It was a pleasure, I’ll confess, to wake up this morning to the flensing of Mike Duffy for his disgraceful, boorish, unethical behaviour last night. And it was a relief to see that one solid Canadian value–fairness–is still so vigorously in effect.

In a way, the treatment of Stephane Dion by CTV sums up the election campaign as a whole: its peculiar nastiness, a rotten import from the south that the Tories, since the day they mocked Jean Chretien’s facial disfigurement, still imagine will play well up here. And maybe in little jerkwater hamlets like Delisle it does, but not among civil Canadians.

The Conservatives are all over this soft lob from Duffy, of course. Earth to the CPC: we aren’t buying it. Decency still counts for something, even during an election campaign. Dion is starting to look positively magisterial compared to the cold-eyed autocrat you want us to support for his “leadership” qualities. The awkward, gangling, nerdy fellow from Quebec might even have a shot at being the next Prime Minister. And this, despite the last-ditch smarmy interventions of oh-so-wise journalistic talking heads whose corporate groupthink has helped to paralyze the body politic for decades.

What a desperate, contemptible move by a party whose fortunes have waned so rapidly over the past few days. And don’t blame all of the latter on the incredible shrinking economy. Canadians are rightly worried: indeed, in the words of one financial commentator today, “Even panic is starting to look like a realistic response.” But in such times we want reassurance–not bizarre suggestions that we spend money on stock bargains. We are looking for a sympathetic connection and a comprehensible plan.

Instead, when a man is asked an ambiguous question that would pose a challenge to most of us even in our first language, we’re treated to petty, slimy personal insults. If Dion in now in sight of a minority victory, this shameful little episode might just push him past the finish line. And if that happens, while I shall never vote Liberal in my life, I’ll be cheering.

Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

The Economics Club of Toronto attracts the heavyweight speakers from politics and business, and so when I heard Gilles Duceppe would be speaking there, I was glad to go along to yesterday’s luncheon.

I had a chance to chat with Mr. Duceppe after his talk. He was warm, persuasive, and friendly. I joked that if he were a federalist, we’d all want to vote for him. His response: “Maybe I should open a franchise in Ontario.”

About 250 people were  at the Sheraton Centre to hear him. He said he hadn’t come to tell Canadians how to vote, but then made it clear that he was preaching to both Quebeckers and other Canadians that the Bloc represents the best opportunity to prevent Stephen Harper from getting a majority.

Our outstanding lady of letters, Margaret Atwood, was a guest at the head table and afterwards, told reporters that if she lived in Quebec she’d vote for the Bloc.

 “I’m here because Mr. Duceppe understands the contribution that culture makes to our economy. He understands $84-billion, and he understands 1.1 million jobs,” she said.

Duceppe received standing ovations both before and after he spoke, although a few remained in their seats at the end of his talk.

“Quebec is the only place in Canada that can still stop Stephen Harper,” Duceppe declared.

He stressed that the election wasn’t about sovereignty, but added:

“One day or another this problem must be solved. I’m more confident than ever that sovereignty is the best answer for Quebec and for Canada. Then, we’ll be able to go forward as two countries together.”

Duceppe reminded us of Pierre Trudeau’s declaration in 1976 that “separatism is dead.” Two months later, the PQ won its first term of office.

Duceppe talked a lot about culture, recognizing Margaret Atwood’s presence in the room.

“Not only is culture tremendously important to our national identity, but also a huge part of our economy — it’s worth $84 billion to Canada and gives jobs to a million people.” He slammed Stephen Harper’s recent remarks that “ordinary Canadians” aren’t interested in the arts.

“I’m here to defend both Quebec and Canadian cultures,” he said. “We don’t want to live on Planet Hollywood.”

I saw a few notables aorund the room, and had a chance to visit a bit with Judy Rebick, the left-wing activist and feminist who has a new book coming out soon.

In the event that the Conservatives are returned with another minority, she’d like to see an NDP-Liberal-Bloc accord that would keep Harper from forming a government. She points to the NDP-Liberal accord engineered between Bob Rae and David Peterson in Ontario in 1985 that let the Liberals govern even though the Conservatives had won the most seats in that election.

This may sound like grasping at straws, but Mackenzie King used the same tactic once federally. He governed successfully with Progressive party support when the Tories had won the most seats.

