“All Politics is local” is a saying coined most notably by famed former house of representative speaker Tip O’Neill. That phrase is a apt one when discussing most ridings in this federal election. For our political system magnifies the local aspect by electing local MP’S, whose total make up determine the shape of our government. In this election there are a number of key ridings where local issues and backdrops take a larger scope in determining the next parliament in Canada.

In Skeena-Bulkley Valley, and more specifically the greater Smithers area the local question is which candidate can garner a larger national profile that can be used to further the local agenda? Does a member of the governing party have more influence in gaining attention to local dilemmas than a strong advocate that represents the fourth party in Parliament? Is a lower level government insider or a leading opposition member better for the electorate of Skeena-Bulkley Valley. That is what this localized  Conservative Sharon Smith- New Democrat Nathan Cullen campaign is all about.

From the last parliament leading to this election the governing conservatives have staked their claim upon making Smith the chioce of those insisting that only a governing member can best represent the local interest. One example of this thinking was the announcing of funding commitment for a runway extension to the Smithers airport. This commitment was marked by a public relations ceremony last August by all elected officials with the notable exception of MP Cullen. To add more salt to the wound was announcement by Conservative MP Dick Harris that Smith was to be the “liaison to the federal government”

In political terms, the funding  deal, which was portrayed to have less to do with our New Democrat MP and more to do with Smiths lobbying which could be a beacon for future government largesse through her appointed role.  To many it smacked a level of arrogance on the conservatives who seemed quite agreeable to by-passing the will of the electorate. Build your candidate up as a insider who delivers was the Harris mantra which continued in further public forums like a interview with CBC radio.

I wrote a letter expressing my dismay with the arrangement as it was painted in such a way that discredited Cullens, and for that matter the entire local effort in lobbying for the funding.  Government self-congratulation is nothing new, but the shutting out of the elected force behind the announcement by unduely elevating you future candidate was outside the realm of acceptable political brinkmanship.

Cullen has been a strong advocate for the region , a claim that can be accepted by even many of those who of  a differnt political stripe. I have talked to many of differing walks of life and concluded that our member has a stature that is higher than the New Democratic party in the riding.

I may appear to be a little partisan with the perspective but the raw fact is that this riding is not wooed by the allusions or real strength of having a governing member. Only a short run by Liberal Iona Campanolla in the seventies has altered the ridings independent streak in voting for the advocate over the insider. Politics is local and if past elections are any indication then the October 14th  will further reinforce the ridings independant streak. However as a born Newfoundlander adopted Smithereen the tide is always up for change.

Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, was just on the SRC show Tout le monde en parle.

For those who don’t know, it is one of the most popular interview shows in Quebec, with audiences of over a million people each Sunday.

Simply put, anybody who watched that interview and still questions the necessity of the Bloc has no idea what they’re talking about.

He clearly explained the danger of a Conservative majority government by referring to prior decisions and stated beliefs of the party and its leader. He clearly explained the necessity of the Bloc by referring to the issues it supports and the laws it has proposed.

In this political climate, the necessity of the Bloc is extreme. Unless you believe that having your MP in cabinet is a good thing (and boy, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Maxime Bernier, Josee Verner, and Lawrence Cannon have done so much for Quebec), and if you believe in Quebec and support the interests of Quebec, how could you possibly believe that having a Liberal or New Democratic member in Opposition will help at all? Those are pan-Canadian parties, and NDP or Liberal MPs from Quebec will vote the pan-Canadian party-line, which more often than not is counter to the interests of Quebec.

Having a Bloc MP in Parliament ensures that you will have an entire party defending the interests of your region. You can’t be assured of that with anyone else – including (and especially) the Conservatives.

Having an MP in Cabinet does nothing for Quebecers – and we have the last few years (last few decades?) to prove it.

Cross posted from http://sovereigntyenanglais.blogspot.com

I am writing this to explain how in the NDP,  Jack Layton has limited control over who the candidates are. 

Unless one has studied political science, one may be unaware of the differences in the structure of our political parties.  In the Canadian political system, there are two types:  Cadre and Mass. 

In the former, “cadre” the power begins at the top – any leader of a cadre party, or, the group that governs that particular party, has the right to decide in any riding, who the candidate will be.  Hence you will have the effect of “parachuted candidates”, sometimes getting the nomination to run during an election over a party member who is popular among the constituents of that riding.  The Conservatives and the Liberals are both “cadre parties”.

In “mass” parties, it is the opposite:  power begins at the bottom, at the grassroots level.  The party members in each riding have an open, democratic vote as to who the candidate will be and there cannot be ‘parachuted candidates’, against the wishes of the party members.   The NDP and the Green Party are ‘massed-based’ parties.  Potential election candidates can be screened before a vote at the constituency level, but if the candidate wins a vote by their riding association, they become the candidate and that is that…

The NDP have lost a few candidates in this campaign, because this is the way candidates are chosen.  It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views.  But I personnally applaud those who run, even if they are eventually forced to resign because the media finds some issues “scandalous” and unworthy of an audience.  I believe it is the right of citizens to run in an election to educate the public and reform things that may be needing reform.

