This is scary news. We are used to seeing such things reported from the U.S. and other countries, but not from within Canada….

Chris Warkentin, the incumbent MP for Peace River, was never the local Conservative party’s first pick for MP, even if he was former MP Charlie Penson’s pick.  At least, as I’ve mentioned before, his nomination raised enough ire within the party that in the last election, Grande Prairie town councillor Bill Given took him on as an independent, in large part because he didn’t get a chance to try for the nomination himself.  Given’s Conservative support helped him come in second in the last election, Warkentin’s closest competition by far with around 9800 votes.  Of course, compared to Warkentin’s almost 28,000 votes it wasn’t a close race whatsover.  (Incidentally, this election Given says he’s voting Green, an interesting choice since the Greens received only 2% of the vote last time, and have a very small, if dedicated, core group running their campaign.  Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun, however, has done well at forums and is both well-spoken and upbeat, and will likely get a boost from the popularity of leader Elizabeth May.) But what will happen to all of those disaffected and largely Conservative voters who voted for Given?  That’s 9800 voters who already broke with a long tradition of voting Conservative in the Peace River riding once in the past.  Will they mark their “x” by Warkentin’s name now, despite their dissatisfaction with him, out of party loyalty?  Or will they seek another alternative in this election?  Perhaps like Given, those voters will turn to the Greens, with their fiscal conservatism.  Or might they even turn to the NDP, third place after Given in the last election?

There are some other factors to consider too.  The nuclear issue continues to polarize the riding.  In Valleyview, a Conservative bastion where in my experience to be progressive was almost to be spit upon in the past, audience members at the recent forum stood up and called out to Warkentin to “take a stand, take a stand” on the proposed nuclear power plant, frustrated with his continued waffling (Warkentin has stead-fastedly refused to take a position on nuclear, saying either that it’s a provincial issue or that he has no personal opinion, and carefully saying nothing about his party’s support for nuclear energy in general).  If Warkentin said he supported nuclear, there are any number of people who would agree.  There are also those who would refuse to vote for him as a result.  But trying to straddle the fence doesn’t seems to be earning Warkentin any points, if the Valleyview forum was any indication.

 Another factor is Warkentin’s group of core supporters at the Peace River Bible Institute in Sexsmith.  They were out in force at the 2006 election forum in Grande Prairie, having travelled out together in several identical white vans to ask questions of candidates like why the government allowed nudity in art.  Yet they were conspiciously absent at the most Grande Prairie forum in this election (while nuclear protestors were there and asking questions).  It could be that the Bible College crowd doesn’t feel Warkentin needs any more extra help, now that he’s an incumbent and sure to win. Or could it be that they are upset with Warkentin for not doing more on their key issues, abortion and gay marriage? After all, it has been tough lately for Warkentin to walk this line as well.  His religious beliefs clearly include a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and if you press him personally, as I did after the Peace River forum, he will admit to having personal views to that effect.  But he hasn’t said so flat out while campaigning, and his religious supporters expect him to do actually something about it.

 It’s not that Warkentin hasn’t tried.  He has raised the issues in the House of Commons, memorably trying to focus on the alleged damage gay marriage does to children (his cries of “what about the children” were subsequently dubbed “the Lovejoy factor” by the Upper Canadian blog), and supporting a crime bill, C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Act), that might have reopened the abortion debate by giving special status to the life of an unborn child as a victim.  Which seems like a good point to note that Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada today for his role in making abortion legal in Canada, an award Warkentin also opposed.

 But Warkentin was dealt a blow when the Conservative Justice Minister dropped C-484 in August, right before the election.  The cynical, or the realistic, might say that the Harper government was afraid of being called anti-abortion during the election, a dangerous political position when polls consistently show Canadians remain supportive of legal abortion.  Warkentin was one of the few MPs who vowed to carry forward the bill despite his own government’s refusal to support it.  But with Harper and his spokesperson continuing to say another Conservative government will not support private members bills on abortion, does Warkentin really have a chance?  And will his statements in the House be enough for his religious supporters, or are they becoming frustrated with what, to them, may seem like a lot of talk and very little action, and a lack of support from Harper?

 There is one last change in the riding since the last election, and that is the introduction of candidates for two parties that have never had a presence before, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the Libertarians.  The votes they will draw will likely be small, but there is no question Peace River residents have more choice than ever before on their ballots.

 All of this may add up to a more interesting election result than expected, or it may amount to nothing more than a little more mild grumbling as people obediently mark their “x” for the Conservatives as they always have.  Fortunately, we’re only one long weekend away from finding out.

As the New Democratic Candidate in Scarborough—Agincourt, I’ve just finished seven debates and many more interviews.

After speaking with thousands of residents, I keep hearing three topics come up as the top concerns here:

Repealing regressive immigration reform (Bill C-50)

Scarborough—Agincourt has one of the largest immigrant populations in all of Canada. Residents have been bringing up Bill C-50 at every debate I’ve attended. It was a very regressive piece of immigration legislation brought in by the Conservatives that the Liberals let pass. The NDP was the only federal party that stood up and united against it. Constituents here are very upset with this bill because it gives arbitrary powers to the immigration minister to pick and choose who goes up and off the waiting list based on his or her own biases, often favouring temporary workers over family-class and economic class immigrants. This has been detrimental to family reunification and is treating new Canadians like second-class citizens. The New Democrats not only opposed this bill and want to repeal it, we have a plan to make family reunification easier, recognize foreign credentials, and provide training and bridging programs for those who need to upgrade or need new credentials altogether. Not only have the New Democrats consistently stood up in Parliament for this kind of immigration fairness, we’re the only party that has allocated funds to these priorities to make sure the services and new programs we are promising will actually be delivered.

Ending the war in Afghanistan

People confirm what Liberal incumbent Jim Karygiannis said in his own survey back in February:

“Seventy-four percent believe we should not extent [sic] the Canadian combat mission beyond 2009”

And yet Mr. Karygiannis voted to extend the war.

A vast majority of residents here are against this war. The recent news of a British brigadier-general saying the war cannot be won only confirmed what residents have been saying here for years. The news today of the overspending on a mission that will now cost up to $18.1 billion ($1500 per Canadian household) now adds another dimension on top of the moral and practical reasons why this mission needs to end.

People see the war as inflaming terrorism in Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom: “In three southern provinces, including Kandahar, terrorist attacks have increased more than 10-fold since 2002. In Kabul and surrounding areas, they have more than tripled” (August 18, 2008). In a riding concerned with safety, residents can’t see why Liberals and Conservatives are continuing a mission that is making Afghanistan less safe.

Poverty is also an issue: “A recent UN report says general indicators such as human development and poverty have worsened [in Afghanistan] since 2004″ (Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail, February 22, 2008). In a riding with 9.2% unemployment (even higher youth unemployment) and more than its fair share of poverty, families can’t understand why they’re being asked to pay $1500 each for a mission that’s increasing poverty overseas and adding to their own economic insecurity at home.

Finding an alternative in the New Democrats

For every vote Jim Karygiannis received last election, another voter stayed home and didn’t cast their ballot. Many people are turning away from Mr. Karygiannis because they believed in the Liberal brand; either Trudeau’s “just society” or Pearson’s commitment to peacekeeping. By abandoning the former with passing Bill C-50 and abandoning the latter with extending the war, people are looking for alternatives. There is a massive anti-Karygiannis constituency that is waiting to hear more about the alternatives so they know what they’re voting for.

With his visibility in the riding (signs and literature), many people were considering Dr. Benson Lau (Conservative) as that alternative. With his medical credentials, many assumed he’d stand up for health care. But after people realized that Stephen Harper’s last job with the National Citizens Coalition included the goal of dismantling universal health care, they began to ask how a doctor can stand up for health care with Harper as his boss. They also don’t understand how Dr. Lau, having immigrated to Canada, could support a party that introduced Bill C-50.

When residents realize the predecessor of the New Democrats (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) was the party that brought universal health care to Canada on 17 consecutive balanced budgets and that the NDP was the only federal party to stand united against Bill C-50, many anti-Karygiannis voters who were thinking of voting Conservative are changing their intentions and trusting the New Democrats to deliver social justice, peace, and economic security. At a recent debate, one resident (Sharon Adams) echoed what many others have been telling me when she said, “I came to the debate tonight thinking I would vote Conservative to try and get rid of our incumbent, but that would be a wasted vote.” She was later quoted in the Scarborough Mirror which reported: The evening confirmed her leanings toward casting a vote for Dougherty, who Adams noted “was able to hold his own and seemed to know his facts” (October 8, 2008).

It was a different seat for Stephen Harper this time around, being the incumbent PM and having to defend his policies instead of attacking others. How good a job did he do?

The beginning topic, the Economy, found Harper in general denial that Canada’s economy is anything but strong. As the subject of taxes on gasoline came up, Dion seemed to be intent on telling us how the demand from other countries would keep prices high, while Layton spoke about the need to help industries that are dependant on petroleum products to survive. Harper told us that he had done well by cutting the consumer taxes (GST), and Elizabeth May said this has done “nothing” for the consumer. My comment: “Yes, right, saving 2% on every litre of gas really deals with the incredible increase in the price per litre!”

There was a question about the listeriosis issue and food inspection. The high point in this part of the debate was when Gilles Duceppe asked Harper why the standards for exported foods were different (less frequent) for foods destined for distribution in Canada…

On the Environment issue, a questioner asked about having an independent agency created to deal with it. The overwhelming response from the others was about “leadership”, afterwhich May, Dion, Duceppe and Layton all complained about how Canada’s “leadership” on the issue is suspect among almost all other world leaders.

On Ethics in Politics and the House: This was the most fun part of the debate, that each one at the table look to the left and say something positive about the other potential leader sitting beside them and their experience with trying to work together. Poor Elizabeth May had Harper and had a difficult time trying to find something positive to say. The moderater had to cut her off, not because she was trying to be mean, but because she just came up empty. It was also entertaining to witness Steven Harper telling Jack that they had indeed found “some common ground”.

On Crime, the question was from a teacher from Dawson College, about gun control. While Harper, after fending off Layton on the issue, quickly changed the focus of the question towards his new crime bill, it set off another heated debate about the Conservative approach. Dion wanted to know HOW provinces would find the money to put more youth offenders in prisons, when there is already an issue over the number of prisons in each province lacking enough space and funding. May finished up by saying that it is funny that Harper wants to be tough on youth breaking laws, but he (Harper) only obeys the ones he agrees with. (She mentioned Kyoto and his own Fixed Election Law as examples).

On Healthcare: The debate became quickly about the fact that many Canadians do not have a family doctor. I guess this is the way to reduce hospital and emergency rooms problems. So all parties then focussed on the training and incentive issues for Canada to get more doctors. Elizabeth May brought up the issue of banning all chemicals which harm our health. Harper said he is on top of all of these issues. No one mentioned the issue for many immigrants to this country. How to make sure that qualified immigrants can efficiently cut through the present red tape to practice their professions when they arrive in Canada. This was a letdown for me….

Afghanistan: I do not think any leader said anything that has not been already heard a thousand times on this issue already.

Who won? Well I think it is sad that if you are a francophone in Québec, that if three out of five leaders are speaking in their second language, that some voters will pick the top two because of language. This language issue is what keeps dividing Canada, but it is also what makes us different than the United States, where debates happen in one language only. I love our bilingual and bicultural Canada! I love also, being a citizen of the World!

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has excoriated Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his alleged laissez-faire attitude to the economy. This is a convenient charge to level against one’s opponent, given the current financial climate in the United States, where the subprime crisis has turned America’s economy on its head due to greed and weak regulation.

Since Mr. Dion does not like the laissez-faire approach, he should take a closer look at some of the laissez-faire that has been going on in his party and the major problems that have resulted from it. The Liberal-imposed multiculturalism in Canada is nothing if not laissez-faire, telling immigrants that they do not have to integrate into the host country’s society and can do whatever they used to do in the “old country”. As a result, Canadian cities are now dominated by ethnic ghettoes, with violent crime such as gang activity on the rise, and a growing number of “Canadians” who will never speak either of the two official languages.

What the Liberals have not realized is that their laissez-faire way of dealing with immigration – and crime! – has hurt the very people that the policy was meant to help. People leave their home to look for a better life and more opportunities – for themselves and their children. So many Jamaican immigrants in Toronto regularly complain about the rampant gang crime in the city, which claims the lives of too many of their children almost on a daily basis. They left Kingston and came to Canada, they say, because they wanted to spare their children the violence and crime back home, but now they are faced with the exact same problems in Toronto.
(more…)

Greetings all, I’m finally jumping into the fray here and would like to do a quick linkpost about our riding’s candidates for the uninformed:

Independent – Bernadette Michael
Progressive Canadian Party – Bahman Roudgarnia
Conservative Party – Jake Karns
Green Party – Lou Carcasole
Liberal Party – Martha Hall Findlay
New Democratic Party – Susan Wallace

Thanks to the news section on Susan Wallace’s campaign site, I can also tell you that there is an All Candidates Meeting at Bayview Middle School (25 Bunty Lane) at 8:30 PM on Wednesday October 1st, and another on Tuesday October 7th at Willowdale Pentecostal Church (288 Cummer Avenue) at 7:30 PM (doors open at 6:30 PM).

Tonight was the first time I read up on Jake Karns, and surprise, surprise, his website has a section devoted to “A Safer Willowdale”. I don’t know how many other homes in my riding were treated to flyers from Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative MP of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, with promises of locking up all the hypothetical drug pushers in the playgrounds of my hypothetical children, but we’ve received that and two others from his fellow Conservative MPs from across the country.

I love how all it took was a quick round of googling to come up with the 2007 crime rate statistics from StatsCan to show that Ontario has lower crime rates than dear old Saskatchewan.

I’m pretty much in agreement with this Toronto Star article’s take on the best solutions to crime. Attacking the “root cause” (as Gilles Duceppe would say) of the issue, is far more effective in the long term when it comes to combating crime, instead of just making it easier to convict offenders and lock people away. The StatsCanada link above backs up the Star article’s point in that higher crime rates are associated with parts of the country that are more rural and where its citizens are less likely to have easy access to quality public services and social programs. Which, of course, the Conservatives are loathe to fund. They’d rather put that money into prisons, or better yet, just privatize the whole prison system. Some people argue that privatizing healthcare would result in better quality of service (naturally, I disagree), but I have a hard time imagining anyone in Canada being convinced that a private prison system would be safer or best serve the public good.

As for making Willowdale safer…I’ve lived in this riding my whole life, and while I realize that my personal experiences cannot represent those of everyone else living here, I know that I’ve almost always felt safe here. Note the “almost”. The times when I have felt that my personal safety was threatened have all been due to bad or careless drivers. Ban all use of cell phones and handheld devices while driving and better enforce speeding laws, and I’d feel a lot safer in my day-to-day life here.

First off, I apologise for being out of action on the blogs for the last week or so. I had occasion to be thankful that we have a good, publically funded health system – we spent 3 nights in Emergency with my son, who ended up admitted for a couple of days.

We still haven’t got any flyers from any candidates, so I went out to pick up literature from the offices today, and speak to the candidates or their campaigners where possible.

I am going to start today with some background on the candidate I am going to be voting for, Peter Ferreira. I spoke with Mr. Ferreira for a short while today, and asked him what he was seeing as the major issues in Davenport. The answer: South of Bloor, the environment and cuts to arts and cultural programs. North of Bloor: Immigration and Employment. At the end of a long discussion about the state of immigration, and how it affects Davenport particularly, we ended up talking about what Davenport really needs.  Where do we, in Davenport, need money spent?

The list from the NDP:

Seniors services
Health Care
Transit
Infrastructure
Respect / Dignity for Seniors
A fair deal for “irregular” immigrants
Sorting out the immigration backlog
Crime, particularly drug related in some parts of the riding

The last item is apparent from the location of Mr. Ferreira’s (and 2 other candidates’) offices, all located in empty storefronts in the Bloor/Lansdowne area, which is in obvious need of some renewal. This was really brought home when Jack Layton made a flying visit to the office last week at the same time as the police were called to handle a man showing a handgun on Bloor St. near the office. It’s not that Mr. Layton was a target, but rather a statement about some urgent needs in Davenport.

Davenport also needs support for our newest Canadians, and those who wish to be reunited with the rest of their families in their new country.  We may not be the richest part of the province, but we are strong and hardworking.

What the campaign feels this election is about was stated best by a volunteer in the office, who said “We need to do a better job taking care of our neighbours”. As a concrete show of support for their real neighbours on Bloor, the campaign is collecting personal care products and socks for Savards Women’s Shelter. Savards houses women with mental health issues.  This is a part of being a neighbour.

As I rode away, I saw two women greet each other on the street with a hug, and overheard the conversation:
“Hey! How are you ?!”
“Hey, I’m not a whore anymore!!”
“Awesome!!”
This conversation is also a part of being a neighbour in a community that can celebrate renewal and support each other.  The NDP in Davenport would like to see this happen.

According to The Now, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is lobbying to change the balance of Federal and municipal funding for the police.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is urging the feds to cough up more cash to help cities across Canada cope with rising policing costs.

A motion endorsed by Metro Vancouver’s mayor’s committee calls on the federal and provincial governments to change the cost-sharing formula for policing for cities with populations over 15,000.

Currently, the split is 90-10, with cities and municipalities picking up the bulk of the tab.

I presume this means that Watts believes the police are underfunded, and doesn’t want to take the blame for raising taxes locally.

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

Just out in time for this election and available FREE online, The Harper Record, edited by my trusted friend Teresa Healy.

Here’s the summary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

This book is one in a series of CCPA publications that have examined the records of Canadian federal governments during the duration of their tenure. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of previous governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper during its 32-month term from January 2006 to September 2008.

The 47 writers, researchers and analysts who have co-written this book probe into every aspect of the Harper minority government’s administration. From the economy to the environment, from social programs to foreign policy, from health care to tax cuts, from the Afghanistan mission to the tar sands, from free trade to deep integration, and to many other areas of this government’s record, the authors have dug out the facts and analyzed them.

The Harper Record was necessarily researched and written long before an election was called, but its publication does coincide with an election campaign and thus may help citizens to make informed choices about the future of their country. Regardless of the election outcome, its contents will continue to be relevant between elections. In detailing what a minority Conservative government really did, or failed to do, it may serve as a guide and model for future elections.

It is about time. Most of the violent crime in our cities today is committed by “young offenders”. Anyone 14 or older should not be excused due to his or her age; young people today mature much sooner than in previous generations, and they certainly know the difference between right and wrong. When they kill or assault someone, they know exactly what they’re doing. And when you’re old enough to do the crime, you’re old enough to do the time – and to be named and shamed in public for what you did.

Stephen Harper’s plan for tackling those “young” killers and robbers will resonate well with most city people across Canada, because Canadians are sick and tired of violent youth crime:

The law will ensure that persons aged 14 and older who are convicted of serious violent offences (first- or second-degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, or other serious violent offences for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for more than two years and in the commission of which the offender causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm) are automatically subject to enhanced youth sentencing [up to 14 years for violent offences, and maximum enhanced youth sentences of life for first- or second-degree murder].  Further, upon conviction they will be named and a publication ban will not apply.

Bravo and bravo again!

In case anyone doubts the seriousness of violent crimes committed by teenagers should look at these stats:

While some crime rates have declined in recent years, violent crime among youth continues to be a serious social problem. In 2006, violent crime committed by young offenders was up 30 per cent from 1991. Almost 40,000 youth were accused of serious and violent crimes in 2006.

• Almost 160 were accused of murder or attempted murder.
• Almost 31,000 were accused of assault.
• More than 2,100 were accused of sexual assault.
• More than 4,500 were accused of robbery.

While pretty much the entire country can agree that there needs to be some amendments, I can’t say Harper’s direction is the one we should take. I understand where he’s coming from, and the emotions that drive these amendments, but I simply cannot agree with them.

I believe in rehabilitative justice. Not the kind of rehabilitative justice that allows Karla Homolka to walk out of prison with a free university education, but the kind that would prepare prisoners for release and put them on a program to literally pay back their debt to society by working off some or all of the money spent on their imprisonment.

So, I disagree with Harper’s view that harsher penalities will deter crime. This is often used to advocate the death sentence, and as we can see with the United States, it simply doesn’t work that way. Violent criminals either act on compulsion, so they don’t think about the sentences, or they act with deliberation to avoid being caught, in which case they can obviously rationalize their need to be violent is greater than the risk of whatever punishment could be brought upon them.

But this is not new. I’ve always disagreed with views like this and I expected it to come up this election. Harsher penalties for violent crimes is always a hot button election issue. What I didn’t expect was amending the part of the YCJA that protects the identities of minor offenders.

I’m sorry, but if you are tried as a minor and sentenced as a minor, shouldn’t you be protected as a minor? If the crime is serious enough that you are tried as an adult and found guilty, then treat them like an adult and expose their name. But we can’t give judges the right to expose minors who are tried and sentenced as minors, no matter what the crime, especially for offenders as young as 14.

“In this new legislation, the main purpose will be not only to rehabilitate young offenders, but also to protect society, and the primary goal of sentencing will be to deter others from violating the law,” Harper said at an event.

Protecting the name and record of young offenders is a part of rehabilitation. It allows those who are successfully rehabilitated (and, like everything else, it is easiest to do this at a young age) to move on with their lives.  This proposal appears to include no other amendments that actually concern rehabilitation of young offenders.  I find that incredibly concerning.

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.

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

Peace River is a riding that has worn itself a deep electoral rut, and that rut is in the shape of a capital C.  It doesn’t seem to matter who runs, as long as they run for, as local electors will say flat out and without a trace of humour, the “right” party.  It’s a riding where, as a good friend of mine is known to say, “If you vote, honey, you’re considered progressive”.  And those voters who actually turn out (and that number is increasingly small) mark their “x” in the vast majority for the latest incarnation of the Preston Manning/Stockwell Day/Stephen Harper juggernaut as they do every election, then go home, say their prayers and go to bed.  The likelihood that this election will be any different is low to nonexistent, and the smart money has to be on an easy Conservative win in the riding.

Which is unfortunate.  Because it’s difficult for anyone to argue that Peace River currently has effective representation, or that re-electing the Conservative incumbent Chris Warkentin will do anything to improve the lives of the people he claims to represent.I’m obviously partisan, having run against Warkentin in the last election myself, but the fact is that many local Conservative party members would agree that Warkentin doesn’t represent them. A strong contingent of party faithful threw their support behind surprise independent challenger Bill Given in the last election.  They were upset at the time with the way Warkentin was nominated as the Conservative candidate, and many party insiders felt that his nomination was actually fixed by retiring incumbent Charlie Penson, preventing Grande Prairie councillor Bill Given from having the opportunity to run as a Conservative himself.  Irregularities abounded in the voting process, Given’s supporters claimed, and Warkentin was nominated and confirmed unfairly, apparently for mowing Penson’s lawn enough summers in a row to earn the honour.  Some well-known Conservatives threw their money and support behind Given, even though he insisted he wouldn’t necessarily cross the floor if elected, and they were successful in earning him a second-place finish in the election…which still left him roughly 18,000 votes behind Warkentin.  It’s a mark of how difficult it is to push for change within the riding.  Even Conservatives can’t get a candidate elected if he isn’t branded with the Conservative name.Wrong party, even when it’s no party at all. 

I should point out here that there are very few people who would probably pin the blame for that controversy on Warkentin himself, especially if they have even a basic familiarity with him.  His babyface gamely beams out of every official party photograph with a wet-behind-the-ears innocence that he hasn’t seemed to lose despite his recent (if short) experience in the House.  It’s much easier to picture Warkentin as a freckle-faced kid in a Normal Rockwell painting getting up to nostalgic hijinks, perhaps painting a fence or going to the barbershop, than to picture him in elected office.  The overall impression one gets from Warkentin is still of his youth, and it’s hard to imagine him planning a strategy more devious and political than finding a way to grab Boardwalk in a church-basement game of Monopoly.  He exudes a gosh-darn enthusiasm and an aw-shucks modesty that might be endearing if he wasn’t the person now charged with managing a riding that contains a good chunk of the oil crucial to the Canadian (and North American) economy.  The cynical (and yes, I include myself in that number) might say that Warkentin’s utter lack of confidence, experience, and original thought are the very qualities that make him the perfect Conservative candidate.  If you’re looking for a guy who doesn’t ask questions, who won’t rock the boat, who’ll be quiet (unless you ask him to say something), get the coffee, and fill his extremely safe seat, Warkentin is your man. He’s the perfect sock puppet, a friendly face to soften the often slightly aggressive policies created and advocated by the Harper government (just as one example, a recent pamphlet distributed locally promised that the Conservatives would be hard on crime, and claimed that Liberal policies were so “soft” they practically encouraged criminals to break the law).

This time around, Warkentin is also the incumbent, increasing the likelihood that he’ll win again.  Given hasn’t thrown his hat into the ring for another try yet, and the controversy over Warkentin’s initial nomination seems to have faded away.  The current MP’s only competition for the seat so far comes from the three (interestlingly, all female) candidates running against him: Lilliane Coutu Maisonneuve for the Liberals, Adele Boucher Rymhs for the NDP, and Jennifer Villebrun for the Greens.

Still, with all of them running for the “wrong” parties, it remains to be seen whether any of the new candidates can find a way to jolt the Peace region out of its collective rut.  More likely Warkentin will once again coast smoothly back to Ottawa in the well-worn path of the many Tories who held the seat before him. 

Welcome to a Riding Blog for Scarborough Guildwood -

The district of Scarborough – Guildwood lies nestled on the far eastern boundary line of Toronto. The riding is bordered by lame Ontario to the South, the Bellamy Ravine to the East, Bellamy Road to the west and the Highway 401 to the North. The riding was once part of a geographically larger riding known as Scarborough East which consisted of the eastern part of Scarborough and the Western part of Pickering. The riding however was split into Pickering-Scarborough  East and Scarborough – Guildwood.

The Riding primarily consists of Lower-Middle Class households. A tour of the area will bring to eye largely sections of Apartment buildings, groups of public housing, parks and shopping malls. The main landmarks of the riding are the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus, the Morningside Crossing (formerly known as Morningside Mall), Cedarbrae Mall. The riding has a wide ethnic mixture of individuals drawing people together from all backgrounds in a common riding.

On the surface one may look at the ridings past elections and see the results as follows –

2006
Liberal – John McKay 21,875
Conservative – Pauline Browes 11,790

2005
Liberal – John McKay – 20,950
Conservative – Tom Varesh 8,277

2000
Liberal – John McCay – 24, 019
Conservative – Paul Calandra 7, 559

The fact is the last time the area was represented by an individual who was not a Liberal was 1988, a period in which the P.C. party won the riding however rarely by a margin of more than a few thousand (the high point being when they won in 1984 by thirteen thousand, and the low being approximately 500).

The general reader might be lead to believe that the riding is strongly biased towards the Liberal party, and this may be so. However, the truth of the matter is that John Mckay is a mediocre parliamentarian, and commits a sub-par amount of effort to constituency work to the riding.

One may ask, if these facts are true, why would the Liberal party be so strong in the area? The fact of the matter is that the area does have a much deeper meaning to it than many are aware. It illustrates the Conservative Parties inability to bring individuals under the larger tent of their parties influence who are not already within their core target group. In other words, if you look at the area and the people in the area you will find Hindu Temples, Mosques, and a Gurdwara all of which have always been strongly Liberal voting groups.

The Conservative Party is very good at finding groups are like them and showing the groups how they are alike and creating an “othering” influence in which they show how they represent that particular group in opposition to the others. As compared the Liberal party who has always been able to show individuals how they bring together many different backgrounds and cultures into a common culture which can be known as “Canadian” . In other words the Liberal Party bridges gaps between peoples, while the Conservative Party simply bonds those already with them.

Throughout this blog I intend on looking at the different issues which pop up in the context of this specific riding. Issues such as health care, federal funding for public transit, the environment as well as certain key areas of Foreign policy will be primarily discussed here. On the other hand, issues such as softwood lumber, wheat, agricultural subsides, and such will not receive as much attention as they have relatively loq bearing on the decision made at the ballot box by the individuals in this riding.