This information is noteworthy and should be read and internalized by all Canadians before heading to the polls on October 14. It is proof positive, yet again, that on October 14, the only right way to vote is Anything But Liberal (ABL) or Anyone But Dion (ABD) – emphasis added:

Strange, isn’t it? Along with other Canadian journalists, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge (to cite only one example) uses the word “massive” to describe the $700-billion (U.S.) economic rescue package in the United States – but declines to use it to describe the cost of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s election promises. Why this deference? Most analysts say that Mr. Dion’s promises would cost $80-billion (Canadian). Based on population numbers and using the usual 10-to-1 conversion ratio, Mr. Dion’s promises would thus cost the U.S. equivalent of $800-billion in supplementary spending. If the U.S. credit crunch expenditure is massive, Mr. Dion’s campaign promise expenditures must necessarily be massive, too.

Throw in a high-speed train service between Toronto and Montreal, which Mr. Dion has endorsed but hasn’t promised (at a cost of another $20-billion), and the Liberal Leader – his promises again expressed in cross-border conversion – hits $1-trillion in campaign commitments, making the credit crunch relief operation look quite restrained and, in an odd way, less important than the restoration of Liberal rule in Canada.

In this relative kind of comparison, useful in keeping things in perspective, Mr. Dion’s election promises exceed the cost of the U.S. government’s emergency credit crunch bailout. Yet Mr. Dion’s promises exceed the U.S. bailout in absolute terms – when compared on a per-capita basis. Mr. Dion’s promises would increase government spending by $2,424 for each man, woman and child in the country; the U.S. emergency funding package would increase government spending by $2,330.

Michael Byers, (NDP Candidate – Vancouver Center), very passionately told an audience today the tar sands should be shut down. It is not the official position of the NDP, who want a moratorium on the pace of the tar sands development, pending studies on the environment.

However, there are many voices in this country, sending distress signals using the internet, that want the tar sands development to stop, yes stop, now, because it has become “the dirtiest oil on the planet”.

If one pauses before thinking the thought “that no matter what the cost, the world needs oil and Canada needs to be richer in the world”, then maybe it is possible to think about the kind of planet this will be if we ruin it for our children and theirs.

Surely if humans survived on this planet in previous centuries and millenia without such a huge dependence on oil, we can figure out a way to do it again before it is too late…

This morning I had the opportunity to talk for a few minutes to the Conservative candidate in the riding of St-Laurent-Cartierville.  Dennis Galiatsatos, told me that he has been going door to door in the riding and the issue which seems to be the most important is “taxes”.  

Let’s face it, we all hate “taxes”.  I said to the candidate,  “But taxes go hand-in-hand with services and people are also complaining about service cuts.”

The candidate replied to me, that he is totally aware of how voters seem to want their bread buttered on both sides….

I am asking, now, how it is we can have the kind of population who do not understand the relationship between taxes and services.   Afterall,  personal  income tax has come down since 2004 and Canada’s budgetary surplus.  But everyone complains about underfunding in so many areas!  Although complaints are especially about our most expensive program, Healthcare, (which the average US citizen has to pay a minimun of $500 per month for from their own take home pay), complaints about so many other issues which are often governed by provinces, cities and municipalities are also made.    Oh yes, and gasoline taxes!  Whose responsibility is that?

I look at the very privatized and unregulated US economy now and think, “Here is one of the most powerful countries in the world.  And now, with a laissez-faire approach to their economy, is now finding themselves facing bankruptcy. 

To close,  I would rather pay my share of taxes and have services I need in a somewhat regulated economy.  I also want to see monitoring of some of the most important resources we have to keep us afloat as an independant, parliamentary democracy.  That is also why I support and will continue to support the New Democratic Party.

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.

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.

The local subscription daily in Kelowna, the Daily Courier posted a story about the lack of enthusiasm for politics up at UBCO. UBCO is a only a few years old, and has a fairly small student body.  But the piece states, the students have let the party affiliate clubs lapse and haven’t got them going for the year yet.  This is deep blue conservative country, but a little student interest would be nice. See how much they care http://kelownadailycourier.ca/stories_local.php?id=134778 

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.

I took in some NDP free pizza and an information session at the UofR campus on Friday September 12, at noon. In attendance were 3 federal NDP candidate including Stephen Moore who is contesting the riding I live in — Wascana (Regina south east corner). Of course, Ralph Goodale has long held onto this riding, and will no doubt be the favourite. I spoke with Stephen briefly as we bumped into each other walking to work, and I asked him, “I hear you’ve got a shot this election?” to which he replied something to the effect that he’ll be working hard to win it.

I found it interesting that there were about as many provincial NDP MLAs and nominees there as there were federal nominees. The questions covered mostly education and poverty, with touches upon agricultural input costs which are skyrocketing with few profit returns on the same scale. Here’s a YouTube vide of McCall:

Former Education minister Warren McCall made a good point (I thought) about the voters in the province apparently rewarding Stephen Harper with votes despite a broken $800 Million equalization promise for which McCall’s government launched a (now canceled) court challenge over. He seemed incredulous that voters would choose to do that, and I admit I feel the same way. It certainly feels like the Conservatives knew they could take Saskatchewan’s seats for granted, so they could spend our promised equalization money elsewhere, to curry favour in battlegrounds like Quebec.

The NDP candidates promised to increase corporate taxes, and decrease taxes on the average Canadian person. They also stressed a desire to ensure small farms can compete in the world market without intimidation from Cargill or any large corporation they view as bullying the Canadian Wheat Board into non-existence. There was criticism for Harper’s attacks on the Wheat Board, which they called “illegal”.

Columnist Lawrence Martin has it right when he writes in a recent column that the 2008 election is void of any grand ideas. There is absolutely nothing that excites voters to the extent that they would follow candidates around like obedient puppies and fawn all over them, including Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift.

Who really cares if the price of diesel is dropped by a measly few cents? In the final analysis, things like that matter less than the proverbial drop in the ocean.

For years, I have urged our political leaders to consider open and universally accessible education at all levels, from kindergarten to post-graduate studies. This is very common in many other countries, including those that are a lot less prosperous than Canada. It has always been my contention that government could be reduced quite substantially if education were opened up like that, because it would give everyone the means to look after themselves, even at the worst economic times, without having to rely on welfare and other taxpayer-funded handouts.

Now this would be the kind of grand project for Canada’s future that Martin and I find lacking in this election. And what are our politicians doing? They allow themselves to get bogged down in trivialities (and bird excrement).