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

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

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

Repealing regressive immigration reform (Bill C-50)

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

Ending the war in Afghanistan

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

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

And yet Mr. Karygiannis voted to extend the war.

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

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

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

Finding an alternative in the New Democrats

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

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

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

It’s the same old story, isn’t it? The Liberals send Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but the Conservatives get blamed for it.

Listeriosis kills several people across Canada because of lax food-safety inspections, and who gets blamed? The Harper government.

However, the lax inspection regime with respect to food safety was implemented by the previous Liberal government:

The architecture of the recently revamped food-inspection system–an issue that has dogged the Tories during the election– was crafted when the Liberals were in power in 2005, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed.

The design of pilot tests for the Compliance Verification System (CVS), rolled out at federally regulated meat plants in April, began in August, 2005, said Brian Evans, the agency’s executive vice-president.

At the time, the agency was operating under the direction of former Liberal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell, who lost in the 2006 election. Ujjal Dosanjh, currently seeking re-election in Vancouver, was in charge of food-safety policy as minister of health; he now serves as health critic for the Liberals.

If anyone needs to resign over this, it is Andy Mitchell, but he’s already gone, and Ujjal Dosanjh.

Fingers need to be pointed in this tragic mess, but they need to be pointed directly at the Liberals, who have blood on their hands.

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

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

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!

Accompagné par Gilles Duceppe à l’Université de Montréal, Pauline Marois a prononçé que le Bloc est utile parce qu’il poursuit le même but que le PQ : la souveraineté du Québec. Est-ce le point important dans la présente élection fédérale ? Je suis plus intéressé à savoir le plan l’économique du Bloc et ce qu’il propose de faire pour appuyer notre système de santé. Le NPD et les Conservateurs offrent des options très différentes. En termes pratiques, qu’est-ce que le Bloc nous offre ?

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.

While I appreciated the announcement of the Liberal Party’s proposal of a catastrophic drug plan, I’m tired of the meme “healthcare,” which is code for the medical and acute care industry.

WHY do parties and politicians insist on maintaining the fiction that health is equivalent to care-after-the-fact? Worse, that sickness prevention requires only the targeting of individual behaviour, such as addiction and eating and exercise habits?

There is a consistent message coming from Canada’s public health professionals, the World Health Organization and international agencies, and even from our own government’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones (whose report was quietly tucked away by the Harper government). It is this:

Social conditions crucially matter. And they can be deadly.

Investing more and more money on doctors, nurses, hospital beds, trauma care … is wrong-headed. First, our acute care system needs a management overall, rather than just more money thrown at it. Second – and more importantly – we need fewer SICK PEOPLE, fewer people made vulnerable to illness.

Poverty causes stress. Stress is a proven primary underlying cause of heart disease, diabetes, and other major and chronic illnesses.¹

Given these facts, which have been known for decades by researchers of the social determinants of health, it’s clear that poverty is the #1 killer and our largest health threat.

People need less stress in their lives. With less stress, we’ll be healthier. With fewer stressed people, Canada’s acute care system can undergo its own recovery.

Whether members of the medical and drug industries would be happy with fewer sick people is another matter.

¹ Google ‘poverty causes stress’ and you’ll be swamped with references. Also simply ’stress causes’; your search result will uncover a huge number of diseases linked to stress.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace.