height of the sponsorship scandal, we somehow elected a Conservative Senate and had a Liberal government in the House of Commons. Surely, legislation would have been stalled and possibly defeated, solely for partisan purposes.
What's more, an elected Senate could become yet another platform for Québec separatists. Yes, I know the recent election results show that the separatist message is being rejected, but we don't know if that will be forever...
So, it's time to forget about reforming the Senate. Let's just get rid of it. I think it's the ultimate austerity measure...
Monday 20 June 2011
A Tribute to Betty Fox
June 20, 2011
I know this isn't a political post, but I felt it necessary to share.
As you've likely already heard Betty Fox, Terry Fox's mother, passed away on Friday.
When I heard the news, I was heart-broken. That took me by surprise; while I participate in fundraising efforts for the Canadian Cancer Society, I've not participated in the Terry Fox Run since high school. I didn't know this woman and while I was certainly very much aware of what her son set out to do, and the work she did following his passing, I couldn't figure out what it was about hearing the news that put me in the mood it did.
It dawned on me today: Betty Fox is an average Canadian. Now, that doesn't make sense, does it?
Let me put it this way: almost every single Canadian has either faced cancer or had someone in their family face it. Betty Fox dealt with having a family member battle cancer and saw them lose that battle. To put it another way, Betty Fox personified every single Canadian and handled herself with a dignity and class that not many others can live up to.
It didn't hit me until after reflecting on it a bit, but Betty Fox is an inspiration to Canadians. Her dedication to her son, her family and to the fight against cancer is something that I have nothing but respect and admiration for. While I cannot put it as classy as many others have been, let me borrow the words of London-area MP Ed Holder, who in the House of Commons today said that for Betty, her Marathon of Hope is over. It is up to the rest of us to continue on with the fight.
May she rest in peace.
I know this isn't a political post, but I felt it necessary to share.
As you've likely already heard Betty Fox, Terry Fox's mother, passed away on Friday.
When I heard the news, I was heart-broken. That took me by surprise; while I participate in fundraising efforts for the Canadian Cancer Society, I've not participated in the Terry Fox Run since high school. I didn't know this woman and while I was certainly very much aware of what her son set out to do, and the work she did following his passing, I couldn't figure out what it was about hearing the news that put me in the mood it did.
It dawned on me today: Betty Fox is an average Canadian. Now, that doesn't make sense, does it?
Let me put it this way: almost every single Canadian has either faced cancer or had someone in their family face it. Betty Fox dealt with having a family member battle cancer and saw them lose that battle. To put it another way, Betty Fox personified every single Canadian and handled herself with a dignity and class that not many others can live up to.
It didn't hit me until after reflecting on it a bit, but Betty Fox is an inspiration to Canadians. Her dedication to her son, her family and to the fight against cancer is something that I have nothing but respect and admiration for. While I cannot put it as classy as many others have been, let me borrow the words of London-area MP Ed Holder, who in the House of Commons today said that for Betty, her Marathon of Hope is over. It is up to the rest of us to continue on with the fight.
May she rest in peace.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
One Throne Speech, One Budget - and Two Strikes
June 14, 2011
Yes, it's been awhile since I've blogged. Things have been hectic!
Since I last blogged, the House of Commons has returned and the business of governing (and politicking) is in full swing. We had a Throne Speech, the March Budget redux (with the added removal of subsidies for political parties) and a vote to extend Canada's involvement in Libya.
If that isn't enough for you, Canada Post is on psuedo-strike and Air Canada check-in agents walked out early this morning, too. With Air Canada, the government was quick to deliver an ultimatum; the company and the union now have 48 hours to reach a deal before the government will move to legislate them back to work.
Let me start with the budget: overall, not too shabby. But I have to agree with the opposition parties when it comes down to the nitty-gritty details about government cutbacks to services. We need to know where these cuts are coming from, how deep they will be and how fast they will come down.
I also have to agree that the cabinet is far too large; if you're preaching restraint, you don't go and appoint the largest cabinet in Canadian history.
A wait-and-see approach regarding budget cuts isn't good enough for me. The devil is in the details and, while I know the review is ongoing and Ministers are to report by December 31, I would hope that some kind of report comes down in regards to progress.
On the Canada Post/Air Canada front: I say we legislate them back to work ASAP. I support the right of unions to exist, but they need to realize the economic circumstances we find ourselves in don't particularly allow for huge raises and increases to benefits.
I find it particularly annoying that Canada Post employees are demanding more, when I'm sure that the volume of mail is dropping. With online banking, e-billing and other technological "wonders," I rarely get mail anymore, aside from flyers and annoying brochures from my MP to update them on the "work" they are doing in Ottawa and in the riding. I can do without both of those things.
Anyways, perhaps I'm just a curmudgeon but there is my latest post. Agree or disagree as you will, your comments are welcome.
*UPDATE - June 15*
It seems now that Canada Post has locked out all of its workers, and Minister Raitt is seriously considering legislating them back to work as well (as she should).
Yes, it's been awhile since I've blogged. Things have been hectic!
Since I last blogged, the House of Commons has returned and the business of governing (and politicking) is in full swing. We had a Throne Speech, the March Budget redux (with the added removal of subsidies for political parties) and a vote to extend Canada's involvement in Libya.
If that isn't enough for you, Canada Post is on psuedo-strike and Air Canada check-in agents walked out early this morning, too. With Air Canada, the government was quick to deliver an ultimatum; the company and the union now have 48 hours to reach a deal before the government will move to legislate them back to work.
Let me start with the budget: overall, not too shabby. But I have to agree with the opposition parties when it comes down to the nitty-gritty details about government cutbacks to services. We need to know where these cuts are coming from, how deep they will be and how fast they will come down.
I also have to agree that the cabinet is far too large; if you're preaching restraint, you don't go and appoint the largest cabinet in Canadian history.
A wait-and-see approach regarding budget cuts isn't good enough for me. The devil is in the details and, while I know the review is ongoing and Ministers are to report by December 31, I would hope that some kind of report comes down in regards to progress.
On the Canada Post/Air Canada front: I say we legislate them back to work ASAP. I support the right of unions to exist, but they need to realize the economic circumstances we find ourselves in don't particularly allow for huge raises and increases to benefits.
I find it particularly annoying that Canada Post employees are demanding more, when I'm sure that the volume of mail is dropping. With online banking, e-billing and other technological "wonders," I rarely get mail anymore, aside from flyers and annoying brochures from my MP to update them on the "work" they are doing in Ottawa and in the riding. I can do without both of those things.
Anyways, perhaps I'm just a curmudgeon but there is my latest post. Agree or disagree as you will, your comments are welcome.
*UPDATE - June 15*
It seems now that Canada Post has locked out all of its workers, and Minister Raitt is seriously considering legislating them back to work as well (as she should).
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Eight Days Later, the Liberals Learn Nothing
May 10, 2011
As a political observer, one can't help but be transfixed by the most-recent implosion of the Liberal Party. I say most recent, because the Liberals seem to fall into disaster every time they have to find a new leader. Eight days removed from an electoral drubbing, the Liberals are at it again.
With the newly-elected NDP MPs coming under scrutiny, one would think the Liberals would be salivating at the chance to get these rookies in the House and watch them face off against the experienced Tory ministers in Question Period. All the Liberals would seemingly have to do against these rookie members of the Official Opposition is put together a sentence and they would look like a coherent, credible alternative.
Instead, the Liberals are happy to hash out their leadership battles for the Canadian public to see - again - and make it as bloody as possible. Keith Beardsley has put it best, in the National Post: constitution be damned, the Liberals need a quick-fix and ignoring the document on which the party is based is the best way to do it.
Instead of working to become a force in Canadian politics the Liberals are, once again, at each other's throats. Centrist alternative be damned, Liberals have to look out for number one first: themselves.
At the end of the day, this looks better and better for the Conservatives: an inexperienced NDP opposition and a weak Liberal Party that will only get weaker as it fights yet another civil war. I like our chances come 2015...
As a political observer, one can't help but be transfixed by the most-recent implosion of the Liberal Party. I say most recent, because the Liberals seem to fall into disaster every time they have to find a new leader. Eight days removed from an electoral drubbing, the Liberals are at it again.
With the newly-elected NDP MPs coming under scrutiny, one would think the Liberals would be salivating at the chance to get these rookies in the House and watch them face off against the experienced Tory ministers in Question Period. All the Liberals would seemingly have to do against these rookie members of the Official Opposition is put together a sentence and they would look like a coherent, credible alternative.
Instead, the Liberals are happy to hash out their leadership battles for the Canadian public to see - again - and make it as bloody as possible. Keith Beardsley has put it best, in the National Post: constitution be damned, the Liberals need a quick-fix and ignoring the document on which the party is based is the best way to do it.
Instead of working to become a force in Canadian politics the Liberals are, once again, at each other's throats. Centrist alternative be damned, Liberals have to look out for number one first: themselves.
At the end of the day, this looks better and better for the Conservatives: an inexperienced NDP opposition and a weak Liberal Party that will only get weaker as it fights yet another civil war. I like our chances come 2015...
Thursday 5 May 2011
So now what?
May 5, 2011
Here we are, three days after the election and many are talking about a "seismic shift" in Canadian politics. Depending on who you talk to, there was an "Orange Crush" or an "Orange Wave" that led the NDP to become Canada's new Official Opposition, decimated the Liberal Party of Canada and left Canadians with a Conservative majority government. On top of it all, the Bloc Québécois has been virtually wiped out, holding only four seats in the House of Commons; eight short of even being recognized as an official party in the House.
Now, I'm obviously thrilled with the results. I think a Conservative majority was what this country has needed for a long time. I'm excited about the next four years - low taxes, job creation and a reduction of the deficit. On top of it all, the Prime Minister has committed to Universal Health Care and I think we'll have a relatively moderate government.
I'm also thrilled with the Conservative breakthrough in Toronto. Seats like Eglinton-Lawrence, Don Valley West and even (this one shocked me) Willowdale are now held by Conservative MP's. I know these aren't all the Tory seats in the city, but it's the first few that come to mind. This is a good breakthrough and a testament to the work the Tories have done since 2004 to steadily increase their vote count and finally win some seats.
I do want to take a minute to address those that think Monday's results mean the end of the Liberal Party. It doesn't. When we look at the NDP opposition, it's a bit of a gongshow. I don't doubt the dedication of these new Parliamentarians, but their experience is a little, shall we say, lacking. Even veteran Parliamentarians like Tom Mulcair are already having faux-pas moments where they are having to correct the record. Liberals merely need to seize on this inexperience, time after time, to show that they do have the bench strength to at least form the Official Opposition come 2015.
I also found it fascinating that Jack Layton believes this to be a momentous victory. No question that his achievement is historic and should be applauded as a success for his party, but while he is now the Leader of the Opposition, he has actually lost clout in Parliament. In the previous minority governments, Jack could pry concessions from the government if he wanted to (and if the government would concede to him, in order to avoid defeat). Now, he's the Leader of the Opposition in a majority Parliament. Sorry to break it to you, Jack, but you're likely to accomplish nothing. Maybe Ruth-Ellen Brosseau will take you to Vegas when Parliament breaks for one of its holidays.
Here we are, three days after the election and many are talking about a "seismic shift" in Canadian politics. Depending on who you talk to, there was an "Orange Crush" or an "Orange Wave" that led the NDP to become Canada's new Official Opposition, decimated the Liberal Party of Canada and left Canadians with a Conservative majority government. On top of it all, the Bloc Québécois has been virtually wiped out, holding only four seats in the House of Commons; eight short of even being recognized as an official party in the House.
Now, I'm obviously thrilled with the results. I think a Conservative majority was what this country has needed for a long time. I'm excited about the next four years - low taxes, job creation and a reduction of the deficit. On top of it all, the Prime Minister has committed to Universal Health Care and I think we'll have a relatively moderate government.
I'm also thrilled with the Conservative breakthrough in Toronto. Seats like Eglinton-Lawrence, Don Valley West and even (this one shocked me) Willowdale are now held by Conservative MP's. I know these aren't all the Tory seats in the city, but it's the first few that come to mind. This is a good breakthrough and a testament to the work the Tories have done since 2004 to steadily increase their vote count and finally win some seats.
I do want to take a minute to address those that think Monday's results mean the end of the Liberal Party. It doesn't. When we look at the NDP opposition, it's a bit of a gongshow. I don't doubt the dedication of these new Parliamentarians, but their experience is a little, shall we say, lacking. Even veteran Parliamentarians like Tom Mulcair are already having faux-pas moments where they are having to correct the record. Liberals merely need to seize on this inexperience, time after time, to show that they do have the bench strength to at least form the Official Opposition come 2015.
I also found it fascinating that Jack Layton believes this to be a momentous victory. No question that his achievement is historic and should be applauded as a success for his party, but while he is now the Leader of the Opposition, he has actually lost clout in Parliament. In the previous minority governments, Jack could pry concessions from the government if he wanted to (and if the government would concede to him, in order to avoid defeat). Now, he's the Leader of the Opposition in a majority Parliament. Sorry to break it to you, Jack, but you're likely to accomplish nothing. Maybe Ruth-Ellen Brosseau will take you to Vegas when Parliament breaks for one of its holidays.
Tuesday 26 April 2011
On the Lighter Side: A Word Cloud!
A word cloud of the most commonly used words thus far. Interesting that "Liberals" seems to be the biggest!
Sunday 24 April 2011
The Rise of the NDP
April 24, 2011
Yes, I know - I haven't updated this in awhile. I've been keeping up with the campaign, but it's been a hectic week and a half. I apologize to my faithful readers (if I have any) for my delay.
For those who have continued to follow the campaign, you'll know that the NDP has been on the rise in polls. Whether this will translate into seats for Jack Layton and his party, we will have to wait until election night to find out.
Looking at another third party that was seemingly on the rise, we can turn to the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom. In the 2010 election there, a massive sweep of "Cleggmania" was expected to wipe out the Labour Party and turn the election into a race between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. At the end of the day, the Lib Dems kept their share of the vote roughly from the previous general election and actually lost five seats in the process.
There are really two scenarios that could play out due to the rise of the NDP: 1) Left-leaning voters split their "anti-Harper" votes between the NDP and Liberals, allowing Conservative candidates to come up the middle; or 2) Left-leaning voters, seeing the rise of the NDP, coalesce around Jack Layton and provide him with enough seats to overtake the Liberals as the Official Opposition.
To be entirely honest, I would be far more comfortable with the NDP as the Official Opposition. I disagree with everything the NDP stands for, but I respect New Democrats far more than Liberals because New Democrats have principles that they stick to no matter what. This is why I'm a Conservative - because Conservatives also tend to be more principled. Liberals, on the other hand, occupy the "mushy middle" of Canadian politics and don't put the focus on what is the best measures policy wise, but what will best benefit them politically.
It will also be interesting to see what the rise of the NDP means for Toronto-area ridings that have always voted Liberal. The two options I outlined earlier, regarding either the Tories coming up the middle or more New Democrats getting elected could be seen to have the greatest impact right here in Toronto and in other urban centres where Liberals/New Democrats are elected in far greater numbers than Conservatives.
I guess we'll find out in eight days!
Yes, I know - I haven't updated this in awhile. I've been keeping up with the campaign, but it's been a hectic week and a half. I apologize to my faithful readers (if I have any) for my delay.
For those who have continued to follow the campaign, you'll know that the NDP has been on the rise in polls. Whether this will translate into seats for Jack Layton and his party, we will have to wait until election night to find out.
Looking at another third party that was seemingly on the rise, we can turn to the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom. In the 2010 election there, a massive sweep of "Cleggmania" was expected to wipe out the Labour Party and turn the election into a race between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. At the end of the day, the Lib Dems kept their share of the vote roughly from the previous general election and actually lost five seats in the process.
There are really two scenarios that could play out due to the rise of the NDP: 1) Left-leaning voters split their "anti-Harper" votes between the NDP and Liberals, allowing Conservative candidates to come up the middle; or 2) Left-leaning voters, seeing the rise of the NDP, coalesce around Jack Layton and provide him with enough seats to overtake the Liberals as the Official Opposition.
To be entirely honest, I would be far more comfortable with the NDP as the Official Opposition. I disagree with everything the NDP stands for, but I respect New Democrats far more than Liberals because New Democrats have principles that they stick to no matter what. This is why I'm a Conservative - because Conservatives also tend to be more principled. Liberals, on the other hand, occupy the "mushy middle" of Canadian politics and don't put the focus on what is the best measures policy wise, but what will best benefit them politically.
It will also be interesting to see what the rise of the NDP means for Toronto-area ridings that have always voted Liberal. The two options I outlined earlier, regarding either the Tories coming up the middle or more New Democrats getting elected could be seen to have the greatest impact right here in Toronto and in other urban centres where Liberals/New Democrats are elected in far greater numbers than Conservatives.
I guess we'll find out in eight days!
Tuesday 12 April 2011
Highlight of the debate
April 13, 2011
A new post to come shortly, I've been busy. Just wanted to share my favourite debate night moment. Admittedly, it came from Jack Layton but the stunned look and then smirk from Ignatieff is priceless as he tries to come up with a defence.
A new post to come shortly, I've been busy. Just wanted to share my favourite debate night moment. Admittedly, it came from Jack Layton but the stunned look and then smirk from Ignatieff is priceless as he tries to come up with a defence.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
The Economy
April 5, 2011
For me, this election is all about one issue: the economy. Yes, I identify myself as conservative and support the Conservative Party. That said, if Michael Ignatieff had presented a stellar economic plan, I would have given him a look. But, his platform came out and it was like traveling in time to the days of Trudeau. As I said in a previous post, the policies of the Trudeau government are a reason why I'm a conservative-minded individual.
With the economy being top of mind, I was pleased to read today that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says that Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth for the first half of 2011. In brief, Canada's economy will grow by 5.2 per cent in 2011's first quarter and smaller, but still acceptable, growth rates in the next two quarters.
I have to admit, that when the recession hit, I was worried about the massive amount of spending that was done by federal and provincial governments. I tend to be a bit of a deficit hawk. But looking at the statistics, 23,000 projects were funded across Canada which created 480,000 jobs according to government figures. I also strongly support the government's deficit reduction plan, which includes wrapping up the stimulus spending and conducting a review of government operations. If the Conservative budget measures continue to be implemented, we should be out of deficit by 2015. I can accept that.
For me, there is really only one party that gets the economic balancing act that is necessary at this time - and obviously, it's the Conservatives. Today's report from the OECD just firms up the fact that the Harper Conservatives have done - and will continue to do - a good job (and yes, I support corporate tax cuts).
For me, this election is all about one issue: the economy. Yes, I identify myself as conservative and support the Conservative Party. That said, if Michael Ignatieff had presented a stellar economic plan, I would have given him a look. But, his platform came out and it was like traveling in time to the days of Trudeau. As I said in a previous post, the policies of the Trudeau government are a reason why I'm a conservative-minded individual.
With the economy being top of mind, I was pleased to read today that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says that Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth for the first half of 2011. In brief, Canada's economy will grow by 5.2 per cent in 2011's first quarter and smaller, but still acceptable, growth rates in the next two quarters.
I have to admit, that when the recession hit, I was worried about the massive amount of spending that was done by federal and provincial governments. I tend to be a bit of a deficit hawk. But looking at the statistics, 23,000 projects were funded across Canada which created 480,000 jobs according to government figures. I also strongly support the government's deficit reduction plan, which includes wrapping up the stimulus spending and conducting a review of government operations. If the Conservative budget measures continue to be implemented, we should be out of deficit by 2015. I can accept that.
For me, there is really only one party that gets the economic balancing act that is necessary at this time - and obviously, it's the Conservatives. Today's report from the OECD just firms up the fact that the Harper Conservatives have done - and will continue to do - a good job (and yes, I support corporate tax cuts).
Monday 4 April 2011
National Post editorial board: A far cry from the Red Book
April 4, 2011
I was going to write a post this evening about the recently released Liberal platform. The National Post said it best, however, and I've decided to simply share their comments, from the Editorial Board.
I was going to write a post this evening about the recently released Liberal platform. The National Post said it best, however, and I've decided to simply share their comments, from the Editorial Board.
The Liberals won power in the 1993 election, in part, because of their platform. Nicknamed the Red Book, the document was an integrated mix of sensible, centrist planks that had all been costed out and that were complementary with one another. Some Liberals are claiming that the 2011 successor to the Red Book, released Sunday, follows in the same tradition.
Alas, the comparison is inapt. The Liberals’ new platform for the current election is disappointing. It contains little that is novel, promises billions in new spending that will be paid for with higher taxes, and sneaks in a major environmental program without disclosing how much it will cost or whether or not it will stunt job growth.
Officially known as “Your Family. Your Future. Your Canada,” the document even reopens the old tar pit of employment equity in the federal civil service — a sop to NDP supporters who never tire of gender politics. This time, though, the Liberals want to go further than merely creating another enormous bureaucracy to evaluate whether an Office Assistant III should be paid the same as a Materials Management Foreman II. They want to elevate pay equity to the status of a human right. That way, federal bureaucrats who feel their positions are undervalued can file both employment and rights grievances.
Not all the Liberals’ ideas are bad. As the National Post has advocated on more than one occasion, the party favours establishment of a civilian oversight board for the RCMP, along the lines of the one already in place for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. The inability to reform the RCMP has been one of the biggest failures of the Tories’ five years in office. Indeed, under the Harper government, the rot within our once-proud national police force has gone from bad to worse.
Nor is there much wrong with the basic concept of a “Canadian Learning Passport” that would offer $1,000 a year to students to attend college or university. The concept is likely to rankle Quebec’s provincial government, which sees even benign forays into education, such as this, as unwelcome intrusions by Ottawa into provincial jurisdiction. (Quebec complained bitterly about another $1,000-gift scheme the Liberals devised in 1999, the Millennium Scholarships.) And the passports could have the unintended consequence of becoming a subsidy just for the middle and upper class, because — at $1,000 a year — they would be too small to make post-secondary schooling affordable to students from low-income families. But as big-government initiatives go, this one is relatively harmless.
When all of the various planks are thrown in, however, the economic math in the Liberal platform doesn’t work. On the one hand, Michael Ignatieff and his party promise $8.2-billion in new social spending over their first two years in office, funded almost entirely by a cancellation of planned corporate tax cuts. Yet they insist that corporations won’t fare poorly, because they will “provide the right incentives for entrepreneurs and investors” to create new jobs and businesses. But the incentives pledge carries with it only about $2-billion over the same period. Forgive us for being dubious, but if the Liberals take $8-billion from entrepreneurs and investors and give them back just $2-billion, the net result is unlikely to be more jobs and economic growth.
The platform even opens the Liberals up to charges of harbouring a — dare we say it — hidden agenda. Having been burned in the last election by the unpopularity of their radical, pro-environmentalist Green Shift program, the Liberals buried their new major eco-plank — a cap-and-trade system — on p. 46. Yet in revealing his party’s policies on the weekend, Mr. Ignatieff made no mention of cap-and-trade, which would put a high price and firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions, then force companies and consumers to buy credits for their use of electricity, gasoline and other fuels. Tory supporters will no doubt argue, with justification, that this is just Green Shift Lite.
In the lead-up to the Liberal platform release, many Canadians wondered whether the party would lurch left or right — either to steal stray voters from the NDP and summon the faded glory of Trudeau-era statism, or else to create a truly centrist pro-growth alternative to the Tories. Unfortunately, Mr. Ignatieff chose the first option. We believe it is not a wise blueprint for Canada, nor a wise path for his party.Article source: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/04/national-post-editorial-board-a-far-cry-from-the-red-book/
Sunday 3 April 2011
Ground Report
April 3, 2011
This afternoon, I attended the office opening for St. Paul's Conservative candidate Maureen Harquail. It was my first time networking and talking with fellow Conservatives in the riding, since moving here in December.
I was struck, immediately, by the crowd. It was huge! The reports of Toronto being a Liberal bastion may soon be coming to an end; the number of people at the event was impressive, as was the fact that it represented a diverse cross-section of the population of the riding and the city as a whole. Old and young, new Canadians and those who have been here for generations, men and women and more. Talk, not just in the room (where the crowd is biased), but on the street is that Carolyn Bennett, the longtime incumbent Liberal MP, is grating on the nerves of constituents. There is also quite a bit of grumbling that, "coincidentally" the day of the confidence vote, the riding was blanketed by a Carolyn Bennett householder featuring her "accomplishments" over the past weeks and months, as well as a number of photos (which were hard to see and horrendously stretched - desktop publishing is not a strength of Bennett's office, apparently).
Slowly but surely, Conservative candidates with strong credentials like Maureen Harquail, are making a dent in the Liberal's last big bastion of support: downtown Toronto. I'm happy to be a part of it and am looking forward to having her represent me in Ottawa after May 2.
This afternoon, I attended the office opening for St. Paul's Conservative candidate Maureen Harquail. It was my first time networking and talking with fellow Conservatives in the riding, since moving here in December.
I was struck, immediately, by the crowd. It was huge! The reports of Toronto being a Liberal bastion may soon be coming to an end; the number of people at the event was impressive, as was the fact that it represented a diverse cross-section of the population of the riding and the city as a whole. Old and young, new Canadians and those who have been here for generations, men and women and more. Talk, not just in the room (where the crowd is biased), but on the street is that Carolyn Bennett, the longtime incumbent Liberal MP, is grating on the nerves of constituents. There is also quite a bit of grumbling that, "coincidentally" the day of the confidence vote, the riding was blanketed by a Carolyn Bennett householder featuring her "accomplishments" over the past weeks and months, as well as a number of photos (which were hard to see and horrendously stretched - desktop publishing is not a strength of Bennett's office, apparently).
Slowly but surely, Conservative candidates with strong credentials like Maureen Harquail, are making a dent in the Liberal's last big bastion of support: downtown Toronto. I'm happy to be a part of it and am looking forward to having her represent me in Ottawa after May 2.
Friday 1 April 2011
Urban Issues
April 2, 2011
One of the things that I've found interesting during this campaign so far, is nobody is talking about issues facing Canadian cities. I did not know this until recently (and this will likely make me sound naive) but 80 per cent of the population lives in an urban area.
For the Liberals and NDP to ignore urban issues is intriguing, because this is largely where their seats come from. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal largely vote Liberal with a smattering of NDP (and Bloc, for our Québec friends). The only cities that the Conservatives dominate are Calgary and Edmonton.
I think this is a prime issue that the Conservatives should latch on to, in an effort to build upon their seat count and achieve their goal of a majority government. Here in Toronto, where a conservative was handily elected Mayor, there are numerous issues that the federal Conservatives could attach themselves to, in order to gain support. Transit is always a top of mind issue, as are infrastructure dollars in general. With a leader in Rob Ford in Toronto, now more than ever is a chance for the Tories to work with a supportive-minded mayor and perhaps win seats in Scarborough, working towards the downtown core in future campaigns.
To be fair, until a few months ago, I lived in a suburban riding. I don't have a full grasp on the urban issues. From a casual observer, though, it's a vote-getter for a wide swath of the population. Someone just needs to latch on and tackle them.
One of the things that I've found interesting during this campaign so far, is nobody is talking about issues facing Canadian cities. I did not know this until recently (and this will likely make me sound naive) but 80 per cent of the population lives in an urban area.
For the Liberals and NDP to ignore urban issues is intriguing, because this is largely where their seats come from. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal largely vote Liberal with a smattering of NDP (and Bloc, for our Québec friends). The only cities that the Conservatives dominate are Calgary and Edmonton.
I think this is a prime issue that the Conservatives should latch on to, in an effort to build upon their seat count and achieve their goal of a majority government. Here in Toronto, where a conservative was handily elected Mayor, there are numerous issues that the federal Conservatives could attach themselves to, in order to gain support. Transit is always a top of mind issue, as are infrastructure dollars in general. With a leader in Rob Ford in Toronto, now more than ever is a chance for the Tories to work with a supportive-minded mayor and perhaps win seats in Scarborough, working towards the downtown core in future campaigns.
To be fair, until a few months ago, I lived in a suburban riding. I don't have a full grasp on the urban issues. From a casual observer, though, it's a vote-getter for a wide swath of the population. Someone just needs to latch on and tackle them.
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Why I'm a Conservative
March 30, 2011
I know that I'm not a stereotypical Conservative. When people think "Conservative," they think of an old person, who is often religious, who hates change and doesn't have a sense of the world around them. I don't like stereotypes. I don't see a Liberal as an egghead academic,who looks down upon people from their ivory tower and thinks that they, as an "intellectual superior," are better than me.
I'm a strange breed of Conservative. You could call me a libertarian-liberal-Conservative. I don't like a lot of government - I think it is cumbersome and should stop telling me what to do and how to do it. I believe in supporting those who need assistance - but I also believe again that government isn't the only outlet that can fulfill this; community organizations, churches and individuals have a duty to reach out and help the less fortunate.
I'm a Conservative because I believe criminals belong behind bars. I believe that corporations, not government, creates jobs. I'm a Conservative because, after studying history, I firmly believe that a lot of problems that Canada faced in the latter half of the twentieth century (70's and onwards) were created by the policies of the Trudeau Liberal governments.
I'm a Conservative for a lot of reasons. One day, I will fit the stereotypical idea of what a Conservative is - I'll be old, retired and probably cranky about a lot of things. But for now, I'm content to be a twenty-something, living in downtown Toronto and still... a Conservative.
I know that I'm not a stereotypical Conservative. When people think "Conservative," they think of an old person, who is often religious, who hates change and doesn't have a sense of the world around them. I don't like stereotypes. I don't see a Liberal as an egghead academic,who looks down upon people from their ivory tower and thinks that they, as an "intellectual superior," are better than me.
I'm a strange breed of Conservative. You could call me a libertarian-liberal-Conservative. I don't like a lot of government - I think it is cumbersome and should stop telling me what to do and how to do it. I believe in supporting those who need assistance - but I also believe again that government isn't the only outlet that can fulfill this; community organizations, churches and individuals have a duty to reach out and help the less fortunate.
I'm a Conservative because I believe criminals belong behind bars. I believe that corporations, not government, creates jobs. I'm a Conservative because, after studying history, I firmly believe that a lot of problems that Canada faced in the latter half of the twentieth century (70's and onwards) were created by the policies of the Trudeau Liberal governments.
I'm a Conservative for a lot of reasons. One day, I will fit the stereotypical idea of what a Conservative is - I'll be old, retired and probably cranky about a lot of things. But for now, I'm content to be a twenty-something, living in downtown Toronto and still... a Conservative.
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Elizabeth May and the Leaders' Debate
March 29, 2011
Earlier today, the broadcast consortium responsible for arranging the Leaders' Debates announced that Elizabeth May would not be invited to participate. May took to Twitter, expressing her shock and vowing to get in the debate.
As we know, May was allowed to participate last time - but in 2008, the Green Party had an MP in the House of Commons, in Liberal-turned Independent-turned Green Blair Wilson. Wilson was defeated in the 2008 election and as such, Green representation in the House of Commons at dissolution of Parliament was zero.
Looking back to 1993, when two new political parties came to the scene, shows a precedent for requiring a seat in the House of Commons to be allowed in the debate. The Reform Party had Deborah Grey, elected in a by-election and the Bloc had a number of MP's, including Gilles Duceppe who was elected as an Independent.
As harsh as it sounds, the broadcast consortium is right - Elizabeth May is the leader of a party without a seat in the House of Commons and as such, should not be allowed to participate in the debate. Allowing her in the debate would set a precedent to include any registered political party in the country, regardless of whether they have representation in the House of Commons or not.
I respect Elizabeth May, but she shouldn't win this fight. Her priority now should be to run a strong local campaign in Saanich - Gulf Islands and get elected to the House, in order to justify her inclusion in the next debate.
Earlier today, the broadcast consortium responsible for arranging the Leaders' Debates announced that Elizabeth May would not be invited to participate. May took to Twitter, expressing her shock and vowing to get in the debate.
As we know, May was allowed to participate last time - but in 2008, the Green Party had an MP in the House of Commons, in Liberal-turned Independent-turned Green Blair Wilson. Wilson was defeated in the 2008 election and as such, Green representation in the House of Commons at dissolution of Parliament was zero.
Looking back to 1993, when two new political parties came to the scene, shows a precedent for requiring a seat in the House of Commons to be allowed in the debate. The Reform Party had Deborah Grey, elected in a by-election and the Bloc had a number of MP's, including Gilles Duceppe who was elected as an Independent.
As harsh as it sounds, the broadcast consortium is right - Elizabeth May is the leader of a party without a seat in the House of Commons and as such, should not be allowed to participate in the debate. Allowing her in the debate would set a precedent to include any registered political party in the country, regardless of whether they have representation in the House of Commons or not.
I respect Elizabeth May, but she shouldn't win this fight. Her priority now should be to run a strong local campaign in Saanich - Gulf Islands and get elected to the House, in order to justify her inclusion in the next debate.
On the lighter side
March 29, 2011
This isn't the first time the Prime Minister has sung, but I thought I'd share the latest tune.
This isn't the first time the Prime Minister has sung, but I thought I'd share the latest tune.
Monday 28 March 2011
The Social Media Election?
March 28, 2011
Early in to "Campaign '11," much is being made out of each party's campaign and the usage of social media. There is a lot of hype - with the Green Party saying it will conduct the most advanced social media campaign Canada has ever seen and statistics about each party's "Facebook Likes" and Twitter followers being analyzed. The Ontario Liberals use fRed, the Conservatives have Tory Nation. Heck, even Jack Layton and the NDP have gotten in on the gig, launching the Jack Layton iPhone app.
My background is in communications and public relations. I don't pretend to be an expert, but social media is not the be all and end all to a national campaign. We have seen its impact in local campaigns; remember the NDP candidate in Durham in 2008, who was forced to step down after making terribly racist and sexist comments on Facebook. But on a national level, social media will not win or lose an election for a party.
Ever since Obama used social media to motivate his base, politicos have looked at it as the master tool. It's not - especially for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Whether a seat is urban or rural, social media is not going to have a massive impact on a campaign, despite what the powers that be think. Picture, for a moment, the core supporters of the Conservative Party. What comes to mind? It's not a latte-sipping, bike riding resident of Toronto or Vancouver. It's a middle class family with not a lot of spare time, it's a senior enjoying their retirement years or it's a farmer. Now picture any of those people engaged in social media, aside from keeping in touch with friends and family!
This campaign is not about social media - it's about the economy and whether or not Canadians are sick and tired of the constant politicking that comes with minority parliament.
Early in to "Campaign '11," much is being made out of each party's campaign and the usage of social media. There is a lot of hype - with the Green Party saying it will conduct the most advanced social media campaign Canada has ever seen and statistics about each party's "Facebook Likes" and Twitter followers being analyzed. The Ontario Liberals use fRed, the Conservatives have Tory Nation. Heck, even Jack Layton and the NDP have gotten in on the gig, launching the Jack Layton iPhone app.
My background is in communications and public relations. I don't pretend to be an expert, but social media is not the be all and end all to a national campaign. We have seen its impact in local campaigns; remember the NDP candidate in Durham in 2008, who was forced to step down after making terribly racist and sexist comments on Facebook. But on a national level, social media will not win or lose an election for a party.
Ever since Obama used social media to motivate his base, politicos have looked at it as the master tool. It's not - especially for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Whether a seat is urban or rural, social media is not going to have a massive impact on a campaign, despite what the powers that be think. Picture, for a moment, the core supporters of the Conservative Party. What comes to mind? It's not a latte-sipping, bike riding resident of Toronto or Vancouver. It's a middle class family with not a lot of spare time, it's a senior enjoying their retirement years or it's a farmer. Now picture any of those people engaged in social media, aside from keeping in touch with friends and family!
This campaign is not about social media - it's about the economy and whether or not Canadians are sick and tired of the constant politicking that comes with minority parliament.
Sunday 27 March 2011
On Coalitions
March 27, 2011
Since 2008, "coalition" has become a dirty word in Canadian politics. I shared the shock after the last election when the Liberals, who had just come from one of their worst showings in Canadian electoral history, decided to try and overturn the results of the election, install Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister and welcome the NDP in cabinet.
Here we are, two and a half years later, and heading to the polls once again. As we know, Stephen Harper is using the coalition issue to garner support for the Conservatives, while Michael Ignatieff disavows himself of trying to form a coalition government.
The debate on this issue, in my opinion, is distracting. As we saw in the U.K., coalitions are a legitimate form of government in a parliamentary democracy. I agree with Harper, however, that the party that wins the largest number of seats, should form the government. That said, though, there is the potential in this election for the Tories to be returned with a minority, Parliament to return and the government to be voted down on the Speech from the Throne. It would be likely, in that situation, for the Governor General to ask the Official Opposition (likely to be the Liberals) to try and form a government that can command confidence of the House. In this situation, a coalition is necessary for the political stability of the country.
This election should not be about constitutional convention. Instead, voters should focus on their pocketbooks. Who is going to provide economic growth, keep taxes low and reduce the deficit? The Conservative Party of Canada. Do we need political stability to stop the insanity of constant electioneering in minority parliament? Yes. This election should be about economic and political stability. Those are the issues I want addressed - and to address them, I'll be voting Conservative.
Since 2008, "coalition" has become a dirty word in Canadian politics. I shared the shock after the last election when the Liberals, who had just come from one of their worst showings in Canadian electoral history, decided to try and overturn the results of the election, install Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister and welcome the NDP in cabinet.
Here we are, two and a half years later, and heading to the polls once again. As we know, Stephen Harper is using the coalition issue to garner support for the Conservatives, while Michael Ignatieff disavows himself of trying to form a coalition government.
The debate on this issue, in my opinion, is distracting. As we saw in the U.K., coalitions are a legitimate form of government in a parliamentary democracy. I agree with Harper, however, that the party that wins the largest number of seats, should form the government. That said, though, there is the potential in this election for the Tories to be returned with a minority, Parliament to return and the government to be voted down on the Speech from the Throne. It would be likely, in that situation, for the Governor General to ask the Official Opposition (likely to be the Liberals) to try and form a government that can command confidence of the House. In this situation, a coalition is necessary for the political stability of the country.
This election should not be about constitutional convention. Instead, voters should focus on their pocketbooks. Who is going to provide economic growth, keep taxes low and reduce the deficit? The Conservative Party of Canada. Do we need political stability to stop the insanity of constant electioneering in minority parliament? Yes. This election should be about economic and political stability. Those are the issues I want addressed - and to address them, I'll be voting Conservative.
Friday 25 March 2011
Away we go!
March 25, 2011
I thought today would be a fitting day to kick-off my first attempt at political blogging, since the government fell earlier this afternoon and the 41st General Election campaign is set to begin.
In case you cannot tell by the (obliquely obvious) title of the blog, I am a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada and a resident of the City of Toronto in the riding of St. Paul's. Over the course of the campaign, I'll talk about local issues in the city, as well as explore the national issues and campaign news. I won't pretend to be an expert and I'll try to keep it amusing. If you're looking for balanced coverage, go elsewhere - this is unabashed conservatism here.
As for my own personal views on the issues, I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I guess you could call me a Red Tory - except when it comes to issues surrounding law and order; when we're talking crime, I'm unabashedly right-wing.
I will commit, however, to maintaining a level of respectful debate. I have a number of Liberal (and liberal) friends who I have great respect for. Indeed, in the recent municipal campaign in my old hometown, I worked with Liberal supporters. I respect their values and passion, but I don't agree with them when it comes to federal and provincial politics.
Full disclosure leads me to tell you that I am also a former Conservative staffer, working in a constituency office in my old hometown for a Conservative MP and cabinet minister. I'll be spending some time assisting with her re-election efforts as well.
As we kick off this campaign, I hope you'll enjoy the posts and participate in the discussion. I look forward to it!
I thought today would be a fitting day to kick-off my first attempt at political blogging, since the government fell earlier this afternoon and the 41st General Election campaign is set to begin.
In case you cannot tell by the (obliquely obvious) title of the blog, I am a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada and a resident of the City of Toronto in the riding of St. Paul's. Over the course of the campaign, I'll talk about local issues in the city, as well as explore the national issues and campaign news. I won't pretend to be an expert and I'll try to keep it amusing. If you're looking for balanced coverage, go elsewhere - this is unabashed conservatism here.
As for my own personal views on the issues, I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I guess you could call me a Red Tory - except when it comes to issues surrounding law and order; when we're talking crime, I'm unabashedly right-wing.
I will commit, however, to maintaining a level of respectful debate. I have a number of Liberal (and liberal) friends who I have great respect for. Indeed, in the recent municipal campaign in my old hometown, I worked with Liberal supporters. I respect their values and passion, but I don't agree with them when it comes to federal and provincial politics.
Full disclosure leads me to tell you that I am also a former Conservative staffer, working in a constituency office in my old hometown for a Conservative MP and cabinet minister. I'll be spending some time assisting with her re-election efforts as well.
As we kick off this campaign, I hope you'll enjoy the posts and participate in the discussion. I look forward to it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)