I’ll ponder Judy’s idea and maybe write about it next week.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

Vous retrouverez ici les répliques les plus marquantes qui ont été échangées par les principaux chefs de partis lors du débat en français.

Note : Malgré un effort certes louable de sa part, Mme May n’est pas présente ici en raison de la qualité déplorable de son français. C’est regrettable pour le Parti Vert et ses sympathisants, mais il y a des limites à vouloir être équitable ou, pour employer une expression populaire, à vouloir « accommoder raisonnablement. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Dion

À M. Duceppe : « Quand est venu le moment de reconnaître la nation québécoise, le bureau de M. Harper m’a consulté et nous avons fait cela de manière à montrer que l’on peut aussi faire partie de la nation canadienne; ce qui est un problème pour M. Duceppe. »

À M. Harper (à propos des mesures environnementales qu’il propose) : « Je pense qu’on perd notre temps à discuter du faux plan de M. Harper. Il n’y a pas un seul expert qui a dit que c’était un plan sérieux. »

À M. Layton (qui dit vouloir rapatrier les troupes d’Afghanistan dès maintenant) : « On a pris un engagement. Nos alliés comptent sur nous (…) C’est une responsabilité qu’on a, comme quand on a pris nos responsabilités pour Kyoto, c’est la même chose. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Duceppe

À M. Dion : « Nous avons proposé des projets, par exemple que le français soit la langue de travail dans les banques, les ports, les aéroports, les télécommunications. Le NPD nous a appuyés, mais pas les libéraux qui pourtant reconnaissent que la loi 101 est une grande loi canadienne. »

À M. Harper : « Tout ce que vous avez trouvé à faire ce sont des politiques qui enrichissent les pétrolières. Semble-t-il qu’aux dernières nouvelles, elles n’ont pas de misère à terminer leurs fins de mois. »

À M. Layton (qui l’accuse de vouloir privatiser la santé) : « Moi je veux que ce soit un système de santé publique, mais c’est au Québec de décider en tout temps. Je pense que les Québécois sont capables de prendre eux-mêmes leurs décisions et ils n’ont pas besoin du reste du Canada pour venir leur dire quoi faire. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Harper

À M. Dion : « Vous proposez d’augmenter les taxes avec votre nouvelle taxe sur le carbone. C’est une politique qui va détruire l’économie. »

(more…)

J’ai rarement perçu dans les médias et l’électorat une opinion si polarisée lors d’une élection que celle-ci. À part peut-être lors du référendum de 1995.

Il est vrai que l’utilisation des technologies Web de réseautage social n’était pas très utilisé lors des élections. Même lors de la dernière élection provinciale, les blogues n’avaient eu qu’un impact marginal.

Il me semble que jamais auparavant voyait-on autant d’initiatives citoyennes appellant au vote stratégique, à voter pour n’importe qui sauf Conservateur. Il y a eu la vidéo de Rivard et cie (Culture en péril) qui a reçu un accueil amusé mais mitigé dans la blogosphère. Et voici maintenant Unissons nos voix et Voter pour l’environnement.

Maintenant, pourquoi ces groupes d’intérêts particuliers et lobbyistes mettent autant d’efforts à contrer l’avancée du gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper?

Si les Libéraux n’étaient pas si aplaventris, inexistants du débat public, est-ce que les artistes seraient aussi vocaux?

Je ne crois pas. Le confort d’un gouvernement providence suivant le modèle Libéral est réconfortant. En voyant que Stéphane Dion n’a aucune chance de former le gouvernement et qu’il pourrait ne pas former l’opposition officielle, les artistes, les groupes d’intérêts environnementaux, idéologistes de gauche sont pris d’une panique. Leurs groupes d’intérêts sont éparpillés dans plusieurs partis. La droite est tellement unie que même le parti Libéral en vient à passer pour un parti de gauche. Ces groupes percoivent qu’ils n’ont d’autre alternative que de défendre eux-même leurs intérêts, et à défaut de se réfugier tous sous une seule bannière, ils polarisent le débat: Il y a les méchants, les conservateurs, et il y a les bons, i.e. tous les autres partis politiques susceptibles de les contrer.

Ça me fait penser à l’hécatombe qu’avait été le passage de Le Pen au deuxième tour des présidentielles françaises à l’époque. Les gens de gauche du parti socialistes en étaient venus à appuyer Chirac, le moindre deux deux maux pour éviter que l’extrême-droite soit à la tête du pays.

Cependant, je remarque que les messages de la gauche sont démagogiques et opportunistes. Exactement ce qu’on reprochait aux partis de droite, comme l’ADQ au Québec.

Par exemple, Germain Houde va jusqu’à dire que la droite érige ses politiques en dogmes (dans sa vidéo de Unissons nos voix). Laissez-moi rire. Comme si la gauche n’avait pas érigée Kyoto en dogme environnemental. Aussi, les coupes de 45M$ dans la culture. Qu’importe si ces programmes étaient utiles, efficaces où non, il ne fallait pas couper? Où se trouve le sens critique de ces artistes? J’imagine que quand le sujet nous touche plus personellement, c’est le coeur et non la tête qui réagit.

Pour placer les idées, 45M$, c’est un peu moins que le plafond salarial d’une équipe de hockey professionnel de la NHL. En revanche, les besoins en garderie et autres programmes utiles à une majorité de canadiens se chiffrent en milliards de dollars. Pourtant, on a passé plus de temps à parler d’une coupe ridicule dans la culture que des plans d’investissement de chaques partis pour des places en garderies et autres programmes pour aider les familles.

La force du lobby des artistes m’impressionne par sa capacité à réagir promptement et à défendre ses intérêts. Cependant, je ne crois pas qu’ils aient trouvés le mot juste, ce message rassembleur qui réussira à unir cette gauche où tous les partis se battent farouchement et égoistement pour avoir leur part du gâteau.

Triste.

brem

Cet article est aussi disponible sur mon blogue personnel à martinbreton.com

One of the big disappointments of the campaign, given all the controversies over the past year, is the lack of discussion by the parties about our democratic freedoms slipping away. I am speaking of course about Canada’s so-called human rights commissions and their attempt to censor ordinary Canadians.

This isn’t just about Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and Maclean’s Magazine. From small pub owners with heart conditions spending tens of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their business for enforcing a ban on marijuana smoking, to Christian pastors being silenced from the pulpit, to doctors being investigated for declining to operate when they lack the medical background to do so safely, Canada’s human rights commissions have created a culture of fear and distrust among ordinary Canadians

Canadians should be concerned with stripping away of our freedoms and civil liberties, which are the foundation of every vibrant democracy. With the federal election underway, I can think of no better time to discuss government censorship and Canada’s human rights commissions. It is time for our politicians to show leadership and insure the rights of every Canadian are respected.

Which is why Kathy Shaidle and I have today released a book on Canada’s human rights commissions, entitled Tyranny of Nice. Mark Steyn has kindly written the introduction. You can find out more about the book by visiting TyrannyOfNice.com.

Again, Stephen Harper, the trained economist, fails to understand the true meaning of tax cuts:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is targeting families – and hoping to assuage the angered arts community – by promising a new tax credit for childhood arts programs. [...] It would be similar to the $500 Children’s Fitness Tax Credit his party introduced after the last election for children who participate in sports.

That doesn’t mean that families will find an extra $500 in their pockets:

Tax experts said a $500 tax credit on arts activity fees would likely translate into a maximum $75 for families.

In other words, this “tax break” is pure baloney. Canadians, who lose 45% of their hard-earned income to taxes, don’t need targeted tax credits, but major tax cuts across the board and, ideally, a switch to a flat tax of no more than 15% at the very most.

Shorter Brian McGarry, Conservative candidate in Ottawa-Centre: “Don’t like the arts cuts? Have a baby, li’l lady.”

[H/t Queer Thoughts and Kady O'Malley @7:41:42]

When talking about who they believe in an TV interview a voter once said “I was always taught, that when I want to evaluate someone I don’t know that well I should look at their friends.”

Well, since I don’t know Stephen Harper that well (because he hides from the media most of the time.) I thought I would evaluate his advisers, and some of the people he has appointed to the Prime Ministers Office to see what they say about him. When you look at these names prominent names in the intellectual community jump out at you. Names such as Ted Morton, Ian Brodie, Barry Cooper, David Bercuson, and Tom Flanagan.

What do all of these people have in common with each other and Mr. Harper? Well they are all products of the infamous Calgary School. These are a group of prominent Canadian political scientists and economists who share a common neo-conservative and straussian belief system.

As a primer for what a Straussian is basically : Strauss had a deep antipathy towards liberal democracy and its supposed moral relativism. He had a number of jarring beliefs: that society had to be governed by a small intellectual — and male — élite who would use “noble lies” to keep the rabble in check, that religion and fear must be used to control the masses and that perpetual war is humanity’s natural condition.

This belief system sounds familiar? Well yes, it is indeed the belief system that guided George W. Bush and a number of his top advisers for many years. But this of course isn’t the central point, so I shall gloss over this.

Of course secrecy has often been said to be paramount for Straussian to work. However, this is just a paranoid fantasy because Stephen Harper is always open and transparent with the media, really.

Ok so let’s see what do we know about these people..

Ian Brodie : Former Chief of Staff to Harper, quit due to stress from the job. Also many believe due to pressure from various people due his involvement in a certain Obama leak about NAFTA. Replaced by former Mike Harris chief of staff Guy Giorno. His most famous work is “Friends of the Court” in which he said the Canadian Supreme tended to prefer special interest groups, and minorities over the will (tyranny?) of the many.

Ted Morton : Minister of Sustainable resource development, current MLA in Alberta. Quite famous for his private member bills Bill 208 : 1. information about G/L/B/T not be allowed in schools, 2. marriage commissionaires could opt out of performing same-sex marriages, and 3. that a person expressing their opinion/ideas about homosexuality could not have a claim of discrimination brought against them.

Barry Cooper – Canadian Political Scientiest at the University of Calgary. Also known to be one of Stephen Harpers friends, and advisers.  Cooper is involved in the Non-Profit organization – “Friends of Science” which is known to – ‘offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change.’ . Many believe the group is little more than a lobby for Alberta oil and gas industry.

David Bercusson – a Professor and Political Scientist at the University of Calgary. Also known to be a Harper adviser. Famous for his book Canada without Quebec – in which he argued Canada would probably be better without Quebec.

Tom Flannagan – Political Scientist at the Frasier institute, adviser to Stephen Harper. Has been dubbed “The Prince of Darkness” . Has been accused of having possibly racist views of Lois Riel and the First Nations.  Was said to be one of the officials who supposedly approached Chuck Cadman in the now infamous Cadman bribery scandal.

So, what does this say about Mr. Harper. What would Mr. Harper do if he won a majority?

Dear Peter Kent:

Given your position on the Board of the far-right “Canadian Coalition for Democracies”:

1) Do you support the CCD’s lobbying for diplomatic and economic ties with the Indian state of Gujurat, where rioters, with government complicity, murdered, raped and dispossessed tens of thousands of Muslims, and where schoolchildren are taught to admire Adolf Hitler?

2) Did you endorse the CCD’s position in favour of firing Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, for chairing a meeting that awarded an Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler?

3) Do you believe, with the CCD, that “many” Members of Parliament are “apologists for terrorists who celebrate the killing and maiming of men, women, and children?”

4) If yes, who are these Parliamentarians?

5) Do you endorse the smearing of David Suzuki by your president, Alistair Gordon, and his irresponsible retailing of the anti-environmentalist lie that a DDT ban killed millions in sub-Saharan Africa?

6) As a member of the CCD Board, what role did you play in the attempted character assassination of Liberal MP Omar Alghabra in 2005–for which your organization later had to apologize and retract?

7) Do you believe, with your colleague David Harris, that Muslim terrorists have infiltrated the FBI and CIA, the State Department, the U.S. Muslim military chaplain corps, the White House, Homeland Security, the U.S. Air Force, Guantanamo, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons–and in Canada, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Quebec NDP?

8 ) Do you take the view, as your colleague Salim Mansour does, that Canada should walk out of the UN?

9) Do you believe that veiled Muslim women at the polls might be engaging in criminal acts including suicide bombing, as a CCD press release suggests? (Are you aware that the current provisions of the Canada Elections Act permit such women to vote without unveiling, so long as they are not relying on photo ID as proof of identity?)

10) Do you support the bombing of Iran, like your colleague David Harris?

Canadians are inching towards the big election day on October 14, although most voters in this country are glued to their TV sets watching the terrible financial debacle in the United States unfold. One newspaper columnist has suggested that the Canadian election should be suspended until it can generate as much momentum and interest as the race south of the border. This is missing the point entirely, because the Canadian landscape is about to be altered in a very big way for a long time to come.

The U.S. race for the White House is of interest to Canadians, no doubt, if nothing else than for the historic first-time African-American candidate who seems to be winning the race, thus making the 2008 U.S. election a truly historic event to remember. Other than that, though, the campaign in the U.S. is driven by a crisis that no one would wish on their worst enemy. This is hardly the kind of momentum or interest that we in Canada should be wishing for.

The election in Canada is much more interesting for one single fact: it will change Canadian politics in a way as it never has before. The former Big Red Machine, the Liberal Party a.k.a. “Canada’s natural governing party” and now just a shadow of its former self, is at risk of being decimated on election day and could end up in third place behind the social-democratic NDP. Based on one of the most recent polls, the NDP has pulled to within four points of the Liberals, well within the margin of error. While having formed a number of provincial governments, the NDP has never managed to get anywhere close to real power in federal politics. With NDP leader Jack Layton’s popularity rising, way ahead of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, this election could produce an unprecedented result for Canada’s social democrats.
(more…)

A nice TV ad from NDP playing in Québec sums it all.

In English:

A vote for the conservatives: It’s a vote for closed mind politics, for cuts in culture. It’s a vote against Kyoto [Against gay union]. It’s a vote pro-war which enslave us toward oil company.

That a really good summary of why I just can’t put my mark for Stephen Harper on October 14th.  That being said, I won’t necessarily vote for Mr. Layton.

How did culture become the issue in the election? The feds spend $45 million every ninety minutes and that’s what the media is focused on? Why are Harper and Dion even talking about this? Come on!

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.

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

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]

On peut aimer ou pas Josée Verner mais tout le monde semble avoir son opinion sur la députée de Louis-St-Laurent.

L’annonce de coupures dans divers programmes de visibilité et de promotion de la culture a mené à une levée de boucliers du milieu artistique et ce, dans la plus totale indifférence de la population. Si les artistes veulent se faire entendre dans cette élection, ils auront intérêt à resserrer le message car, pour l’instant, c’est une véritable catastrophe de relations publiques. Des initiatives comme le concert contre les coupures et le site JeVotePourLaCulture.com sont louables mais demeurent marginales face au typhon d’information dans lequel on demande aux électeurs de se faire une opinion.

Dans une entrevue publiée dans le quotidien Le Soleil jeudi dernier, la ministre du Patrimoine mentionne que s’il y a eu beaucoup de bruit autour de cette série de décisions dans les médias, ce n’est pas le cas sur le terrain. Elle l’a répété en soirée sur les ondes du Réseau de l’information, ajoutant au passage qu’elle remplacerait les programmes abolis (ce qu’elle avait déjà laissé entendre en août). Le tout dans une enveloppe malhabilement vaporeuse qui en dit peu sur les réelles intentions de Mme Verner (sera-t-elle toujours à son poste après les élections?), qui n’a rien cassé comme ministre depuis son élection en 2006.

Mais en même temps, est-ce que possible qu’elle ait raison?

Le préjugé numéro 1 qu’on véhicule depuis maintenant plusieurs semaines touche le train de vie et le statut privilégié des artistes. Bien sûr, pas un mot sur la majorité d’artistes sous le seuil de la pauvreté.

Sauf que les très nombreux “artistes de salon” (il n’y a rien de péjoratif dans ce terme), qui oeuvrent le jour dans des bureaux ou des ateliers pour se rabattre sur la peinture ou la musique le soir venu, ne reçoivent pas de subvention. Il est exagérément populiste de laisser entendre que les artistes n’ont qu’à se trouver une vraie job (faites le tour des blogues de médias traditionnels, ils sont plusieurs), mais en même temps, peut-on en vouloir de le penser à celui qui travaille 40 heures par semaine, qui occupe ses temps libres à composer ou à sculpter et qui ne demanderait probablement pas mieux que de faire ça à l’année?

N’oublions pas que le pouvoir d’achat des consommateurs diminue sans cesse, ce qui les rendra toujours plus mécontents à l’idée de “donner de l’argent pour faire vivre” ceux qu’ils jugent être des privilégiés. Le meilleur exemple à ce sujet vient de cet auditeur qui s’étonnait, quelque part cette semaine dans une tribune radiophonique, que la culture soit si extraordinaire (enfin, selon ce que le monde de la culture avance lui-même) au niveau des retombées économiques alors qu’elle semble si inapte à réinvestir ses dernières afin de sortir les artistes du cercle vicieux des subventions gouvernementales.

Puis, de mémoire, le monsieur mentionnait “qu’en Afrique, on montre des techniques modernes aux agriculteurs car on a compris que c’était le meilleur moyen de les sortir de la misère.” Puis de comparer la culture à l’industrie québécoise des chevaux de course.

La comparaison était (très) boiteuse mais pas dénuée d’intérêt car devant des arguments aussi populistes, il ramène le débat devant le contribuable, celui qui paie. Qu’attendons-nous de nos artistes et que sommes-nous prêts à faire pour les aider? Doit-on les aider perpétuellement

Et si c’est le cas, est-ce que les programmes passés étaient les meilleurs? Peut-on les améliorer?

Et si Josée Verner avait raison?

This morning I amassed all the election flyers that have come in the mail and noticed something odd about the Conservative flyer.

St. Boniface is traditionally Francophone. The last two Liberal MPs have both been francophone. Raymond Simard is currently the Liberal incumbent. On a provincial level, the current MLA Greg Selinger is anglophone. However he married a francophone who taught him french and is raising his children francophone. His accent is horrible but he puts in the effort which endears him to the francophone community. So with that in mind, you’d think the Conservatives and the NDP would choose candidates that can at least speak French.

The NDP has, in a way. Matt Schaubreck went through French Immersion. Admittedly, I haven’t received a flyer from the NDP yet, but I went to school with him. Shelley Glover of the Conservatives appears to be an anglophone. The flyer that was dropped in my mailbox(BEFORE the election was called!) doesn’t mention whether or not she speaks French, but makes a big thing of her work the Winnipeg Police Service.

Francophones will always want someone who understands their need to preserve their language and culture, and many will vote based on the candidates langue maternelle. If the Conservatives really wanted to win St. Boniface, they would have put an obvious francophone in the race.

Sault Ste. Marie’s Liberal candidate Paul Bichler obviously learned nothing about his party’s beer & popcorn moment during the last election. Bichler was parachuted in as an ‘all star candidate’ to knock off NDP incumbent Tony Martin. Local voters generally view Tony as “a nice guy,” but nowhere as effective in bringing money to the riding as his provincial counterpart Liberal MPP David Orazietti.

In responding descriptions of Tony as a nice guy, Bichler states: “I also had a nice guy serving me breakfast this morning. I don’t want him representing me in Ottawa.”

I’ve worked both American and Canadian campaigns as a communications strategist. I learned long ago not to let the rough and tumble of politics bother me personally. But I’m offended by Bichler’s comment.

During high school, I worked counter as a McDonald’s food server to help pay for university. The same with my wife. So did most of our friends at one time or another. It is good honest work (Which is why I would trust a server in political officer before I trusted a politician involved in Adscam to serve me breakfast). Serving food is something to which I and about half the population can relate. So branding Tony a food server actually works… for Tony. In contrast, few Canadians have experienced the perks of being elected a Liberal politicians, whose superiority Bichler is asserting over mere food servers.

Three years’ ago, I ran the communications strategy for Ken Walker, the local Conservative candidate. The first rule I instituted on Ken’s campaign was the following: “Never insult waiters/ waitresses, taxi drivers, or barbers/ hair dressers.” There’s lots of them within our community, and their job entails listening all day to people talk. I often find people working these trades more accurate political predictors than pollsters and political scientists.

The second rule follows closely: “Always tip them 10 percent more than expected.” Simply put, because they talk to people all day, you want them to carry a favorable impression (and hence talk favorably) about your candidate.

The third rule in our working-class riding became, once uttered: “Hammer home the beer & popcorn comment.” This was key to stopping the Liberals last time around, because it showed the smug disconnect between their leaders and the people they governed.