The financial meltdown has taken on epic proportions. The thought  is that it can be fixed quickly by intense government intervention. And I mean intense.  The verdict is not in. Not long ago talk of such intervention would have been laughed out of court by the market wizards . I don’t hear much laughter now. Not much mea culpa either.  What about climate change?  Strong government intervention in the tax/regulation system   in support of carbon reducation  is derided right now  by the same market wizards  who said let the markets do their thing as they bulked up on toxic securities based on predatory lending.  Looks like someone should ask them to eat their shirt? Anyone out there in this election doing that? If they are maybe we should vote for them?

A commentary by Elsie Hambrook, Chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, is a must-read.

When Doris Anderson, former and famed editor of Chatelaine and lifelong activist, came to Saint John on a stormy winter night in 2003, drawing hundreds of women to hear her speak on electoral reform, she confided something that, years later, still makes some of us think…

Getting the message out to the public [no matter what it is] is damn hard these days. Not just because the media and corporate and party elites are so strongly against democratic and electoral reform, but because, among other things, locations where people come together are increasingly not available for canvassing or soliciting.

For example, at the All Candidates Meeting in my community, I wanted to distribute Fair Vote Canada flyers on the seats in the theatre. I’d printed off 250 flyers, plus sheets of the FVC petition for candidates and audience members to sign (was hoping to ask a question at the mic on ER/PR).

When I arrived at the ACM venue, I asked permission of the manager to distribute my flyers on the theatre seats.

Denied.

So I asked permission to distribute the flyers outside, at the front of the building.

Denied again.

Even the purportedly public sidewalk fronting the building was off-limits….

Full article

La lutte dans le comté est toujours bien engagée et plus serrée que dans d’autres régions du Québec. Par contre, Greg a retiré le “?” pour le remplacé par un logo du Bloc dans ses dernières prédictions. Le Bloc était favori au départ un peu partout dans l’est du Québec sauf que la vague conservatrice menaçait sérieusement. Les ratés de la campagne conservatrice en fin de course redonne le peu qu’il manquait au bloquistes pour vraiment l’emporter un peu partout dans l’est, de Kamouraska jusqu’à Gaspé et incluant la Côte-Nord. La remontée des libéraux dans la dernière semaine est cependant à surveiller de près, car comme mentionné plus tôt, je suis certain que les libéraux auront un meilleur score ici que dans l’ensemble du Québec à cause de la candidate locale.

Messages des candidats juste avant que les électeurs arrêtent leur vote:

NANCY CHAREST, PARTI LIBÉRAL
– A promis un projet fédéral porteur dans chacune des 4 MRC (ex: rénovation des installations portuaires à St-Anne-des-Monts, prêt sans intérêt pour un projet éolien communautaire dans la Mitis)
- Sondage interne du parti donne les libéraux gagnants le 7 oct.(!)
- Support du célèbre général Roméo Dallaire
- Long bilan personnel d’implication politique et de réalisations dans la région, implication récente dans l’industrie éolienne
- Elle vante les mérites du plan économique et environnemental du PLC pour les familles de la région

JÉRÔME LANDRY, PARTI CONSERVATEUR
- Souhaite mettre en place un programme de valorisation des produits forestiers et de développement des énergies alternatives
- Vante le futur programme de développement économique du PCC qui avantagerait les régions défavorisées
- Insiste sur le fait que les électeurs seront gagnants d’avoir enfin un député efficace, travaillant au sein du parti qui est au pouvoir
- Long bilan personnel d’implication environnementale et économique dans la région

JEAN-YVES ROY, BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS
- Il va tenter d’obtenir du gouvernement un programme de soutient de revenu pour les personnes agées qui perdent leur emploi
- Insiste sur le fait qu’il faut bloquer l’arrivée d’un gouvernement conservateur majoritaire; freiner l’idéologie du parti qui ne nous ressemble pas et protéger nos acquis sociaux qui seraient en péril sous les conservateurs selon M. Roy

LOUIS DRAINVILLE, PARTI VERT
- Prône l’achat local et une agriculture équilibrée, humaine, auto-suffisante pour la Gaspésie
- Mentionne qu’une gaspésie aux politiques vertes attirerait les jeunes et les investisseurs
- Biologiste et agronome originaire de Lanaudière, implication personnelle en énergies renouvelables (éolien surtout) et agronomie dans notre région

JULIE DEMERS, NPD
- Malheureusement invisible dans la campagne. La candidate du NPD semble être originaire de la Saskatchewan et habite présentement à Montréal.

LILIANE POTVIN
- Malheureusement invisible dans la campagne.

VISIBILITÉ GÉNÉRALE
Personnellement, j’habite Baie-des-Sables et je témoigne en tant que tel:

Débat = Annulé à cause de l’absence de J-Y Roy (Bloc). Extrêmement décevant, on dirait que M.Roy confirme l’idée circulant qu’il n’est pas très très présent sur le territoire…
Pancartes = Bloc et Conservateur
Téléphone pour sortir le vote = Bloc
Pamphlets explicatifs = Bloc, Vert, Libéral
Invitation à rencontrer le candidat pour discussion = Libéral
Visites à domicile = Aucune
Sites web = Tous sauf la candidate indépendante (sites étoffés = Libéral et Conservateur)

News Flash!

Conservative incumbent David Sweet representing the Hamilton area riding of Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale says that “Stephen Harper is not the bad guy some make him out to be”. I could follow that by saying something like “details at 11″…. but there aren’t many details…again.

True to form for this riding and in many other currently conservative enclaves, the incumbent said little of substance during an all candidates forum recently taped for the local cable TV outlet. When pressed about his government’s action on climate change he did make the relatively shocking statement that (presumably under Mr. Harper’s leadership) “Canada is working toward a global consensus on climate change”.

These comments come in the last week of an election campaign, for the duration of which the local conservative candidate has added to his record of relative silence and inactivity in his riding. Could this be because conservative members (who according to Sweet, Mr. Harper is “prepared to hear from at open mikes” during caucus meetings) seem to be on a short leash in public or is it because their platform was only released this week?

Credit to Green Party Candidate Peter Ormond for raising the question of muzzling of conservative MPs by party leadership when it comes to Climate Change and Global Warming. The entire country has been muzzled it seems, not just conservative MPs.

For example Andrew Weaver a world renowned Canadian Climate Scientist has stated that there has been a “war against science” carried out by the the Harper Conservatives. You may recall that Weaver a member of the Nobel winning IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was snubbed by Prime Minister Harper who refused to attend a Parliament Hill event held earlier this year to recognize the IPCC’s Nobel prize. Weaver is not alone. The recently produced Health Canada report on the effects of Climate Change has been withheld and the public engagement process meant to go along with it cancelled by the Harper govenrment.

With NDP candidate Gordon Guyatt away in Europe at a medical conference, it seems that the riding is shifting into the widely endorsed hands of Liberal Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek. The broad spectrum of support for her comes from within the riding as well from outside where climate change experts and concerned Canadians agree that the Liberal platform continues to hold out the greatest opportunity at the intersection of the environment and the economy.

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…)

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!

Last night’s community meeting attended by “all Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale (ADFW) candidates” was a sobering reminder that politics can be as much about saying as little as possible as it is about recognizing and dealing with important issues. In an election campaign that was short enough to leave candidates little downtime, the cast of characters at the Dundas Lions Memorial Centre Tuesday evening seemed to lack both urgency and conviction. This was ridiculous just 14 days before a crucial election.

The crowd in attendance was primarily reflective of Dundas’ demographic (young seniors) as well as a cross section of voters including some students, party workers (read NDP “hall packers” mostly) and a few who indicated by their early departures that they expected more.

The format for the evening was questions for all candidates submitted by the audience to a panel prior to the meetings start, who then selected the questions that they wanted to ask with no scrutiny or discussion amongst them. There was no interaction between candidates. While this format may work well for US TV debates, it unfortunately set and secured the tone for this drab affair.

“What does supporting the troops mean to you?”.

