So, the Kingston Whig Standard supposedly took a oujai board to Sir John A. MacDonald’s grave and asked for some election predictions.

 I can’t find it online, and didn’t actually read the article (yes, they printed this, it wasn’t just a drunken journalistic escapade), but a reporter told me today that good ol’ John A. predicted 4 Green ridings. They had their eyes closed, they didn’t touch it, and John. A. predicted 4 Green ridings.

I can tell you now, I think two of them will be Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Guelph. Central Nova has a shot, Vancouver Centre has a shot, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country has a shot. There could be a ton of flukes and a ton of students who aren’t counted in polls (because its still illegal to poll cell phones, thank God) who could give surprise results if they actually get themselves out to the polls.

But John A. says four… it’s probably more than DemocraticSpace will give us.

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).

I just watched Jon Stewart’s comments on the US “Meltdown”. I laughed, I could not help it, not because the situation there is funny, especially for the average middle class citizen, but because I could laugh, feeling like “I certainly do not live in a rose garden” , but I live in Canada…

I am a lucky Canadian. I do not have any risky investments. I only stand to lose on the value of my house and as for my credit? Maybe I am feeling glad that it may become harder for me to live above my income… And no, since I have never worked for a large company which offered any pension plan, I am not any more worried about how and what I will retire with than I did before the great “Meltdown” on Wall Street.

Do I worry about my retirement? Yes! I have only my Canadian Government pension and please let whoever the government becomes next, not blow that away with imprudence based on a risk factor in the markets…

I am also a lucky Canadian because in spite of the fact that I am not rich, I have healthcare which I do not have to pay a minimun of $400 per month to have. I also do not take this for granted, every time I vote… I only hope other Canadians will not vote to have an ultra capitalist, privatized economy where your healthcare insurance company dictates what your healthcare will be according to your specific coverage and what they will allow.

I worked really hard to get my education as an adult student with no subsidies, but in my opinion education should be free for all students who are serious. This would make up for what we, in North America , are not doing by leading the way in technological innovation in world green development.

We are still in a good position in Canada to make Canada stay more like Canada and we should do this. We are not an ultra-capitalist society or economy. Karl Marx wrote before the corruption of socialism by communism, that eventually capitalism would reach an advanced state and ultimately would sow the seeds of its own destruction.

I think we are beginning to see this prophesy come true. It would be nice to see a more balanced planet, in general, one in which we all prosper and survive. Perhaps we are seeing signposts that this might just happen afterall.

The streets are filthy, most students are nowhere to be seen, and all the other Kingston residents seem to be in a terrible mood.

 We just had a man (at least 55) walk past our campaign office while flipping us the bird.

 Now that’s constructive criticism. Maybe it was Don Rogers…

Fidèle à ses habitudes de mauvais communicateur, monsieur Michael Fortier à encore fait preuve de condescendance chez Patrice Roy, à RDI hier soir. En effet, il est juriste. Michael Fortier connaît la justice. Nous, simples citoyens, ne comprenons rien à la justice et aux lois. C’est en gros la nature du propos qu’il a tenu après un peu plus de 4 minutes de « show ». Je le cite : « Pierre Paquette (représentant du Bloc à cette émission) n’est pas avocat, Serge Ménard en est un. Il a un sens et un propos beaucoup plus équilibré ». Il en remet vers 5 minutes et demie en disant que Paquette ne connaît pas l’application de la loi sur les jeunes contrevenants. Si les législateurs « non-avocat » au parlement ne peuvent comprendre la loi, selon Fortier, imaginez ce qu’il pense du citoyen moyen. C’était du grand art de défilement et de l’arrogance crasse. Ais-je besoin de dire que je me suis senti directement visé par les propos de Michael Fortier? Oui, je suis susceptible.

Ce que monsieur Fortier était en train de me dire, moi qui ne suit qu’un simple citoyen ignorant, est qu’il est inutile d’avoir une opinion, ou même une perception quelconque de la loi contre les jeunes contrevenants, le bon gouvernement Harper s’en charge. C’est bizarre, mais monsieur Fortier est en train de créer de la suspicion face à ses intentions réelles. Comment peut-il être capable de promouvoir une nouvelle loi extrémiste pour les crimes violents commis par jeunes de 16 ans, quand à la fois, il explique que les juges peuvent actuellement utiliser une telle clause s’ils le veulent. Il y a un double discours ici. Lorsque que statistiquement, les lois déjà existantes au Québec sont amplement suffisantes et très efficaces face aux jeunes délinquants parce que renforcées par une grande stratégie de prévention et de réhabilitation, je ne peux que constater que Michael Fortier ne travail par pour nous, gens du Québec. En effet, il travail pour les gens de l’ouest droitiste du Canada; ces gens qui n’ont pas encore compris que c’est en passant pas la prévention que diminue le crime chez les jeunes. Et que Fortier ne vienne pas me répéter que ce sont des cas d’exception. Je le sais dèjà.

(more…)