But in a democracy, there should be an open forum and the will of the electorate to decide who to vote for,  and for what reasons, should be left up to those in the riding level, especially in a mass party.

Just today, I was watching OUTBURST, the show on CPAC where they ask average Canadians for opinions.

The allegedly “neutral” CPAC team made a major error in its opening of a segment called “What are your thoughts on dion’s proposed carbon plan?”.  Before asking people for their opinions, the segment began with host Glen McInnis standing in front of a gasoline pump saying that the carbon tax will be “passed on to consumers through home heating bils and at the pump”.

I was of course shocked to hear that CPAC made such an error.  The wording in the Green Shift Plan is clear: “Since the existing excise tax on gas at the pump is already at the equivalent of $42 per tonne of carbon, the tax at the pump will not rise.” (Green Shift p.6)
I am not purely pointing this out for partisan reasons.  This is the second instance this campaign where CPAC has gotten mixed up with the Liberals by stating something false.  The first instance I’m referring to concerned Garth Turner canvassing in Halton.

This is a knock to CPAC’s so-called neutrality.  If it is intending to be neutral, it should invest in better research before making statements on party policies.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift plan, meanwhile, has been exposed as a tax grab and an anti-poverty program, rather than one that reduces greenhouse gases and protects the environment:

Albertans would pay far more than other Canadians if the federal government was to enact Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s Green Shift, economic and environmental experts say. [A]t least one Ontario Liberal MP, Ken Boschcoff, has plainly stated the Green Shift is a way to transfer money out of Alberta into the rest of Canada, with roughly $9 billion of the $15.3 billion collected each year returned to Canadians with annual incomes of less than $40,000. Boschcoff called it “the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years. The shift will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oilpatch to the rest of the country and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians.”

Nothing about the environment; it’s just one of those outdated wealth redistribution schemes that will hurt the economy big time. Albertans, as the experts have confirmed, would suffer the most. In the unlikely event of a Liberal government, therefore, Alberta would have to see if it can negotiate with Ottawa, but if Dion is prime minister, that would not go very far, seeing how he is incapable of sense and reason. The next step would then invariably lead to the breakup of Canada, with Alberta picking up where the ineffective sovereignty movement in Québec has failed.

Voters should not forget either that Dion’s former cabinet colleagues have said that Dion never cared about Kyoto or the environment as a cabinet minister.

We should not forget either that Dion’s Green Shift is unconstitutional. Natural resources belong to the provinces, which means that the federal government cannot levy a tax on carbon. Provinces can implement carbon taxes, as British Columbia has done, but not Ottawa. The Green Shift carbon tax would therefore be a gross violation of provincial rights and completely unconstitutional.

NDP leader Jack Layton scores:

The New Democrats moved to the political right by pledging to get tough on criminals and the Liberals promised millions for the arts, while the Tories vowed to maintain a strong presence in the Arctic and create a stand-alone economic development agency. Campaigning in Edmonton, NDP Leader Jack Layton said, if elected prime minister on Oct. 14, he would introduce a multimillion-dollar plan to crack down on gangs and gun violence. Layton pledged $100 million a year to put 2,500 new police officers on the streets, $50 million a year for prevention programs and $25 million over four years for witness protection.

Under a Liberal government, we would see crime in our cities rise drastically again. Liberals tend to side with the “poor criminals” and totally ignore the victims of crime. They may talk a good game on banning handguns and such, but where it really matters – tougher enforcement, harsher and longer sentences that do not translate to a mere slap on the wrist – the Liberals are woefully clueless.

With his latest announcement, Jack Layton has proved again that the NDP is closer to what people want and need than the Liberals.

Lors d’un point de presse hier dans le Nunavut, Stephen Harper a nié que les conservateurs allaient renvoyer l’ascenseur aux députés adéquistes lors de la prochaine campagne électorale provinciale. Bien que plusieurs de ces derniers aient participé à des rassemblements partisans de candidats conservateurs, Harper a tenu à prendre ses distances face au parti de Mario Dumont. « Évidemment, je cherche l’appui de beaucoup de Québécois, surtout ceux qui votent pour les libéraux et les adéquistes au niveau provincial », a-t-il indiqué, ajoutant que selon lui, il récoltait d’un grand appui de ces deux camps.

