Liberal Political Musings

If you want progressive, democratic government, vote Liberal!

2011-04-21T23:48:00.000-07:00

The opinion polls have recently shown a significant uptick in NDP support. This would be great news, if it were taking the vote away from Stephen Harper. However, it is actually horrible news, because the support the NDP is gaining is coming in large part at the Liberals expense: witness that the Liberals are going down in any poll in which the NDP is going up. If this worrying trend continues, vote splitting would most likely increase the Conservative seat total at the end of this election (I am aware the EKOS poll predicts the opposite of this. But this poll also claims the NDP will gain 13 seats in Quebec. Call me cynical, but I find that very hard to believe. Everything is possible though). This vote splitting could be the factor that tips us into the abyss known as Conservative majority government.

We cannot afford a majority Conservative government. A majority Conservative government will face none of the fetters they have faced in minority government. Freed at last, they will ride roughshod over Canadian democracy. If you thought they were in contempt of Parliament now, think again. This will be nothing compared to when the Conservatives know they will never need to face the House finding them in contempt. Indeed, if a Conservative majority is elected, expect more untendered contracts, prisons to combat a rise in "unreported" crime, and refusal to hand over important documents that Parliament has the right to examine. In other words, a Conservative majority in Ottawa equals less democracy in Ottawa than even now.

Furthermore, if the Conservatives obtain a majority thanks to the NDP's vote splitting, they will continue their ill-advised policies that will negatively effect Canada. For instance, they will increase tax cuts to corporations instead of helping the poor and lower middle classes, contributing to the continual rise in income inequality in this country. They will continue to avoid getting tough on greenhouse gas emissions and the environment. They will continue their policy of building prisons that the facts say should not be needed (since the crime rates are going down). They will not address the rise in tuition costs to students. They will not offer publicly funded childcare. The list goes on and on.

The only surefire option to stop this is to give most of the seats to a party other than the Conservatives. This cannot be the Greens or the Bloc. The choice must be between the NDP or the Liberals. Apart from the EKOS poll, the polls still put the Liberals ahead of the NDP. Therefore, the sensible option would be for NDPers to vote Liberal, rather than vote NDP. After all, Layton himself said only this week that the Liberal and NDP platforms are pretty similar. There should be no ideological problem preventing NDP supporters from casting a ballot for the Liberals. Voting for a cancellation of wasteful tax cuts, for cap and trade, for a learning passport, for assistance to seniors and for childcare are all right up the NDP alley.

Therefore, if an NDP supporter wants to definitely stop Harper, and elect a democratic, progressive government, they need look no further than the Liberals. A vote for the NDP is a vote wasted, unless of course the Liberals have no chance at all in a particular riding.

The Liberals are still the second place party. They are the best chance to kick Harper out. The NDP should want to kick Harper out. Their best chance to do so must therefore be to vote Liberal.

We're Not Gonna Take It!

2011-04-16T14:28:00.000-07:00

Last night Ignatieff urged Canadians to RISE UP!, referencing Bruce Springteen. I suggest the next song should be WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT! by Twisted Sister. On May 2nd, let's show we won't take anti-democratic government anymore!

Conservatives are prudent fiscal managers?

2011-04-11T19:19:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are great managers of money. Huge deficits aside, and wasting money on jets and prisons, they really know what they're doing. Truly. I would never, ever think otherwise. That's why it's such a surprise to find out that when they spent $50 million ostensibly on a G8 legacy fund, it actually was spent on building sidewalks 100 kilometres away. And what is even more shocking is that they built a $26 million command centre, despite knowing it would never be used.

I mean, it's not as if this is part of a pattern. Cutting taxes for rich corporations at a time when we are running a deficit cannot be anything but responsible. Or spending money on an untendered bid for fighter jets. Or wasting millions on a fake lake on the banks of the great lakes.

As our Conservative friends will tells us, these are just a few, "isolated" events. In fact, some even tell me that 1.1 million spent on sidewalk and tree upgrades 100 kilometres away is a legitimate spending item for a summit of world leaders.

I for one believe them. I mean, wasn't this the government that was elected due to its accountability.

And for any of you that doubt Conservatives have left a great legacy to our country

Stop Stephen the Creeper!

2011-04-06T11:43:00.000-07:00

After all of yesterday's controversy surrounding the expulsion of two students at a Conservative rally, the Liberals are seeking to capitalize on this opportunity to show Canadians the type of anti-democratic organization Stephen Harper leads. They have done so through an original funny ad showing Stephen Harper creeping people on Facebook. Looks to me like a great way to connect with that elusive group of voters, the young. They will understand best what is going on in this video after all. Anyway, here it is...

Harper Wants to Weaken Democracy...Again

2011-04-02T23:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Stephen Harper brought a campaign issue that literally no one else was thinking about. He informed the public that a Harper majority government would remove the per0vote subsidy that political parties receive. He tried to look moderate in doing so, suggesting that the subsidy would be phased out over three years. And while this is better than his now infamous plans in 2008, it is still an attack on democracy. Why? Because this subsidy helps to eliminate the influence of rich donors in politics. And guess who would benefit from rich individuals' donations being a greater share of the whole of party funding? That's right, the Conservatives.

The per vote subsidy allocates money solely based on how many votes a party received. It does not vary based on how rich the voters are. This means that parties like the NDP, based on lower-middle class voters, benefit significantly. Their supporters are less likely to be able to donate in the same amounts as the Conservatives' supporters. So the public subsidy levels the playing field. After all, if we have some parties based partly on these economic divides, the party with the richer supporters will have more funding than those with the less well off supporters, unless some public funding is provided. This is the raison d'etre of the per vote subsidy. Clearly Harper wants to benefit from increasing the importance of the donations he receives from his rich donators as a proportion of the funds going to all parties. This will undermine democracy, giving the Conservatives an advantage over other parties.

The Harper defense of an action that serves to skew the political playing field in his favour is two-fold: he maintains that we don't need 3 public subsidies to parties and that the state shouldn't be supporting parties that taxpayers don't want to support themselves. The 3 subsidies are the per vote one, the reimbursement of 50% of electoral expenses nationally and 60% locally, and the income tax credit of up to 75% given to donators to political parties.

However, as you might have guessed, the two latter subsidies do not help to level the playing field as much as the per vote subsidy. The reimbursement benefits most the parties that have the most expenses, and thus in general those who had lots of money to begin with. Furthermore, the local reimbursement of 60% requires having received 10% of the vote in the constituency. This hurts smaller parties like the Greens.

As for the income tax credit, it clearly helps most the parties that have the richest donors and thus the largest total of donations. To benefit from an income tax credit, you have to already be receiving money. Guess which party receives the most and thus benefits the most? The Conservatives.

Due to the influence of these latter two subsidies, the Bloc received 5.91 of public finance per vote, the Greens 4.59, the Liberals 7.75, the NDP 7.87 and the Conservatives 8.11 So these latter two subsidies that Harper are inherently less than perfectly democratic. The one that is, the per vote subsidy, is the one he wants to get rid of.

Doing so would clearly benefit Stephen Harper. There is no other motive. The idea that the state should not pay for services that taxpayers don't pay for themselves would eliminate countless programs. Is Harper about to eliminate healthcare for young people who would not buy it if it were left up to them? No. Why? Because doing that would not skew the political playing field in his favour.

Here's a radical idea. How about the state be the sole provider of funding to political parties? This could be done on a bracket system. The top 5 parties in the past election would receive the same amount, the next 5 would receive another amount, and so on. That would make each voice equally loud. That would eliminate any skewing effect of money in politics. Just an idea. Rather than undermining democracy, we could be building it up.

So both these latter forms

Keep May out, and Bring on the One on One

2011-03-31T23:56:00.000-07:00

There has been lots of debate about the debates these last few days. The most sensible combination of debates is to have one debate with the four parliamentary leaders, and one with Harper and Ignatieff squaring off. I am very much in favour of democracy, and it is not lightly that I say that Elizabeth May should be excluded. However, to include Elizabeth May in the debates would bring less benefit to the democratic discourse in this country than the cost of including her.

What cost is there? As many concluded from watching the 2008 debates in which May participated, 5 leaders was simply too many. All it ended up being was a 4 person gang up on Stephen Harper. And while I agreed with all of them, I think that so many people made the debate very ineffective. There was little opportunity for real debate between any of the leaders. Instead, May and the others ganged up on the outgoing Prime Minister. In fact, Elizabeth May was the one who was the most confrontational.

I like confrontation in a political debate. But I do not like confrontation masquerading as political debate. This masquerade gets aggravated by May's presence. Having 5 leaders simply makes the debate dysfunctional. The debate is virtually worthless in this format. There is little opportunity to learn anything about a party's policy amidst all the ganging up on Stephen Harper.

Now, if the debate thus becomes worthless, then that is a very big blow to democracy. I am simply not convinced that that blow is compensated by a democratic principle of free expression. We are perfectly willing to limit free expression in the debates in other cases. For instance, the Marxist-Leninists do not participate. Yet if we were striving for perfect equality of expression, they would be present, and every other small party leader. In the case of the Marxist-Leninists, we are willing to recognize that including them would render the debate worthless. A similar thing happens when May gets included.

As for the one on one debate between Harper and Ignatieff, it is important opportunity to have a presentation of the 2 alternatives for government to the Canadian people. This is all the more important if May is included in the debates. Much as Layton thinks he is running for Prime Minister, we all know he is not. He is running to increase the NDP's seat count, to position it in a position from which it might one day offer a candidate for Prime Minister.

A debate between the two front runners is necessary to allow Canadians to see their choices of government, and to escape the cacophony of the leaders' debate. In that debate, the outgoing Prime Minister is oddly at an advantage. Why? Because any gain from attacking him is shared by the opposition parties, whereas the benefits from any major blows the Prime Minister scores accrue solely to him. Also, he can curry some sympathy from some odd voters. In this way, the system actually benefits the Prime Minister and reduces effective choice between governments in waiting.

A one on one debate would vastly increase the probability of Canadians feeling they have a choice. It would make it much more obvious. It would show Canadians a viable alternative to Stephen Harper. Isn't democracy about that among other things: viable alternatives for government? Therefore, it seems that excluding May and setting up a one on one debate might actually lead to more democracy.

(I would also be favourable to a Layton, Harper, Ignatieff debate, though less so. Once you let in Layton, Duceppe will want in. After all, he has more seats than Layton)

Harper Clearly Lies...Again

2011-03-29T23:36:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper brought up the coalition again today, saying that the opposition parties would move with lightning speed after an election to form a coalition if the Conservatives win a minority. When he was questioned about his clear endorsement of coalitions in the past, from his 1997 TVO interview, to a paper written with Tom Flanagan advocating "a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with Conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government", he maintained that he'd never tried to form government after "losing an election." Assuming losing an election means not having the most seats, this is exactly what Stephen Harper proposed in 2004 in his letter to the Governor General.

He might try to say he never actually made a concerted effort to form a government, and just reminded the Governor General that she could call on him to form a government. Unless he wants us to believe that he had taken to the habit of writing letters to the Governor General reminding them of their powers, this defense is worthless. He clearly had the intention of having a good shot of forming a government, despite having "lost" an election.

The worst lie he uttered today came when he reminded us that the "other guys" tried forming government despite having lost an election, and that "more importantly, in this election, they say they will." Someone needs to buy him hearing aids and new glasses. How could he have missed Michael Ignatieff's clear refusal of this option? Although the other parties have not ruled it out, they most certainly have not said that they WILL try to form government in a coalition.

It stands to common sense that he could not have possibly missed this. It stands to common sense that he could not legitimately believe that the other guys have said that after this election, if the Conservatives win the most seats, they will try to form government anyway. Instead, he has taken to repeating lies for the benefit of his base, and to instil some vague sentiment of fear in the Canadian electorate. Never mind that this fear is completely unfounded. As Harper himself has recognised, coalitions are legitimate forms of government under our system.

Today, Harper lied. There is no other way to put it. There is no room for such euphemisms as "he misled the people", "he didn't tell the truth", "he ommitted certain facts". If he has fallen to lying to the Canadian people to secure our support, what more reason do we need to kick him out?

Harper Has Contempt for Democracy

2011-03-28T21:43:00.001-07:00

Enough said

It's Canadian Democracy, Stupid

2011-03-28T16:00:00.000-07:00

I humbly suggest this as a potential campaign slogan for Michael Ignatieff. It is clear, concise, and memorable. It also exactly communicates what this election is about. The election was triggered by our government's contempt for democracy, and the unwillingness of the Opposition to let such behaviour continue. Therefore, it only makes sense that the Liberal Party should keep this issue in the forefront of Canadians' minds.

The protection of Canada's democracy is the most important issue in this election. A democratic nation cannot afford to have a government refuse to present full costs for its projects. It cannot afford to have leaders in government lie to the people. It certainly cannot afford to have a government that has been willing, not once but twice, to silence opposition by not allowing the people's representatives to execute their proper functions.

These are the things that Stephen Harper has done. These are the things Michael Ignatieff must hold him accountable for. These are the things that must matter to Canadians. And in the past Canadians have shown that they do care. Witness the thousands all over the country that protested in 2010 against the government's prorogation of Parliament. This is an issue that, given the right kind of stimulation and leadership, Canadians will rally around.

This is why Michael Ignatieff should make a return to democratic government the central plank of his campaign. In an odd way, he can make it a wedge issue. After all, he is the only opposition leader that can bring to fruition the opposition's desire for an end to undemocratic government. Why? Because only the Liberals can form a democratic government in the situation we find ourselves in. The Bloc, by virtue of its very nature, cannot form government. The NDP, by virtue of its low poll standings, cannot form government either. Needless to say, the same goes for the Greens. The only two parties that can form government are the Conservatives or the Liberals. The former have shown their willingness to govern undemocratically. Therefore, the ONLY way to return democratic government to Canada is a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. A vote for any other party increases the likelihood of further undemocratic government under Stephen Harper.

Michael Ignatieff needs to communicate this message to Canadians loud and clear. No other party can afford to do so as much. Harper can hardly afford to bring attention to his own undemocratic government. The NDP and the Bloc cannot afford to make a return to democratic government their main message, because neither is able to deliver on this issue. ONLY Michael Ignatieff can.

This wedge has to be driven home. And what better way to do so than to turn to Mr. Harper, and say "It's Canadian Democracy, Stupid"

Rex Murphy You Are Wrong: This Election is About Democracy!

2011-03-26T20:12:00.000-07:00

Rex Murphy wrote an article in today's National Post purporting to show that the Liberal claim that this election is about democracy is erroneous. However, he does not succeed.

He starts the article by showing how, according to him, the Liberals have undermined democracy in this country. That's all well and good. There are two things he misses though. Firstly, none of the actions he describes were on the same scale as those undertaken by Stephen Harper. At no time was a Liberal government found in contempt. To my knowledge, there hasn't even ever been a motion suggesting that they are. So, although neutering individual MPs might undermine democracy (and that could be debated), it is not contempt of Parliament. Therefore, the scale to which Stephen Harper has undermined the power of Parliament and our democracy is much greater. So the Liberals do have credibility on the issue, and they can claim that our government has behaved undemocratically, in contempt of Parliament and Canadians.

Secondly, Rex Murphy claims that this concern with democracy is a diversion from the central issue, the economy. While the economy is always an important issue, I would suggest that democracy will supercede it every time in importance. Why? Democracy is about the rights of all of us. These rights are more important even than the economy. Of course, that is not to say we should not have a debate around the economy during this campaign. We should. But when our democratic rights have been flouted, I am inclined to think that that issue takes precedence. It is no diversion.

This election is about democracy. That was why it was triggered: the government was found in contempt of Parliament and Canadians. Any claim to the contrary that I have seen does not stand up under scrutiny.

Why Canadians Do (and SHOULD Want an Election)

2011-03-25T18:19:00.000-07:00

After the Harper government fell today due to being found in contempt of Parliament, Stephen Harper uttered three falsehoods in his statement to reporters. Firstly, he maintained that there was nothing in the budget tabled this week that the opposition could disagree with, and that they voted him out of office anyway. This is to imply that he was ousted due to the opposition voting against the budget.

This is a barefaced lie! The government was defeated because it was FOUND IN CONTEMPT. Again, it was due to CONTEMPT. CONTEMPT for our democracy, for PARLIAMENT, for the Canadian PEOPLE. CONTEMPT because this government does not believe in the democratic IMPERATIVE that a government must present the full costs of its projects to the people and their representatives. On the F-35 fighter jet purchase, corporate tax cuts, and the building of prisons, the government did not provide full costing, to varying degrees. This government could not be clearer: it might talk about ACCOUNTABILITY, but it is anything but.

Harper is trying to create the illusion that his government fell on the budget. He is determined to convince the average Canadian voter this is the case, so that the whole issue of his government being in contempt will be obscured. He has no interest in being accountable to Canadians and telling them why he believes they and their representatives do not deserve to know where TAXPAYER money is going. Knowing the average level of political interest of Canadians, he knows this is as good a strategy as any.

Secondly, Harper and his Conservatives have kept pointing the finger at an imaginary coalition of all three opposition parties as responsible for bringing the government down. Yesterday, in the debate on the budget, Conservatives mentioned the word coalition 17 times. Does any coalition exist though? NO! A coalition would require a written agreement and commitment to vote together. No such thing exists. At the very least, this high level of COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION should be a major cause of concern.

Finally, the third lie is that the opposition party leaders have pushed us into, and I quote, "an election that Canadians had told them clearly that they do not want." A survey on the CBC website shows that 47% want an election and 48% do not. The exaggerated claim that MOST Canadians do not want an election is simply not true.

Furthermore, Canadians definitely SHOULD want an election. This government has contempt for the people's representatives and for the PEOPLE themselves. They have contempt for democracy. They do not want to be accountable for OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

That is why the opposition parties voted them in contempt of Parliament and out of office. If Canadians care about their democracy, they will realize that they SHOULD vote in a new government.

Absurd Logic of Opponents of Long gun Registry Revealed

2010-09-02T23:34:00.000-07:00

In an intelligent release on their website, the LPC has shown how ridiculous arguments made by opponents of the long-gun registry are by substituting guns for other things you need to register.

Here are the interesting arguments they came up with, and which, if the Tories and others are logically consistent, you can expect to see sometime soon:

* Criminals won’t register their dogs anyway, so what’s the point?

* The government wants you to get a fishing license so they can seize all of your fishing poles!

* The car registration scheme in this country costs millions a year and does nothing to prevent road accidents!

* You already have to pass a driver’s test to be able to drive a car, so what’s the point of having to register your car?

* There was a boating accident last week, and the boating registration scheme did nothing to prevent that from happening!

Clearly, we are wasting money on futile registries. I expect Stephen Harper to do something about this. It is disgraceful.

Why we Might not Need F-35s

2010-08-31T23:26:00.000-07:00

For starters, we already have CF-18s that are 30 years ahead technology wise over our most likely threat, the Russian TU-95s.

Secondly, as Philippe Lagassé, a defence analyst at the University of Ottawa has remarked, "it would be thoroughly against all [Russia's] national interests to ever contemplate sending a fleet of aircraft into our airspace.” Not to mention the rest of the world would be ill-advised to enter our airspace, as the US would probably view it as an action ultimately aimed against her.

Has Candice Hoeppner Even Read the RCMP on the Long-gun Registry

2010-08-30T23:13:00.000-07:00

Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, in response to the report issued by the RCMP today on the long gun registry, said that it showed the long gun registry to be "“wasteful and ineffective.” She further claimed that "[t]he report also clearly shows that claims made by advocates of the unreliable long-gun registry about its so-called value to front-line officers are highly misleading.”

How can she possibly square these allegations with what the report actually says? The report says of the registry that it is a "useful tool," that it ensures "police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status.” It also said that there is an "“ongoing need” for the regulation of firearms.

Opponents of the long gun registry can believe what they want, but it would be nice if, in such an important debate, they did not twist the facts so blatantly. If their position is tenable, then surely they do not resort to such tactics. Unless, of course, if their position is untenable.

Jack Layton Should Whip his MPs on Long-Gun Registry

2010-08-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

When the bill to abolish the long gun registry was last put to a vote in the House of Commons, 8 Liberal MPs supported it. To avoid such an outcome on the upcoming decisive vote, Michael Ignatieff has whipped his MPs into opposing the bill. Ignatieff has understood that the registry is an important tool for police in their fight against crime. He also knows that the registry makes society safer.

Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill.

Liberal Census Bill Shows Fundamental Difference Between Them and Conservatives

2010-08-26T23:47:00.000-07:00

John McCallum announced today that the Liberals would introduce a private members bill reinstating the mandatory long form census, while removing the jail time penalty. The Conservatives are seeking to further hobble the power of government to take positive action in our society, whereas the Liberals are standing up for the admirable and desirable idea of a government that is able to help society. That shows the fundamental difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives believe in a government that maintains sovereignty, keeps markets free and supplies the military. Liberals believe government can do more.

Conservatives Making Shameful Use of Shock Politics

2010-08-25T23:32:00.000-07:00

When Dmitri Soudas brought the media's notice to the incident that occurred in the arctic yesterday between two Russian bombers and two CF-18s, the intention was obvious. The Russian military often performs exercises in the Arctic near our airspace, about 12-17 times a year. Today's news was nothing of consequence.

Except for the fact that it was motivated by a desire to shock Canadians into plumping for the purchase of 65 F-35s to replace the CF-18s. This is flagrantly obvious, as such events are not normally brought to the public's attention. But with the government announcement of the purchase of the F-35s, they need some sort of justification for this $9billion and up purchase.

Does the government really believe that it can make most Canadians believe we are in danger from the Russians because they are performing routine exercises? They should be ashamed of trying to deceive the public this way.

PS: on a side note, the TU-95 Russian bombers (nicknamed bear) entered service in the Soviet airforce in 1956 and are intended for use until 2040. In comparison, the CF-18s were first put into service in 1983.

What Tories are Missing in the Patronage Revelations

2010-08-24T23:22:00.001-07:00

Liberal MPs Wayne Easter and Alexandra Mendes reported that since Harper's government has been in power, 20% of federal appointments had been given to Conservative supporters, constituting in their opinion a blatant case of patronage. Tory supporters thought they had the perfect mathematical defense.

Looking at the comments on news stories, you see a lot of Tories saying: "If he only appointed Tories to 20% of the jobs, then that means 80% went to Liberals, NDPers, Blocs and Greens. Why are the Liberals complaining?"

But that is not the case. When they said supporters, the Liberal MPs meant Conservative party insiders, people who had worked for the party or had given large donations to it. People that actually were Conservative party members. They did not mean anyone who voted Conservative in the last election.

Not every Canadian is a member of a political party, or is a donor to one. Far from it. To think therefore that the appointments can be divided into the ones that went to Tory supporters and the ones that went to Opposition party supporters is simply not accurate. There are plenty of public servants who, although they may have voted for a certain party, have never worked for a party or been a donor.

Those non partisan public servants have to be counted among the 80%. Which makes that 20% going to Tory insiders/members/donors look a whole lot bigger.

(However, it is true that if Easter and Mendes have the breakdown on the affiliations of the federal appointees since 2006, then surely they can release that information. They should let us see how many Liberal party members, NDP party members, Bloc party members, Green party members and non partisans were appointed. That would provide the transparency they maintain they seek.)

Harper's Conservatives = Soft on Crime

2010-08-23T23:15:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have prided themselves on being a party that is tough on crime, pushing for certain minimum sentences and announcing plans to build new prisons in order to convey that image. However, they are now coming into conflict with their partners in the war against crime, the police. If this isn't a signal of being soft on crime, then what is?

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) approved a resolution at its meeting earlier today that asserted the importance of the long form to police work. It reads that “ police agencies throughout Canada depend on reliable, comprehensive demographic statistical information provided by Statistics Canada to establish policing priorities and to determine policing services for their communities" and that “the long form census used by Statistics Canada is the basic tool for gathering the necessary statistical information while protecting the confidentiality of such information.”

In other words, the Harper government, by rendering the long form census impotent, are crippling the efforts of the police to reduce and stop crime. The police will no longer possess this crucial information, a tool they used to stop the crime Harper claims to want to stop also.

Perhaps more indicative is the further stance the CACP adopted on the long gun registry. They unanimously adopted a resolution calling on police leaders and officers to explain to the public and politicians the value and importance of the long gun registry.

Police across the country consult the database 11000 times per day. It is according to Chief Blair, the head of the CACP, "a tool that we need, that we use every day. And if you take it away from us, you are diminishing our capacity to keep our communities safe.”

Harper maintained today that "Canadians have been very clear they want us to spend our time and our money focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms and not going after law abiding duck hunters and farmers." The CACP, who should know about this area after all, are telling him loud and clear that if he wants to focus on public safety, he should not abolish the long gun registry. The two aren't irreconcilable. After all, the police are not putting duck hunters and farmers in prison.

Maybe Harper should listen to his partners in the war on crime. Maybe he should listen to those who actually are tough on crime, rather than to those that are blinded by ideology.

Conservative Party Workers Fraudulently Posing as PMO Staffers, "Elections Centre"?

2010-08-20T19:29:00.000-07:00

In a letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asks him to look into allegations of the Conservative party soliciting donations from Conservative party members from the PMO. This would be in contravention of Section 92.1 of the Elections Canada Act that "requires that a donation in-kind to be declared to Elections Canada whenever an organization allows a political party to use its facilities to raise funds" if no such donation in kind was made. If the calls were in fact coming from party headquarters, that would constitute fraud.

Jennings goes on to bring Mayrand's attention to allegations she has received claiming that Conservative party workers have been making phone calls posing as a fictitious "Elections Centre" with the aim to gather information on voters. It would appear that if this is the case the Conservative Party is using the similarity between "Elections Centre" and "Elections Canada" to fraudulently obtain information from Canadians.

If proven true, these are very serious allegations. Marc Mayrand should give them the utmost attention.

Here is the link to the letter from Jennings to Mayrand.

Cheliak bilingual a year ago, but not any longer?

2010-08-19T22:33:00.000-07:00

If it were not apparent that the Harper government does not believe in the independence and expertise of public servants, there is almost no doubt about it following the removal of Marty Cheliak from his post as acting Director General of the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). The reason offered for his removal from the post, that he does not meet the bilingual requirement for the job, immediately arouses suspicion.

Cheliak was appointed Director General of the CFP in August 2009. It is safe to assume that he was no more bilingual then than he is now. After all, most people who are bilingual don't lose the ability to speak both languages in a year. Clearly, if Cheliak is not bilingual now, he was not bilingual then. It follows with undeniable logic that he therefore did not fulfill the bilingual requirements for the job.

The RCMP would have definitely known this a year ago. Unless the bilingual requirements for the job have been modified, which they have not because otherwise the RCMP would have said so in their press release. It appears that the RCMP was willing to overlook the bilingual requirement a year ago, if indeed it exists. The question thus becomes, who has brought the RCMP's attention to Cheliak's shortcomings? And if so why now?

The candidate that comes to mind is Stephen Harper. After all, there is the tell-tale sign of a classic Harper vs public servant duel, disagreement over a hot-button issue. Linda Keen disagreed with the Harper government over the handling of the Chalk River reactor. She was fired. Pat Strogan criticized Ottawa's handling of veterans' and he is now being shown the door. Cheliak was an advocate of the long gun registry, a system he said protected Canadians. He had also formed a coalition of various groups, including front line officers, in favour of the long-gun registry.

Now he is fired. Interestingly the final vote on the bill to abolish the long gun registry will be held when Parliament resumes in September and the outcome is by no means certain. With Cheliak organizing significant and telling opposition (who would know better than officers whether or not the long-gun registry is effective), the Conservatives had a formidable adversary.

This is the only possible reason for the timing of the decision. True, this firing looks subtler than that of others who have defied Harper. However, the point remains: Cheliak could not have been bilingual a year ago, but not be any longer.

Let's Make the Census Crisis as Big as Prorogation

2010-08-16T18:10:00.000-07:00

With Jack Layton calling for an emergency debate when the House reconvenes, we can provide support by joining the facebook group advocating the retention of the mandatory long form census. Let's show Stepehn Harper there's just as much anger over this issue as over prorogation.

Clement's version of robust and reliable data

2010-08-14T22:54:00.000-07:00

On the CBC Radio program The House, Tony Clement stated today that there would be no further census concessions. The reason it seems is that Clement believes that he "[is] meeting the objections of those who are concerned about robust and reliable data." I guess he thinks that a 50% response rate is robust and reliable.

The sad fact though is that it isn't. It is fair to say that experts at Statscan, who have made it their life's work to deal with statistics, would know more about what constitutes robust and reliable data than he does, and that therefore we should follow their advice of maintaining the status quo. That is if you're not talking to the experts Clement alleges exist at Statscan that believe that a voluntary long form is a perfectly acceptable substitute for the mandatory long form

Tony Clement shows very worrying incompetence

2010-08-11T19:33:00.001-07:00

In his interview earlier today with Evan Solomon on Power and Politics, Tony Clement showed two worrying signs of incompetence when attempting to establish the credibility of his new voluntary National Household Survey.

Contrasting the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census with the recommendation of StatsCan experts to keep the status quo, Clement offered what he seemed to think was an explanation showing that the new voluntary survey would be a statistical equivalent to the former mandatory long form census.

"We knew, Clement said, that the response rate would be lower, that's why we doubled the sample size. So the evidence is there that we're making it clear that of course you're going to have a lower response rate from a voluntary form versus a mandatory form. That's why you double the sample size and that's why even if you go down to 50% you have a fairly large sample to draw from."

The first issue in this comment is that Clement does not know his own plan. The former mandatory long form census was sent to 20% of households. The new voluntary form is proposed to be sent to 30% of households. Last time I checked 20 times two did not equal 30. For a minister that whose portfolio encompasses responsibility for Statistics Canada, this is worrying.

Secondly, Tony Clement seems to be implying that the by increasing the sample size, you're doing away with the main problem of a voluntary survey. While it is true that this might mean a similar final sample size, due to lower rates of participation on a voluntary survey, it does not mean that the two options would be comparable. The quality of the two different samples is not the same just because they are the same size.

With a voluntary survey, the sample is no longer as random. In fact, it becomes somewhat self-selecting. Certain groups will be less willing, due to factors such as busyness, to participate in a voluntary survey. So the sample that Clement's new survey will yield will not be as random or varied. Therefore the results will be much less of an indicator of the life of an average Canadian. Increasing the sample size of a voluntary survey does nothing to prevent this.

Tony Clement and the rest of the government have shown contempt for government based on evidence and information. The decision to scrap the mandatory long form census further showed that. Now they are either proving their incompetence, or believing that Canadians cannot see through such specious arguments.

Harper continues to be unconstitutional

2010-02-03T22:46:00.001-08:00

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told opposition MPs the Tories' refusal to hand over documents on Afghan prisoners makes a “mockery” of Parliament and is unconstitutional.