This was the first question of the evening and provided the first respondent (a fill in for the local Marxist Leninist Candidate) the opportunity to garner the first of dozens of rounds of polite applause given each speaker for the remainder of the evening no matter what they said. To stay with this first speaker for a moment, her response was “bringing them home” which actually brought quite a rousing response from the audience. Good for her I thought, I like what she is saying…but she isn’t a candidate in this riding.

Every speaker who answered that question said more or less the same thing with the Liberal candidate qualifying her comments and the incumbent David Sweet going on briefly about the successes of the mission.

For the balance of the evening the questions for the most part appealed the tastes of NDP candidate Gordon Guyatt. Perhaps Dr. Guyatt, who is both a physician and a professor in medicine did better than the other candidates on almost questions because having unsuccessfully run for office so many times he’s had alot of practise (or is that practice!). He answered well on national health care issues and foreign policy.

He was the only participant who ran slightly against the pattern of the evenings format. He took a few opportunities to question the Conservative record on the economy (“I’m glad that Mr. Sweet is so confident that our economic fundamentals are in good order…but I believe that I was hearing the same thing from the US a month ago…”).  Guyatt also used his opening remarks to comment on food safety, another strong safe topic for him.

Unfortunately, with the “randomly selected” questions slanted for the NDP candidate by the large NDP contingent, Guyatt was unable to provide convincing proof that his party has a handle on any issue outside of withdrawal from Afghanistan (appealing but in reality not gonna happen in the timeframe Layton suggests) and no 2 tier health care (great but we don’t need the NDP to tell us that 2 tier is not good idea).

Which leads me to the conclusion that Dr. Guyatt is a great resource for his patients and the university that employs him not to mention the many national issues upon which he focuses by involvement in committees and studies. I’ll vote for him to stay where he is. As for Jack Layton, well he gives a great rally!

Unfortunately, the evening’s other disappointment was Green Party Candidate Peter Ormond. A professional engineer, Ormond would presumably be a good person to apply his knowledge and intellect to some of the pressing problems in this region. In particular one which he mentioned is the whole area of infrastructure. Although he didn’t personally articulate any of this clearly, there is an opportunity to make many improvements in mass transit (couldn’t believe that David Sweet actually took credit for new buses for “downtown Hamilton” as he called it), energy efficiency, utilities and others that would seem to fit a Green Party vision.

“The Green Party have a plan that you can read online”, Ormond told the audience. However, he didn’t seem conversant with it, and certainly did not come across as engaged in any of the issues that many in this community no matter what their politics might like to see addressed. By the evening’s end it was the greener David Sweet of the Conservatives who had proclaimed that he and Stephen Harper had “cleaned up the Randall Reef” (a toxic hotspot in Hamilton Harbour).

David Sweet, despite his attempts as noted above to proclaim himself a friend of the environment, was the prime beneficiary of the failed meeting format. With no interaction between candidates, Sweet was able to paint a happy picture (although the picture would have to be classified as abstract) and when he wasn’t the first to speak on a question simply followed suit with the other speakers. There’s leadership.

Not one question related to climate change made it through the “random vetting” process. Thus, Sweet could spin comments around his limited knowledge of Green Shift to a rant about “increased taxes” and less money for us. It was interesting also to hear him parroting Stephen Harper’s recently retired attack General Rick Hillier, and his comments about military spending…”we’ve come out of a dark era”…. Would Mr. Sweet care to estimate the cost of this new era of warmaking?

The response by the audience to Mr. Sweet was clearly polite dismissal. There is no doubt that people who take time to attend a meeting like this are: seeking information; taking an opportunity to support their candidate; more engaged than most in the community. So, while Mr. Sweet no doubt thinks he has already won this riding those in attendance were trying to tell him something else. No performance by this incumbent in Ottawa, his attachment to some very questionable ideals and fear of a Stephen Harper majority and all that that might do to the country earned him the political equivalent of a polite “bronx cheer” last night in Dundas Ontario.

Liberal Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek has a huge challenge that magnified itself throughout the evening. Endorsed by many in the community, and now even nationally (www.voteforenvironment.ca) MacFarlane VanderBeek stands on the verge of returning the riding to the Liberals. The non-interactive nature of an all candidates meeting like this seems not to be the real means through which her goals will be achieved though.

Her responses to questions, often sandwiched between the comments of candidates with no hope of election (who tended to say whatever they thought would get a rise from the audience) gave her the appearance of a sort of unnatural hesitancy to take on the Conservatives. She was able to accurately reflect at numerous times, from a timetable for troop withdrawal…to Green Shift as both an economic and environmental plan…to the Liberal opposition to privitization of healthcare…to improved care for seniors…well known Liberal policy, (well, it might have been better known had Mr. Harper not chosen to spend millions on attack and discredit ads, but I digress).

The challenge for this Liberal Candidate is that many people are living with out of date information about her party and its policies. They don’t know enough about the strength of not only its leader but also the incredible front bench talent that the party would have in government. And, she may have assumed incorrectly that her own long term commitment to this community is well known and understood.

Part of this assumption may be forgiven (not really but here’s the theory anyway) that in the past, beginning with Conservative David Sweet and some of those who came before him, not much was expected from the local MP. Sweet has perhaps overachieved in this race to the bottom, but if one takes a longer range look this riding has put little pressure on either major party to perform here.

Thankfully, that is changing and Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek would appear to be a refreshing force for practical solutions and re-connection between Ottawa and ADFW. Her further challenge will be to continue to update all voters on both the Liberal party and their Green Shift platform which best reflects the reality of 2008.

Her responsibility in the next several days would appear to be to reach out to the thousands of voters who see the need to prevent a further widening of the gap between Canadians and their government. In other words those who view the possibility of conservative government as a further shift to a right wing, republican type entity with no energy/climate plan that in no way represents as many as 60% of voters or their aspirations.

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

Every Canadian is familiar with this bon mot: When America has the sniffles, Canada comes down with the flu. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to figure out what will happen to the Canadian economy now that America has suffered a massive stroke, which will see the patient in intensive care, in an induced coma, for a long time to come.

Compared to the mess that once used to be the United States of America, Canada is still doing relatively fine. But it is just a matter of time before the American consumers’ inability to shop will seriously eat into Canadian companies’ profits and viability. Most of Canada’s exports are destined for the U.S., yet when Americans no longer have the spending power to buy those products, the Canadian economy could take a major hit.

One of the worst problem areas in Canada is Ontario. Its manufacturing sector has been eroded, with thousands of jobs having been lost in the automotive sector in particular. The provincial government and labour unions have been calling on the federal government to provide the necessary funds to prop up the ailing sector, but any financial injection would be a short-term solution only. Ontario’s problems are more of a structural, than a cyclical, nature: an excessive tax burden, out-of-control government spending and programs that are way too generous by anyone’s standards – not to mention the fact that the automotive sector is not what it used to be, nor will it ever return to its old grandeur.
(more…)

L’article de Tristan Péloquin, disponible sur cyberpresse, nous apprend que les conservateurs refusent encore de divulguer leur position environnemental, s’il en ont une…

«C’est à la fois honteux et inquiétant que le gouvernement (et son parti) ne prenne pas le temps de répondre à des questions qui couvrent un enjeu prioritaire pour une grande partie de la population», déplore Steven Guilbault, coordonnateur d’Équiterre.

Effectivement, c’est la troisième élections consécutives que le Parti Conservateur du Canada refusent de répondre au questionnaire d’Équiterre, un organisme environnemental sérieux cofondé par Steven Guilbault, ancien porte-parole de Greenpeace Québec. Ce que je trouve le plus préoccupant c’est qu’Harper préfère se taire plutôt que de divulguer ses vrais couleurs, balayant ainsi la populaire question sous le tapis. Tout ceci ne laisse qu’envisagé des relations houleuses entre un futur gouvernement Harper majoritaire et les différents organismes environnementaux.

Sur une note plus positive, il est à noter que les quatre autres grands partis fédéraux ont tous eux des notes presque parfaites. Les Verts et le bloc mènent le chemin avec des notes de 12/12, suivi du NPD à 11/12 et des Libéraux a 10/12. Les résultats du questionnaire sont disponible içi.

Nuclear energy has been one of the primary election issues this year in the northern Alberta riding of Peace River. Peace River is the proposed site of the first new nuclear power plant in Canada’s west. The project, initially started by Energy Alberta and now spear-headed by Bruce Power, would see a twin reactor built on the shores of Lac Cardinal, near Grimshaw and Peace River in northern Alberta.The project has been controversial, sparking the revitalization of the Peace River Environmental Society (PRES) and the creation of several new groups, such as Citizens Against Nuclear Development (CAND), a group of over 250 landowners in the Grimshaw area fighting the project, and Stop Poisoning Our Communities (SPOC) in nearby Grande Prairie. A new province-wide coalition of all related groups has also been formed to keep Alberta nuclear free. Most of those opposed are concerned about potential contamination of the Grimshaw Aquifer, and the problem of nuclear waste.

Nuclear was a big issue in the recent municipal elections, and several municipal politicians in Peace River and surrounding municipalities were elected–or run out of office–over the issue. Now it’s shaping up to be an issue in the federal election as well.

At the recent election forum in Grande Prairie, always the biggest in the riding, nuclear was one of the top issues raised. The local daily paper reported that the forum was “dominantly green” with big issues being nuclear power, greenhouse gases, and alternative sources of energy. Nuclear power is also sure to be a hot topic at this week’s upcoming forum in Peace River.

Incumbent Conservative MP Chris Warkentin so far claims to have no position on nuclear energy, although the Conservative government recently signed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership with the U.S.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May summarily rejected nuclear power in Alberta during a stop in Edmonton on her cross-Canada tour, and Peace River Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun has spoken out on the issue during her own campaign.

NDP candidate Adele Boucher Rymhs, meanwhile, is running expressly to stop the nuclear power plant. She is a secretary of CAND and a vice-president of Nuclear Free Alberta (NFA), and previously placed second behind Conservative MLA Frank Oberle in the provincial election running on the same issue.

Of course, it remains to be seen how much opposition to nuclear affects election results in the Peace, a long-time Conservative seat. However, the emphasis on environmental topics is certainly new, since it didn’t play nearly as strong of a role in the last election, and that might give non-Conservative candidates a boost.

It’s amazing what two and a half years in Ottawa can do to decent people. For starters, they lose of all sense of humour and creativity (National Post columnist Don Martin is a textbook example of that). Then, common sense is thrown overboard in giant-sized buckets – again, this is true of Martin but even more so of the Prime Minister, it seems:

Harper said Friday during an election campaign stop in Calgary that his government would ban the export of the heavy black oil from Alberta to countries with lax environmental laws, specifically countries with more lenient greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies than Canada.

Harper claims that this would be constitutional, as the federal government controls exports, but he may be seriously wrong on that point, as columnist Don Braid explains:

The worst they’ve ever done on that front, as part of the old National Energy Program, was to tax petroleum sales into the U.S. Alberta took Ottawa to court on that matter and won in March 1981. Back then, the provincial Tories treated the NEP like the invasion of the body snatchers.

Natural resources belong to the provinces; Ottawa has no legal say or control in such provincial assets. This is also why a federal carbon tax, as opposed to a provincial one, is unconstitutional (unfortunately, Stéphane Dion has not advanced in his legal studies far enough to understand that).

Whether it is taxes slapped on exports or an outright ban, the established case law from 1981 certainly applies in both cases. However, Ottawa has never allowed itself to be slowed down by “mere technicalities”. So, it must be assumed that this ban will go forward.

This will wreak havoc on the oil industry. One of the fundamental principles in doing business is stability and certainty. Do business in Venezuela, a country run by a lunatic who should be in a straitjacket around the clock, and you never know what to expect – such as your company being stolen (“nationalized”) right from under your nose by that very lunatic.

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach has done his own share in creating uncertainty in the oil business after announcing that he would increase oil royalties last year, but without being too specific on exact amounts and the timeframe. This has resulted in a high degree of uncertainty among the oil barons, many of whom have therefore shifted their focus to Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

If businesspeople are caught hanging in midair and never know what to expect from one day to the next, they will take their business to more stable environments.

Harper’s announcement will add to this insecurity, particularly so as this ban will most certainly be taken to the courts by the Alberta government, with Edmonton and Ottawa wrangling over the issue for who-knows-how-long up and down the various instances of the legal system. It is probably not overly pessimistic to predict a more accelerated pullout of oil companies.

As Don Braid writes, this could be much worse than the NEP (or Dion’s Green Shift) itself:

But as Liberal support begins to collapse, Harper can now claim he’s even gone them one better on the environment, with his own province carrying most of the burden.

Expect voter turnout in Alberta to drop even further after this. Albertans are already sufficiently cynical about politics and sick and tired of being pushed around. Harper’s latest move only reinforces one view that Albertans have held for a long time: It doesn’t matter who is in charge in Ottawa; eventually they will find a way to screw Alberta over (which is why I am an Anything-But-Liberal, Post-Partisan Sovereigntist).

Harper’s bitumen ban will not immediately enliven a separatist movement in Alberta, but it will be jotted down as yet another federal wrong visited upon Alberta. Wait for one or two more shoes to drop like this in the near future, and Alberta will have a sovereigntist movement and party that will show the Bloc Québécois how it is done properly.

Yours truly will be among those leading the charge.

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.

Green Party candidate Elizabeth May brought her whistle stop campaign to Kingston this morning. A lively crowd awaited the VIA train from Toronto and the lights in the distance seemed to be it. Instead a rush of freight engines swept by — with the VIA train soon behind — setting the stage for the energetic arrival on the platform a few minutes later of the candidate. Some 50 local Greens, in their green shirts, with Kingston candidate Eric Walton and Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington candidate Chris Walker, greeted May enthusiastically. She alighted carrying a bouquet of dried sunflowers which she waved at the crowd and launched into a rousing speech.

The whistle stop campaign she contrasted with the large carbon foot prints of her airborne rivals. She said she had seen up close the great sweep of the country and the vital role VIA plays in serving it. The Mulroney Tories had slashed VIA in the past. Increased support for VIA would happen if Greens were in power, she said. May said she would be traveling on from Montreal to Halifax and that all along the way she had been greeted by enthusiastic crowds and that the whistlestops had given her a chance to go to places no federal leader had ever been before. VIA she said had been very patient with her at these whistlestops but she said it was time to go and gave a final wave of the sunflowers as the doors closed and the train was off to its next stop in Brockville no doubt to be welcomed by another group of supporters.

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…

continuing in the theme of trying to figure out who i should spend my vote on this election i sat down and spoke to Andrew Lang, the local Liberal candidate here in toronto-danforth.

i wanted to know why he was running, Jack’s lead seems pretty much insurmountable, but if anyone has a chance (and, let’s be honest… it’s a very small chance) it is the liberal candidate. i’m no historian but i’m pretty sure the Liberals managed to hold this riding for a good long while prior to Jack re-winning it for the NDP, but still, the NDP took this riding by more than 7000 votes last time.

Andrew was straightforward when i asked him about his chances, sincerely hoping that Jack continued to think he has this riding in the bag as it lets him continue to wage political guerrilla warfare (my words, not his) against Jack. in Andrew’s view Jack and the NDP have taken local matters in toronto-danforth for granted, aren’t impressing local voters with their showboating on the campaign trail (is eliminating ATM fees the best thing we can find to talk about during an election?), and above all… torontonians are scared silly of another Harper government. regardless of the outcome, Andrew is convinced that the local race will be close, much closer than Jack or the NDP anticipates.

i’ve never really considered actually voting liberal, i’m usually a little too left wing for that, but Stéphane Dion does seem to be more of the type of person i’d like to see as prime minister, a fact that Andrew was quick to sense in our talk and emphasize. he argues that Dion is the only real leader in this race, whereas Harper and Layton are one man shows, that Dion is sensible and progressive with respect to social policy, and that the Liberals have a track record of a strong economy. it is all pretty much what you’d expect, but i did get the sense that Andrew was sincere in his argument for Stéphane. i even believed that he was sincere when he said Stéphane is a strong leader, despite reports to the contrary.

(more…)

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.

In what seems to have been a race anxiously waiting for a start, the candidates in Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale (ADFW) will face the electorate for the first time together…Tuesday evening at 6:15, McMaster University’s Student Union hosting. Voters from the area will have 3 other opportunities in coming days to see what the parties have to offer in this “all-candidates meeting” format.

Expect incumbent David Sweet to stick tightly to the party (read Stephen Harper) line. Voters seem to have been convinced to expect little from Sweet, and he has delivered. Local “Sweetwatchers” have found him to be active in a number of pursuits related to his personal priorities while on the Hill, but not so much elsewhere. All in attendance will want to know more details from his time in Parliament. Communications to the Riding while in office seemed to have been written by Stephen Harper’s staff.

Gordon Guyatt has saved a great many trees (reused signs) over the years by continuing to campaign on behalf of the New Democratic Party through election after election. His professional accomplishments are well documented and when it comes to health care issues Dr. Guyatt ought to be able to take on any politician in a debate. Some polls suggest that Healthcare is near top of mind with many voters. A riding with a healthy number of older adults may reward Guyatt. It seems that on previous election nights support for this NDP perennial was always the decisive votes taken from one or the other of the Liberals or Conservatives.

The Green candidate Peter Ormond has had some campaigning time (but still runs a distant 4th in the experience department) having run for the Greens in a nearby riding recently. A hard group to read, the Green Party trade heavily on their outstanding leader’s accomplishments yet seldom step forward at the local level as a unified group to address issues in a riding that is clearly on the doorstep (or closer) of one of Canada’s premier environmental hotspots.

(more…)

Not bad for a guy who claims he could never tell a lie:

In a further attempt to recast the Liberal Leader, a second advertisement was released simultaneously, this one championing Mr. Dion’s fight to extend the Kyoto Accord in 2005 when he was environment minister. “This is Liberal leadership” and “Dion wouldn’t give up” are the two brand messages that viewers are meant to absorb. That commercial was scheduled to air on last night’s Emmy Awards.

Anyone who has followed Canadian politics for a number of years knows that this is a blatant lie. Dion, who always claims he is incapable of lying, has demonstrated with this ad that he can dish up some of the biggest lies imaginable.

Dion, when he was minister of the environment in a previous Liberal cabinet, didn’t care about the Kyoto Agreement or the environment. In fact, when he and his ilk were in power greenhouse-gas emissions went through the roof in Canada – while “evil” America substantially reduced its emissions. It is only now that emissions are finally coming down in this country – after a non-Liberal government was installed in Ottawa.

The ad, which mentions “Liberal leadership” on Kyoto and the environment, referring to Dion’s time as environment minister, is one big lie from beginning to end (emphasis added):

Dion Says Targets Can’t Be Met: Stephane Dion has conceded that a future Liberal government would be unable to meet its Kyoto commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. (National Post, July 1, 2006)

[...] As senior Liberal advisor Eddie Goldenberg admitted, the Liberals had no plan and weren’t ready to take any action on Kyoto: “Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done. The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short-term deadlines would at the end of the day have to be extended.” (Globe and Mail, February 23, 2007)

[...] In fact, Dion’s former cabinet colleagues like David Anderson and Christine Stewart have made it clear that Dion was not a supporter of Kyoto at all!

How exactly is having “no plan”, as Goldenberg put it, proof of “leadership”?

His own former cabinet colleagues have admitted that Dion never cared about these issues. He only discovered them during his Liberal leadership race when he realized he could paint himself green and sell his (Marxist) ideology without Canadians catching on.

As one Canadian voter puts it:

[H]ow was it that Dion was environment minister opposed doing anything to live up to the Liberal Party’s commitment to Kyoto – privately at the cabinet table. But on the other hand, in public, named his dog Kyoto to “demonstrate his commitment to Kyoto”?

Dion is the biggest emitter of hot-air gases in Canada, and given his bald-face lie in his latest TV ad, it is clear that he cannot be trusted.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!