Two’s company; three’s a crowd

C’est un secret de polichinelle que les relations entre les conservateurs et les libéraux provinciaux se sont particulièrement envenimées récemment. Pas plus tard qu’hier, Josée Verner invitait la ministre de la Culture et des Communications du Québec, Christine Saint-Pierre, à « garder son calme » en ce qui a trait au dossier culturel. Plus tôt cette semaine, le ton avait également monté entre Jean Charest et Stephen Harper, notamment à propos du déséquilibre fiscal. À ce sujet, le Premier ministre du Québec aurait soutenu « qu’il n’y a pas de mot d’ordre d’attaquer qui que ce soit et il ne peut y avoir de mot d’ordre de ne pas le faire. Le mot d’ordre c’est la défense des intérêts du Québec. Je ne me gênerai pas pour dire ce que j’ai à dire ».

Ce qui se cache derrière cette nouvelle ligne dure du PLQ c’est l’agacement qu’éprouve Jean Charest envers l’attitude de Mario Dumont qu’il accuse de se rapprocher des conservateurs aux dépens des intérêts du Québec. Un rapprochement réciproque quand on sait que certains membres du Parti conservateur, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourde et Josée Verner entre autres, n’hésitent pas à afficher leurs couleurs adéquistes.

On comprend donc Stephen Harper d’avoir voulu calmer le jeu hier afin d’éviter un dérapage qui risquerait de donner des munitions au Bloc québécois. Or si d’un côté, le Bloc jouit du soutien indéfectible du Parti Québécois, de l’autre, Jean Charest veut autant être associé à Stéphane Dion que Robert Bourassa voulait l’être à John Turner, c’est-à-dire aucunement.

Au final, malgré les pommes de discorde qui sont apparues avec son ancien parti, Charest est condamné à lui accorder son soutien. Il en va de même pour Mario Dumont dont l’autonomisme est à l’opposé de l’attitude centralisatrice du parti de Stéphane Dion.

Ce ménage à trois entre adéquistes, conservateurs et libéraux ne saurait cependant pas durer très longtemps. Tôt ou tard, Stephen Harper – surtout s’il est majoritaire – se décidera à appuyer plus ouvertement l’ADQ, un parti qui s’avère être beaucoup plus près du sien idéologiquement parlant.

À ce moment, c’est Charest qui, malgré son passé comme conservateur, risque de se retrouver Gros-Jean comme devant.

Just a few quotes I found from the Conservative Candidate in my riding, found on http://www.conservative.ca

“This community used to be a safe place to live”

“Unfortunately, over the years our community has deteriorated due to gang wars and violence. Elected politicians saw these problems, but took little action to rectify them.”

Running a campaign based on fear mongering Mr. Bance? I’m not really even sure what to say about that. Crime happens of course in the area, just like it happens in any area of Toronto.You are aware that in Toronto dealing with crime falls to the Toronto Police and at most the O.P.P. and thus is a Provincial or Municipal issue right?

Now do tell us, as an MP how your constituency work will help the large immigrant population in the riding. Tell us how (if) you are going to address the multicultural clashes in the area.Tell me how you are going to vote for that Nuclear bill (c-5) that is going through right now.

On a side note

“As President of the Sikh Temple and President of Lions Club”

Maybe I should withdraw my comments about the Tories being unwilling to bridge gaps? Maybe Mr. Bance will be able to give John McKay a run for his money in this riding bringing in his strong ethnic and community based credentials.

Will Jerry Bance be able to oust John McKay who as is apparent in recent times has become complacent sitting atop his Liberal Stronghold riding? Time will tell

The race is over in Peterborough Ontario for the 2008 Federal Election. www.electionprediction.org, which has a 92.3% accuracy at predicting election outcomes has updated Peterborough as a Riding that will remain Conservative. The outcome is really not surprising though. The Liberal candidate Betsy McGregor is openly critical of the economic future of Peterborough i.e. the Railway. In other words, the Liberals committed political “hara-kiri” in Peterborough.

On the Riding level, Betsy McGregor just isn’t very well known. Kudos that she started her campaigning early but compared to Dean del Mastro that never ceases to be discussed in the Peterborough Examiner, usually in a negative way (because the vocal readership is left-wing) has made sure that that from 2006 – 2008, Dean Del Mastro has always been in the spotlight. They can be described in the words of Karl Marx as “useful idiots”.

However, Dean del Mastro is tried and tested. He works and everyone knows he works hard. He has produced a lot of results for Peterborough. Dean del Mastro has championed his community and fought for the future of Peterborough. From 1) resumption of railway to 2) Little Lake Plan to 3) Expansion of the Peterborough Airport. Dean has also worked in the 1) Standing Committee on Scrutiny of regulations 2) Standing Committee on National Defence 3) Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 4) Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. He championed the Federal Accountability Act. The list goes on and on. Dean del Mastro is Ministerial material, that’s a fair and accurate description of his talents and abilities.

From the Peterborough Examiner’s letter to the editor section on September 20, 2008, the Liberals in Peterborough are in the middle of an infighting. 2006 Liberal Candidate Diane Lloyd wrote below: http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1209720

The renegade Liberals in Peterborough are endorsing Dean del Mastro. Why shouldn’t they? Dean del Mastro is about to restore Peterborough to its former glory with the railway. The Counties are already locked in the Conservative sphere. It’s understandable, the Greenshift would have hurt them the most. They rely heavily on vehicles to transport their products, traverse their property and power other sorts of machinery. The Greenshift is insensitive to 1) the needs of rural Canada 2) Canadians at large due to the heavy burden the Greenshift would impose on Canada’s economy that is too interconnected to the currently fragile American economy.

Contrary to Liberal rhetoric, it is not revenue neutral: 1) Not everyone gets their tax credit because the plan does not have a universal rebate scope. 2) A tax is a tax, so what if you don’t tax the petrol? If you tax the ”fossil fuel” (original form), the (final refined product) petrol’s price will increase……does the word “s-c-a-m” come to mind? And why is the document mindlessly littered with anti-Stephen Harper rhetoric? If they edit the document, they might just find that they save a page or 2 when they print it out. If they print 100 copies that will be 200 pages of trees. If they print 1000 copies that will be 2000 pages saved. Editing the Greenshift to remove the ultra-partisan anti-Harper rhetoric will be more effective at creating a “Greenshift”.

Peterborough maintains its reputation as a bell-weather riding.

The CPC sent in Diane Ablonczy to help out in Oakville on Thursday September 18 as she has her own riding in Calgary locked up. The CPC national campaign team would not waste time sending their strong MP’s into hopeless ridings or ones they will almost certainly win. Terence Young has been door knocking since being nominated to run again for the CPC after his narrow loss in 2006. The mix of national trends and local hard work by Mr. Young and his team should finally move the current incarnation of Oakville into the CPC column. The Liberals seem to be flogging Bonnie Brown as some kind of opposition crusader seemingly conceding that their national campaign is a bust. Ms. Brown should have showed in the House once in a while if that was the way she wanted to brand herself.

Halton is a more difficult situation for the CPC. Garth Turner will get the Liberal core vote plus some CPC supporters annoyed with the way the CPC candidate, Lisa Raitt, was appointed and parachuted into the riding. She is certainly well qualified and should get the core CPC vote. This riding voted for a provincial PC turned federal Liberal (Gary Carr) in 2004. Whether it will vote for a CPC turned Liberal in the person of Garth Turner remains to be seen.

Assuming another election is a few years away, the Oakville and Halton electoral boundaries are likely to be reconfigured follwing the next round of electoral district redistribution.

A few days ago CBC columnist Heather Mallick did a detailed piece on yet another death of a thousand cuts (pace Gerry Ritz). She examined, in her inimitable way, the current Tory war against culture and its devastating fallout for Canadian artists, our cultural industries and our international presence.

The onslaught continues, and never mind Stephen Harper’s mediocre piano-playing. (That was just aural mendacity for the rubes.) The latest target of the hairy-knuckled hordes is the Ottawa-based Canadian Screen Training Centre.

According to the Ottawa Citizen’s Tony Lofaro:

“The centre, founded in 1981, has been a leader in training people in film and video production, and its annual Summer Institute of Film and Television program has been a bona fide hit, offering practical filmmaking experience to thousands of people. Directors such as Anthony Minghella (The English Patient) and a score of Canadian producers and directors have taught at the institute. One of its famous graduates is Denise Robert, producer of The Barbarian Invasions, the Canadian winner of 2003’s Best Foreign Film Oscar.”

Perhaps Denise Robert hit too close to home. The Centre has now been informed that a $205,000 annual grant from Canadian Heritage will be axed on April 1, 2009, giving fresh new meaning to April Fools’ Day. That grant is minuscule, but it’s 40% of the Centre’s budget. Says executive director Max Berdowski:

“What we do with the level of funding we have is really quite remarkable. But to try and have a 40-per-cent cut in our revenue and still try to do anything that is still of significance is just a non-starter for us.”

He predicts that unless the shortfall can be made up, the Centre is likely to close its doors as early as 2010.

And here is Canadian Heritage mouthpiece Dominique Collin:

“This is a new approach to managing public funds and allows the government to assess a wide and diversified range of programs as a group to ensure they attain strong results and remain relevant.”

Where is George Orwell now that we need him?

Mallick sums up the whole affair better than ever I could:

“The cuts are shameful and cheap. Worse than that, they are spiteful, a character trait that makes me writhe with disgust when I find it in myself. What a government.”

Yup, I’m writhing too. The barbarians are well past the gate–they’re running the government. A-writhe, then, fellow citizens–let’s kick these vandals to the curb on October 14. Or else it’s NASCAR races, game shows and accordions for all eternity.

[Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg]