Right of Center Ice

The Candidate

2011-05-10T11:33:00.004-05:00

Like dipping a single toe into the lake from the dock before jumping in, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau robocalled her constituents yesterday. It was the first thing she has done to earn their trust as their MP since filling out (in whole or part) of her nomination papers.

For many on Pro Blogs, criticism of her election is beyond acceptable. At worst it's sexist. It's prejudice. It's ageist. At best, it is merely the actions indicative of sore losers. (To which I wonder whether or not shooting fish in a barrel confirms a claim that the shooter is naturally a bad shot.)

I sat at a poll on E-Day and scrutineered for the LPC. I watched as a man in his mid-40's approached the desk, took the ballot from the clerk, studied it momentarily and said, "My candidate is not on here." Confused, the clerk asked if he was in the right riding,and the man said yes and showed him his registration card. True, he was a voter of the riding. The man then said, "I thought we were voting for Prime Minister." I put my head in my hands and let out a sigh of exhaustion, disbelief, and total apathy.

I was stunned that he could vote even though he was clearly ill informed about our electoral system. I wondered whether or not a candidate showed up at his door and if so, whether he took the time to talk to them or if he just peered from his living room curtains and continued to watch TV or do something "more important" with his time. I wondered whether or not he picked up his mail and read the candidate's information, platforms, and experiences. I wonder whether at all he gave a shit about who represents him in parliament. Apparently not.

And so this is my critique of the election of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau for Berthier-Maskinongé. It is clear she didn't campaign, since she has never been to the riding. It is obvious that she was a "placeholder" candidate -- a throw away that the party used to make their books look good and to get that 308 number for the records. It is clear she doesn't know the concerns, cares or character of her riding. And moreover, the people of Berthier-Maskinongé don't care that she doesn't know them. Or tried. Or wanted to.

The people of Berthier-Maskinongé are getting what they deserve. Someone who lives 300km away that has never shown the slightest care for actually representing them beyond filling in (in whole or part) some nomination papers. The people of Berthier-Maskinongé saw a colour on the ballot, not a name. And if they did see a name it was not Ruth-Ellen Brosseau. It was Jack Layton.

Just like many people of Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar saw "Stephen Harper" rather than Kelly Block on the ballot. This was a factor in stopping Nettie Wiebe short from winning the seat. This is what has kept the people of Calgary-West in a CPC stasis and even the CPC party members of that riding from electing anyone other than Rob Anders who will represent them accordingly in the HoC. This is what keeps dozens of CPC ridings in a stranglehold despite objections from ordinary people about the views of their MP, their hypocritical actions, and general misrepresentation. But, Harper has done a "good job" with the economy. And so, 'X' away!

Will Berthier-Maskinongé be misrepresented by Brosseau? Maybe not. She could be a fine MP. COULD. If she cares. If she works hard. If she basically does the exact opposite of what earned her those 22,000 some votes. Right now Jack is playing peek-a-boo with her because he has to. Otherwise she'll get eaten alive.

Let me be clear, she'll get torn apart NOT because she is a woman. NOT because she is a single mother. NOT because she worked at a restaurant.

But because she did not campaign.

To which many Progressive Bloggers are hearing a collective "SO?" from New Democrats. This is a shame.

To justify The Great "SO?" a strategy is devised: Ruth-Ellen will earn their votes after the fact. First, send a robocall. Second, visit the riding and maybe knock on some doors. Third, hold a town hall and meet with municipal and provincial public officials. Fourth, MOVE to the riding (she can afford it) and fifth, stand up in parliament and let their voices be heard.

2015 is a long time away. Long enough to get to know the people who elected you. Use it wisely, Ruth-Ellen. And good luck, cause you'll need it.

* UPDATE *

Apparently things must get worse before they get better for The Candidate.

Confessions of an Election Hawk and Red Tory

2011-05-04T09:27:00.007-05:00

I'll confess it. I'll admit it and put it on my sleeve. I was one of the election hawks in March. I did not get the government I voted for, nor the representative, but I got the men and women I deserve. A right wing neoconservative majority that effectively and efficiently turned down the volume on policy debate and our core values as Canadians by ducking and dodging anything that resembled taking a principled stand.

As a self described Red Tory the defeat of the Liberal Party looked a lot like my former party of choice, the Progressive Conservatives. A party that was declared "irrelevant" by the media and thereafter accepted as such with no shred of criticism or reflection by the Canadian public. What came of that was a radical Reform party and even crazier Canadian Alliance. A take over and an election later the Canadian public nodded along with their conservative overlords as each time they were asked to select a parliament returned greater gains for the "centrist" Harper.

Two nights ago Jack dodged the ultimate bullet that could destroy the luster and attractiveness of the NDP -- the chance to govern a minority parliament and the inevitable loss of confidence which would stamp the party with a big #Fail. But, thank God, Jack does not have to fail at doing his job of incessantly opposing without actually being able to propose and execute his platform.

In his victory speech Jack talked a lot about protecting pensions. Protecting health care. Protecting Canadian families and jobs. He said nothing about merging. He said nothing about cooperation with the LPC. He said he would "propose" to the CPC rather than "oppose" anything and everything. Well, that's convenient seeing as how he has no choice but to accept the will of Stephen Harper which he is perfectly comfortable with as it keeps the mystery of what an NDP government would look like alive for another election.

I'm only hearing rumblings of an NDP-LPC merger from Liberals. No New Democrat has even contemplated such an act. After all, they are now the govenrment-in-waiting. And I suspect the possibility of said merger would only become viable if in 2015 the Conservatives are given another majority mandate: extending their streak in power to a sickeningly long 13 years. Moreover, even if the NDP did muse about a merger during this parliamentary session in preparation for the 42nd CDN Election, why should the LPC do it? What is to gain?

I know what real Canadian conservatives -- the Red Tories -- thought and hoped for when the Canadian Alliance aggressively over took the party. Big promises of a Red Tory Council! Big leadership hopefuls and party leaders like Belinda Stronach, Tony Clement, Jim Prentice and Peter MacKay. Where are they now? Under Harper, there is no Deputy PM. Sorry Peter. Under Harper there is no progressive policy on the environment or social issues. Sorry Belinda, sorry Jim. Under Harper politics trumps ideology and best practice. Sorry Tony.

And so it would be within a "merged" NDP-LPC. Only a Harper supermajority of Mulroney proportions would make things so bleak that both parties would look at each other and reconsider their options. Today, tomorrow, and the days after that; the attractiveness of a merger is 1-sided and only the weakest and most desperate Liberals will advocate for it. Only those who think that there is nothing left. If that is the case, join the NDP yourselves and get out of the way of change.

I took three calls last night from friends. Friends who said they were proud of the work that I did despite a devastating loss at the local and national level. Friends that told me that they were stunned with the election results and that they have never been ones for party politics, but they are close and extremely interested in joining the Liberal Party and being a part of a new beginning. These are the people who the party brass should welcome with open arms. We can embrace one another and be champions of our values; or we can get in line and knock on the door of Stornoway. I choose to fight for my values.

There will be no Liberal-Democrat party, it would be the Democratic party. And centrists would find themselves in deep conflict with the vast majority of a left-wing party. Out of fear centrists would be marginalized because to speak out against the "united" message would mean even greater weakness than if we had been on our own and one more defeat would be "unbearable" to "the country." I didn't buy that when the Alliance shoved a sock in the mouth of centrist PCs in late 2003 and early 2004 and I won't buy it now.

I'm not a party man. I'm a principled Canadian. And as such, I have been wandering the political landscape for most of my life. I am not against cooperation. I am not opposed to a coalition. I am not unwilling to compromise in a merger. But the conditions have to be right. And today they are not. We must stand up. We must dust ourselves off and get to work. I did it once before and as a result came this blog. I'll do it again and the result will be not words floating in cyberspace, but shoes on the ground.

Will you join me?

He'd throw Canada under the bus too

2011-04-15T12:33:00.006-05:00

He ordered the ejection of Bill Casey. Garth Turner. Helena Guergis.

He sent Shelly Glover to throw Tom Flanagan under the bus.

Pat Strogan, fired. Munir Sheikh, resigned on principle.

Students ejected by the RCMP on CPC orders from Harper rallies after being Facebook checked.

***

If you thought for a moment that this is your Canada, you're wrong. On May 2, vote for your opposition candidate to fire Harper!

G&M on Ignatieff: Energy and urgency. He was hot.

2011-04-12T21:46:00.004-05:00

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was fiery on tonight's national leaders debate. He covered every topic under the sun and reminded Canadians exactly why we are having this election. There were a few stumbles, these debates are never perfect. But he was on point when he needed to be and nailed Harper and his neo-Conservatives on everything that mattered: health care, spending, public safety, democracy.

Harper was the most polished of the bunch; but then again, what else would you expect from a career politician? Harper's favourite line of the night: "that's not true." His defence of poor public policy choices, circumventing parliamentary procedure, covering up the costs of billions in spending was, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?" And let me tell you something. It. Was. Effective.

Smirking throughout the debate, Harper shrugged off of everything. He even suggested that the debate was wasting his time from working "on the economy." Wow. Harper acted as if the event was below him. But then again, he's been that way about the whole election. In fact, he has run his government that way ever since coming into power by employing a "My way or the highway" attitude. To be sure, most of the business the government has been "getting done" was either by making every bill before the house a government bill, and therefore a motion of confidence, or by pork-barreling.

Harper said that cops support killing the long-gun registry, and cited former OPP Chief Julian Fantino, CPC incumbent for Vaughan, as one of Canada's trusted police officers who believes the registry makes "duck hunters" into "criminals." Harper didn't mention (neither did Ignatieff) that Fantino supported the registry while he was OPP Chief -- before he was against it as a Conservative MP. Harper said that he's been in support of multiculturalism and immigration. And yet, his minister for immigration has been making it more and more difficult for family reunification between permanent residents and their families overseas. Harper said spending billions on jets was a purchase far, far away in the future. But neglected to mention that the contract is on the table for today.

At the end of the day, watching Harper was like watching someone before a court they feel is illegitimate. Harper doesn't have to defend anything that he doesn't think he is guilty of. And that is his election strategy from day 1: this thing is a waste of time. A kangaroo court. A charade taking him out of his office and away from "important" work. It permeates his campaign as he ejects students and veterans out of his rallies filled with card-carrying partisans. And his response to removing undecided voters from his rallies: it's not my fault; a staffer did it.

Admit nothing. Don't address your opponents or critics in the eye. Repeat the party lines that we should stay the course. This is how Harper will creep into majority territory.

Unless we act.

Unless you call up your Opposition candidate and volunteer an evening, a weekend, E-Day. I'm doing it in Winnipeg. It's time, especially after tonight, to put our money where our mouths are.

A Letter to Mr. Ignatieff: It's time to get personal against attack ads

2011-04-08T16:14:00.010-05:00

Mr. Ignatieff,

On the Liberal campaign trail in Winnipeg there is one thing that we are hearing consistently: Canadians are sick and tired of attack ads. They hate them.

It disrupts governance, creates an atmosphere of constant electioneering, and is just plain un-Canadian. And yet, they persist through this election. An election that is being held because the governing party was found to be committing perjury in the House of Commons. A party that has proven to be ^NOT concerned with formal rules, conventions, or courtesy.

No one knows this more than you, Mr. Ignatieff. Stephane Dion surely knows it. And to a certain extent, Stephen Harper himself. (But hey, Steve's motto has got to be "If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em.") Kim Campbell did it. Chretien did it. Martin and Mulroney. They all have! And we are tired of it.

My question to you, sir, is this: will you propose reform to pre-writ election advertising? Put a ceiling on what parties can spend during session on partisan ads on radio, TV, and internet.

Moreover, will you propose instituting a US-style "I endorse this message" closing line on each and every political ad on the radio or television, so voters can hear from the mouth of the party leader that they are willing to stand behind their personal attacks?

In essence, I'm asking you to make Canada aware of Senator Dennis Dawson's bill S-227 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses) and to put it at the top of your party's list of parliamentary reforms.

The only reason Harper can shrug off ALL of these attacks against you is because he doesn't really have to get up there and say them himself. A voice on a TV or radio will do that for him and he can act like "the party" is doing something that the "prime minister" is not.

I believe that proposing these kinds of reforms would be extremely popular with everyday Canadians. I believe people could go to the polls and vote for you because you're willing to put up or shut up. Canadians want some peace and quiet during parliament. They don't want to hear attack ads and party messages every other week! Granted, most of it comes from the Conservatives. And guess what -- even CONSERVATIVES are sick of it! It's exhausting. And the party that proposes to give Canadians some relief will be rewarded.

It's time to get personal against attack ads and propose legislation to curb this dreadful behavior that no one likes. It could very well be the game-changer progressives need.

Signed,
Dylan

Harper Party announces 2011 platform release date

2011-04-03T13:03:00.003-05:00

For 2015-2016 if the budget is balanced. Maybe.

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff and his Liberal team have put together a platform for families that aims to strengthen Canada through investment, education, and responsible government.

Meanwhile in Winnipeg South Centre, Harper Party candidate Joyce Bateman has decided to bite the hand that has fed her for several municipal elections by turning on her provincial and federal LPC friends and running for the CPC. Bateman, who decided to come out of a two-week hiding since rumours of her nomination were wild in WPG, has finally spoken about her apparent change of values.

"I'm not running as a Liberal because their whole agenda right now is reckless spending. I see a very responsible approach to paying down the debt by the Conservative government."

I've heard this before. Bateman's dissappearence from the public over the better half of last month (ironic, seeing as how she IS a public servant) was clearly necessary so she could be thoroughly coached and programmed to speak all of the popular talking points without gagging or laughing -- as she surely would have last October when she ran on the following platform for School Trustee:

Forget fear, Canada. Forget deficit bulging F-35 jets. Forget empty promises from an out-of-touch "Harper Government". Harper said it himself -- it's Majority or Bust. On May 2, let's BUST the Conservative party and their opportunist candidates who are in this race for themselves.

I cannot choose my coworkers...

2011-03-25T19:57:00.004-05:00

And neither could Stephen Harper when the polls closed back in 2008. The parliament that was elected in 08 was the group he was given to work with. Many Conservatives joined him, but not so many that he didn't need a little help from the other parties to get anything accomplished. Ergo, cooperation had to happen.

What about you? What about in your job? Can you choose your coworkers and decide to write them off whenever it suits you? Can you declare in your workplace that some things are nonnegotiable and expect them to fold like paper airplanes?

If you're mad about the election I want you to think about who you should be mad at. The Prime Minister who said the budget - the very same budget that NEEDED 1 other party to accept it - was "nonnegotiable"? Or the Liberal leader that gave his suggestions on what should be in the budget for their party to support it?

Should you be mad at the Harper Government who refused to tell their coworkers the price of prisons and airplanes that they wanted to buy? Or the Liberal leader for asking what the cost of those planes and prisons are before supporting those initiatives?

Should you be mad at the Conservative party that overspent election money and is being taken to court over electoral fraud? Or the Liberal leader who won't put up with crooks?

I wish so dearly that I could sit in a room with 3 of my coworkers and demand that things to "my way or the highway" and have everybody do what I want all the time.

But that's not the way the real world works.

And if it doesn't work like that at your office why should we put up with anything less than that in our government?

10 headlines capturing the "work" of the Harper Regime

2011-03-23T11:58:00.007-05:00

The Globe and Mail has released a photo slide show titled "A look back at the biggest headlines from Canada's 40th parliament" with 8 of the 10 headlines either critiquing or outright slamming the Harper Regime's path of governance.

The two exceptions? The first was the state of Jack Layton's health. The other was the notable retirements of Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl. As shocking and tight-lipped as their departures will be from the House, one has to wonder whether or not they exit politics because of Harper's style of 24/7 electioneering and strongman governance. Considering the countdown of headlines, it is a bloody miracle that 75% of the country has not turned it's back on Harper.

10. Prorogation
9. G8 & G20 Summits - costs and police presence
8. Long-form census debacle
7. Jaffer and Guergis Affair
6. Security council loss
5. Afghanistan withdrawal date and shift in mission
4. Layton's health
3. Harper Party Retirements
2. Fighter Jets
1. Contempt

Today we hear a number of stanzas from the usual CPC choir ("COALITION!!!!", "no one cares", "we're too fragile for instability", "face it (LPC/NDP) you lost the election", etc, etc.) and the ever familiar chorus everyone knows so well: "we (the Harper Party) do not want an election."

And yet they release election-style attack ad, after attack ad, after EAP ads, and so on. They go on wildly expensive EAP promotional tours and pitch new money and new plans and chatter like squirrels in trees about all the good the "Harper Government" of Canada is doing for Canadians. And we're not supposed to believe we (as in the entire country and our political economy) are not in election mode?

When Harper moved the Opposition Day from two weeks ago to Friday he did it exactly because he wants to fall on his budget. The Harper Regime message is clear: we do not need an unnecessary election to "disturb" our economic "fragility"- which is an odd thing to say considering those CPC ads that claim our economy is one of the strongest in the world... but not SO strong that we can "weather the storm" of political debate and democracy.

But Ignatieff has a counter. A good one that I like. Economics, democracy and politics are all interrelated. And they cannot trust Harper and his party with the economic management of the country if they are found to be in contempt of parliament. If they lie in the House, withhold documents about the costs of projects, and manipulate the bureaucracy then how can we possibly begin to trust them to put us back on track?

Flip-flop Flaherty said that there would be "no new spending" -- but as we saw yesterday there is 2 billion worth of new spending. And how much new revenue is being brought in by closing loop holes? Hundreds of millions. Not bad. Oh wait, that's over several years. Meanwhile, we'll spend 6 billion on corporate tax cuts, 20 billion on fighter jets, and hundreds of millions on prisons -- effectively TAXING AND SPENDING well into the 21st century.

I know Canadians will not sleep away the election campaign, yawning to themselves that this is a waste of time. I know Canadians will pay attention. I believe Canadians will come out and vote. And I know that when each one of us really searches within themselves they'll elect representatives that respect our democracy and put this country back on the right track.

Would Harper prorogue parliament again?

2011-03-22T15:37:00.008-05:00

A thought for progressives to discuss:

Layton has two votes this week with one potentially mattering significantly more than the other. If Layton supports the budget on Thursday can he really vote alongside the expected Liberal non-confidence motion on Friday? He could certainly vote against an Opposition Day non-confidence motion, that's for sure, but what motivation would the NDP have unless there's a lot of wheeling and dealing done prior to today's tabling of the budget.

Should Layton and the NDP vote against the budget on Thursday it is likely that Harper will go to Rideau Hall on Friday and speak with the GG about dissolving parliament - stopping the Liberal Opposition Day in it's tracks.

But if the NDP support the budget on Thursday and vote against the government on Friday should a Liberal motion of non-confidence be tabled, will Harper go to Rideau Hall and ask the GG to dissolve parliament? Or will he ask for another prorogation?

Yeah, I said it. Prorogue parliament for a third time.

Why? Why not. Is there not some precedent for "cooler heads to prevail" and to let the government "carry out it's mandate" as outlined in the budget - supported by a majority of parliamentarians (i.e. the NDP)? (Then again, if the NDP supports the budget Ignatieff may not table a motion of non-confidence anyways since it could be fruitless and confusing to Canadians that the House is for, and yet at the same time, against, the government.)

It might not be the stupidest thing to do if you are a government arguing day and night that "now is not the time for an election" and, in fact, may possibly bolster support with the anti-election Canadian population. Moreover, it could entice some hawkish Liberals to start clamoring for a coalition proposal -- playing into the Harper Party narrative that everyone is against them.

That said, I am by no means an expert on our constitution or anything like that and this is all based on hypotheticals and an active imagination. I now turn to my colleagues in the progressive blogosphere to weigh in.

Prorogue "Yea" or Prorogue "Nay"?

UPDATE

Nevermind.

Attn Peter McKay: It's too late to hype your "morals"

2011-03-21T16:21:00.002-05:00

From the CBC -- "Libyan mission a 'moral duty,' McKay says."

Well, that's a relief. Just when I thought the Harper Government was devoid of morals, they put a mic in front of Progressive Conservative turncoat, Peter McKay, to talk about the morality of Canada's decision to help enforce the UN no-fly zone over Libya.

To clarify: I support the no-fly zone mission. I support Obama's view that this mission should be about protecting Libyan civilians -- not regime change. Unlike some others.

In short, thanks for the memo Peter. And while everybody should be clear on where leadership on R2P came from; it's ironic that you are the "morality messenger" for a government found twice over to be in contempt of parliament; to say nothing of your backstabbing of David Orchard and the sacrificing of a Canadian political tradition just to sit on the lap of Harper and the Canadian Alliance.

If there was a shred of credibility left in this government, nay, this Harper Regime, to lead the country on the grounds of some sort of moral authority -- it has been thoroughly vaporized.

Will the LPC respond?

2011-02-28T15:48:00.007-06:00

Parliament resumes and the "we don't want an election" rhetoric seems to have been dialed down as the NDP and CPC both release campaign-style ads aimed at convincing Canadians they have what it takes to lead this country.

Meanwhile at Stornoway, crickets chirp. I'd like to think that the LPC will jump in within the week with their own set of positive ads, but something inside of me says that I will be disappointed.

Impolitical posted a great video a few weeks ago of James Carville speaking during the 1992 Clinton campaign; and I think it is relevant to this topic. Every time the CPC and NDP release a set of ads, the LPC needs to respond if they want to remain at the forefront of the voter's minds. And I understand that television ad space and production costs money. But it inaction costs something too. Except those expenses get paid on election day.

We saw it with Dion and we saw it with Ignatieff - the CPC will run negative advertising against the LPC at any chance they get. If the Liberals do not respond with a counter-message the CPC narrative will go unchallenged, making the LPC not only look passive but also apathetic. How can Liberal Party organizers expect their grassroots to get energized when HQ doesn't jump to defend their leader, policies or values?

However, silence isn't the worst option in this case. Not when you log onto BCer in Toronto and read Jeff Jedras' abysmal and pathetic critique of the Jack Layton's appeal to Canadians. I hope the LPC doesn't pick up on Jeff's petty angle. In all honesty, I thought the NDP ads were all right. While they lacked any real policy information they were not nearly as cliched as the latest round of "Here for Canada" slop thrown to the masses by the Harper Party.

The bottom line: everybody's doing it! As much as the "we do not want an election" line is standard operating procedure, it's about as opaque as an x-ray. Will the Canadian people "reward" that LPC talking point come E-Day? It's probably wise to start putting your props on the stage as it's being set.

But what do I know. You don't have to listen to me, just take Carville's advice.

Gun registry, bad. Kayak registry, good?

2011-02-26T12:38:00.010-06:00

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Harper Party.

The Transport Canada regulations, brought in last fall, will require everyone from professional outfitters to people leading recreational boat trips to fill out five separate forms, measure their boat and pay a $50 fee.

Wow. If the long gun registry is rarely used, a waste of money, and an infringement on our "rights" to do whatever we want; what would that make the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system?

But just before you are going to write an angry letter to Chuck Strahl, Minister of Transportation, telling him he's the worst kind of hypocrite; it should be known that he has a parry for your thrust:

It's unclear how the policy came into place. Strahl's office blamed a Liberal Party policy put in place around 10 years ago.

Oh no, you di'int!

Oh yes, he di'id. You see, while all this red tape might be bad, or ideologically inconsistent, or stupid or whatever you want to call it -- it's not the Harper Party's fault! The Liberals put all this in place so you should be mad at them. Chucky is just the policy messenger. He's just doing his job. After all, who has heard of a government reversing policies enacted by their predecessor because it didn't jive with their ideological framework? His hands, along with Harper's, are tied to implementing the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system for the safety of Canadians.

The kind of safety that assures you -- the taxpayer -- can go to sleep easy knowing that the government knows exactly where every boat floats. Just look at the list of procedures a kayaker needs to complete in order to register and license their recreational water vehicle.

Complete the Application for Registry and submit it along with the other completed documentation to the Registrar at the Vessel Registration Office at the address below.
Produce evidence of ownership/title to the Registrar of Vessels. If the original document of title (e.g. Bill of Sale/receipt, Builder's Certificate or other documentation) that proves you own the vessel cannot be produced, you must complete a declaration. You must also complete the Declaration of Ownership form.
Complete a Statement of Qualification for Vessel Registration to prove your eligibility to be registered as owner of the canoe or kayak.
Complete the Authorized Representative form. It lets Transport Canada know who to contact if the canoe/kayak is owned by a business or multiple owners. If you are the sole owner you must still complete this form.
Complete the Simplified Method of Tonnage Measurement form. We have provided two sample documents to help figure out the tonnage measurement for canoes and kayaks. Adjust the measurement numbers for your particular boat. Sample document A - Sample Document B .
Pay the fee of $50.00 for the issuance or renewal of a registration or a $50.00 flat fee for a “fleet” of vessels. Fees are payable by Visa, Mastercard or AMEX. A Certificate of Registry (Small Vessel Register) is valid for five (5) years from the date of issue.
If you are choosing to pay by cheque/money order, it is to be made payable to the RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA.

They know the size of your boat. The depth of it's hull. They know if you are registered to operate that boat. They know if anyone else in your family is registered to operate that boat. And lastly, they know exactly where you live. So at any time, day or night, a federal agent or a cop can show up at your door with reasonable cause and ask you to provide proof that you are in fact the owner and operator of said water craft. And you have to comply!

They make you pay a fee. And fill out forms. And all of this is done for your safety, Canada. And all of this is being implemented by Chuck Strahl and the Harper Party. Believe them when they say that the the Vessel Registration Office and the Pleasure Craft Licensing system is a useful tool for emergency response and your well being.

Unlike that other registry. Whom Chuck Strahl stood up and voted to kill on September 22, 2010 on the grounds that it doesn't save lives.

Corking popped CPC Champagne: EKOS reports reality

2011-02-23T21:52:00.004-06:00

A week ago CPC drones were celebrating tantalizing poll numbers that put the Harper Party close to majority territory. Today, EKOS reports what I believe to be the reality on the ground.

How does one party go from a 13 point lead to just under 5? Was it the shameful display of Bev Oda and a crumbling moral authority to govern? Or was it, as Frank Graves ponders, a kick-back in soft-support for the current government as they reached terrifying majority-like numbers?

While we do not have the regional results of the Feb. 10-22 poll where over 2800 Canadians were questioned, the thesis that the Harper Party has been "Oda-sized" seems to be the best fit for the dip. It is worth noting that this latest news from EKOS has more than 1,150 more responses and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 compared to their pre-Oda poll earlier this month. (Imagine that, the more Canadians you talk to the more come out in support of the Opposition parties.) All things considered, progressives can breathe easy as it has become normal to see Harper around 33%-32% to the LPC 28%-27%.

Graves hits on a number of other issues while on Power and Politics. Every time that Harper reaches majority territory there is a recoil effect; and second, every time there is some sort of stability in the government and things are going swimmingly for the Harper Party, they end up committing a massive public faux pas.

Which is good for us and bad for them. Leaving the only one question left: what's the best way to cork popped CPC champagne?

How convenient...

2011-02-16T23:10:00.008-06:00

Foreign hackers attack Canadian government websites.

I seriously question the timing of this piece and the ReformaTory spokespeople who are at the forefront of this breaking news. A cyber attack on the very department that is "hard at work" on the up coming budget. If we go into a spring election $10 bucks says Harper will blame the coalition between the Liberals, Socialists and their "Foreign Operatives."

Liberal Party of Canada: it's not about him

2011-02-12T18:16:00.008-06:00

For all intents and purposes, my Saturday was supposed to be about relaxation. And it started out that way. I went out for breakfast, read the paper, got a haircut, came home around noon only to have it all go to hell. What happened? I logged onto Far and Wide.

Steve's analysis of the latest EKOS poll had me flabbergasted. Disillusioned. I wouldn't say heartbroken, but my balloon was seriously deflated. Things were going so well for the Liberals since the new year began. Now, it wasn't like they were at 40% and Harper's kingdom was on the verge of total collapse, but gains were being made. Policy was pushed. Messages were being heard. The 20/11 Listening Tour was considered, by all accounts, a success. Then EKOS goes a head and blows it all up. And now the familiar verses I've heard so many times by the CPC and their flying-monkeys is being uttered in the progressive blogosphere.

Ignatieff is not a leader.

It is time for Ignatieff to leave.

Go back to Harvard.

I don't like Harper but I can't stand Mike.

During the 2008 Parliamentary Crisis the Harper Party said that the people may not have voted for a CPC majority but they certainly did not vote for Dion to be Prime Minister. And the public ate it up. Only the politically engaged stood up and said, "wait a minute... no one voted for Harper to be Prime Minister either." We vote for our representatives who belong to a party of values led by a person who has the vision and abilities to articulate those values to the electorate. Stephen Harper is the man who does this for the Conservative Party. Elizabeth May, the Greens. Jack for the NDP and Michael Ignatieff for the Liberal Party of Canada. Behind these men and women are their candidates, some of whom will go to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons. Their team.

When I ask the question, who is most fit to be Prime Minister? Ignatieff ranks in the top 5. But there are others on this list who are MPs from a variety of the parties. Some have yet to be elected.

When I think about the incompetence of Bev Oda regarding KAIROS funding; I wonder whether or not Harper is a good leader. Then I think, is Lisa Riatt a good Minister? Or Maxime Bernier? Or Vic Toews? Or Tony Clement?

Behind Ignatieff is, what I believe, an extraordinary team of people. Ralph Goodale, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall Findlay, and Scott Brison to name a few. Is there an exceptional CPC MP fit to be a minister? I can think of only one. Chuck Strahl. Other than that, the pickings are slim.

I may not be in love with Michael Ignatieff. Some may not think that he is any different from Harper. That's fine. I can cope with that. What I cannot deal with is placing the entire party on his shoulders. If we want a strong man to lead us - we already have it in Harper. When I think of the Liberal party I see a team and every time I have heard Ignatieff speak I am left with the impression that he has what it takes to lead that team to build a more prosperous Canada.

I wasn't an advocate for Ignatieff in the 2006 leadership race. He might not be the man I believe is best suited to lead the Liberals in a future leadership race. But I know, with good certainty, that we cannot go wrong with a Liberal government given the MPs who are in the LPC caucus right now -- with or without Ignatieff.

So the idea that the LPC should throw Ignatieff out completely boggles my mind. The party is so much more than him. In talking with friends and coworkers who don't think Ignatieff is that great of a guy, I like to say, "You might think that he's the same as Harper, but when was the last time Harper came through Winnipeg and had an open mic night where you could ask him any question you wanted?" or "I think Michael has more talent behind him than Harper. Anita Neville is a great representative for Winnipeg. The best Harper has is Shelly Glover and Rod Bruinooge."

That gets people thinking. Liberal supporters need to get their friends and family who are less that luke warm towards Ignatieff to see the bigger picture. We spend day and night arguing that the CPC attack ads are poisonous to democracy and then we go ahead and make the entire Liberal Party about Michael Ignatieff. Even though it never is, or ever will be, all about him.

Mr. Speaker, a question for the honourable member...

2011-02-11T19:45:00.003-06:00

...What does it cost?

The Harper Party rebuttal: law and order is priceless!

The logical follow up: Is knowing the price-tag on policies to incarcerate people for non-violent offences too much to ask for these days?

The Harper Party rejoinder: YOU'RE SOFT ON CRIME!

Private Bills from the gov't that are not Government bills

2011-02-11T11:23:00.006-06:00

We saw this tactic months ago when Candice Hoeppner tried to kill the long-gun registry through her "private member's bill." Since it worked so well, Harper is going to try it again. This time, with the Canadian Wheat Board.

Bruce Stanton, MP for Simcoe North in southern Ontario, introduced a private members' bill Thursday which would allow prairie farmers to opt out of selling their wheat and barley through the wheat board for periods of two years at a time.
Part of the legislative difficulty facing the Tories [is] the fact the government knows it has no support for the issue from any of the opposition parties and cannot get such a bill through in a minority Parliament. But private members' bills are free votes which could mean the government could seek the votes it needs from individual MPs who would not be necessarily required to vote along party lines.

Stanton acknowledged his position in the line-up for private members' bills is one of the reasons he is bringing the bill forward rather than one of the MPs from the three prairie provinces.

A free vote should be rejected by Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe on the grounds that there is no secret that this bill seeks to advance neo-conservative ideology that goes all the way back to the Reform Party in the 1980s.

Moreover, the question for the Opposition leaders should be: who speaks for the grain farmers of Western Canada? The CWB directors who are elected directly by the membership? Or Bruce from Ontario?

For me, there is no ambiguity as to whether or not the majority of Western grain farmers support the board given paradox of representation: while one may interpret the fact that nearly 100% of these farms fall within federal CPC ridings as a sign of displeasure with the Board; I believe that if anti-Board numbers were truly as strong as their MPs claim then farmers would stop electing pro-Board candidates as directors. In fact, the instant-runoff voting system used in CWB director elections is a more democratic process than how our MPs are currently selected.

Trying to cloak party ideology in a private member's bill is the latest tactic Harper is using to split the opposition and drive wedge issues into the HoC. The opposition parties ought to get together and vehemently oppose private members bills that are taken directly from CPC party platform - 100% of the time.

To be sure, the bill itself does not aim to eliminate the CWB, it certainly aims to cut a leg from underneath it. And I do not have real qualms with the bill's proposition -- I feel strongly about the way it is presented in parliament and the signals this sends to farmers and the general public, namely, that the federal government runs the CWB and MPs are the voice of farmers regarding the direction of the Board. If I were to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Stanton, I would say that this approach is ignorant to the way the Board is governed. However, given past actions from this government and our PM, I would bet that this angle intends to mislead a casual public as to how the Board operates.

Oppose it, opposition. Oppose away.

Of what value is Bernier to Harper?

2011-02-06T10:38:00.004-06:00

Maybe Harper really is the master tactician that Flanagan and Levant swoon about. Maybe. After all, I cannot for the life of me figure out the value Bernier has to Harper and the CPC caucus in Quebec. Well, that's not true, I have a loose hypothesis but I'm not really seriously considering it. Sorta.

My at-a-distance-analysis suggests that Bernier's new found libertarian approach to everything under the sun, in combination with his opposition to Bill 101, is a ploy designed to woo Anglophone Quebeckers over to the Conservative ranks. As an anglophone with deep prairie roots, some of the garble he spits out makes sense to me on a philosophical level but is quickly rejected out of sensibility. Perhaps foolishly, I assume that most anglophones feel the same way about libertarianism, especially those from provinces that have a "victim narrative" in federal politics -- such as Alberta and Quebec. Then again, I think that the only people who continue to remain in opposition to bilingualism in Canada today are hard-core Reformers who are active in federal politics under the cozy guise of a "national" CPC; and that surely even the majority of anglophones in Quebec see the value of national bilingualism and with it the ability for provinces to protect minority languages in the name of a national institution.

But that's not all, ladies and gentlemen. It seems as if Bernier is pretty much free to say and do whatever he wants without reprieve from the PMO. When have we ever seen this from Harper's leadership? I mean, Helena Guergis was a candidate in a safe, socially conservative riding in Ontario, whose only crime was marrying an idiot. She was dropped long before there was any verdict on her alleged criminal activity because the PM needed to "maintain the confidence of all the people work in for him." And if there was any more loyal a foot-soldier than Guergis in Ontario, let them speak now!

Is Bernier that reliable? Does Harper have more confidence in Bernier than in Guergis -- who practically begged to be kept in the party in front of the entire nation? To be sure Guergis was unqualified as a minister to do anything. And I am not sure the Canadian public would be any more at ease if Bernier was tapped to take over any file that Guergis could not handle. But that said...

The ultimate question for me isn't, does Bernier actually believe this crap he's saying? Rather, it is, why is he allowed to speak his mind so openly on non-issues (at least we can hope) for the federal party? The last two times he has opened his mouth he has stirred some pot. I wouldn't call them gaffes but his increasing comfortableness with proselytizing his libertarian views to Quebeckers with no recourse from the PM makes me uneasy.

You know the kind I'm talking about -- that "it's too quiet in here" type of feeling.

The kind of uneasiness that does not know whether to be happy that Bernier seems to be setting the party up for bad press; or nervous because after the dust has settled all remains quiet from the Western front.

You win this round, Bernier...

He actually did what?!: Energizing politics and other unacceptable antics

2011-01-25T16:49:00.010-06:00

Do not adjust your television set. We are firmly in pre-election mode. The majority of CPC talking-boxes may reject this claim (even though their own fund raising material say otherwise) but Peter MacKay isn't going to dance to the party tune. Today while speaking to the media in Winnipeg, MacKay admitted that the CPC has talked about the "possibility" of an election.

Meanwhile, Ignatieff spoke to party faithful in Ottawa today and delivered a focused, driven and energized speech. Jane Taber and Roger Smith drew a poor comparison to Howard Dean which just goes to show how little the MSM cares to truly analyze issues driving (what seems to be) an imminent federal election. To Taber's surprise (along with the collective shock of the nation, I'm sure) Ignatieff became excited and passionate about what his party offers to Canadians during his address.

To quote Taber's astonishment:

There was that Howard Dean moment early in the speech in which he actually screamed “yes, yes, yes,” in answer to his own question about whether his party was ready to govern and fight for Canadian families.

The CPC talking-box translation:

"There was that Howard Dean moment early in the speech in which he literally went insane - foaming at the mouth, screaming and ranting into the microphone to the horror of 300 Liberal supporters."

What comparison is Taber trying to make? That his behavior during the speech is the beginning of the end of Ignatieff's election chances? Does Taber really believe that his presence on stage was so embarrassing that voters will turn on the Liberals and vote Conservative? The word "actually" infers dismay at his behaviour and to call his tone "screaming" is being pretty loose with the definition of the word. The audience shouted, "YES!" to his questions and he joined in with them to hammer his points home.

What a lunatic.

To bolster Taber's and Smith's lack of analysis - only the NDP and LPC were targeted as drumming up support for an election. The hypocrisy of the PM and his cabinet ministers as they fanned out across the country, making announcements, denouncing coalitions, and attacking the personalities of Jack and Michael - were mentioned in passing. As if this these types of activities are "all in a days work" for a government representative. I guess who can blame them, that kind of tripe almost is considered "normal" after the last 5 wasted years.

I saw Michael Ignatieff when he was in Saint-Boniface in Winnipeg and he spoke to a much more subdued crowed. Watching today's rally was much more the sort of thing I think we should expect from the leader of the opposition. If the Liberals want to be seen as the government in waiting they ought to act like they are ready to govern - and enthusiastically so!

The gloves are off and the Liberals are ready to talk about the issues that matter to Canadians. What is Harper afraid of?

Perhaps if he was not there wouldn't be the need to instruct and organize the character assassination of his opponents via talking-heads like Taber.

Jack saw the high road and said, "Nah."

2011-01-21T18:55:00.007-06:00

Today's Winnipeg Free Press continued to follow the latest insanity rising from the Bloc Quebecois.

Sidenote: Someone should pass a memo to Gilles reminding him that he represents the majority of Quebecois about as much as Harper represents the rest of Canada (38.1% and 37.6% respectively).

My favourite part of the Free Press article was how it highlighted the latest NDP press release on the issue.

In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.

A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.

The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.

"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.

Nice. This is exactly the kind of partisan bull dink that people want to get rid of in parliament. To be honest, I would expect more out of the NDP. I would have thought the New Democrats would take the higher ground and win over voters by being collaborative with the Liberals and hammering the CPC to support the Sikh community.

Instead they pulled a Gary Doer.

Four years ago during the 2007 Manitoba election, PC leader Hugh McFadyen announced that if they were elected they would be more active in bringing back the Winnipeg Jets professional hockey team to improve the province's "cool factor." Just when you thought it was the most ridiculous thing anyone could say, New Democrat leader Gary Doer announced that increasing the provinces "coolness" by bringing back the Jets was their idea first. It was the most partisan thing Doer could do because it didn't offer any vision or plan that was an alternative to the PC's announcement - the thrust of their rebuttal was, "we said it first!" And so, anyone gullible enough to believe these two were left with deciding between the party who says they're going to do it now or the party that said they thought of doing it before the other guys. Fantastic.

Yesterday, Jack Layton could have stood up and said that the NDP have been ardent supporters of Sikh civil and political rights and that the Bloc motion is dangerous to Canada. But he had to sneak a jab in at the Liberals.

If anyone was to posit that a federal NDP government would be some sort of shining light of parliamentary civility and cooperation, as opposed to the CPC and LPC, they should note that the press release beings with the sentence: It’s time to stop playing divisive, political games with Canadian’s religious beliefs. And then the party goes on to play political games and skewer their colleagues on a fundamental issue such as human rights.

Was this done because they don't want to be accused of being in cahoots with the LPC? I doubt it. Was it to remind soft-NDP Sikh voters that the NDP is the party for them in the next election? On the surface, this is the most obvious reason. But how big of a voting block can that be in vulnerable NDP ridings like those in Northern Ontario?

Quite simply, what Jack Layton demonstrated - as all the parties are demonstrate day in and day out - is that hyper-partisan rhetoric is not just an necessary evil in the House but it is entirely appropriate behaviour for elected officials. This poisonous behavior - from all parties - is what turns off so many Canadians. It's why all the parties are stalled in the polls. More importantly, it's why I think we need the Greens in the House. I genuinely believe they'll be a breath of fresh air... well, at least for a week or so and then no one will be surprised if they disappoint everyone and mimic the Bloc, NDP, CPC, and LPC. (But what a week that would be, eh?)

I'm disappointed Jack, you saw the high road and you said, "Nah." But lucky for you no one really pays attention to the politicking in Ottawa these days. And with press releases like these you have no one else to blame for the disengagement but yourself.

Scarier of Two Evils

2011-01-07T16:32:00.004-06:00

What's worse than a "tax and spend" liberal? How about a tax-cut and spend Conservative!

Prisons, Planes, and Post-signs - these are the things the Canadian taxpayer is going to be paying for in the next budget. And, as usual, there's got to be a tax out there that needs to be cut. While in the US, Obama is having a heck of a time getting rid of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans; the Canadian government is eager to allow the Chretien-era corporate taxes expire in order to "keep Canada competitive." It is our spirit of competition that the CPC is keen on promoting because that's what makes Canada economically sound - that is, unless you're a Australian potash company.

We'll hear a lot about "the coalition" and those "tax and spend" Liberals. But let's keep in mind that we have one of the largest governments ever (at 38 ministers - only Mulroney had more, 40, but then again he also had a majority) that cuts consumption taxes, spends down surplus', rejects foreign investment for political expediency, and has racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history.

Never mind that Chretien and finance minister Paul Martin eliminated a $40 billion dollar deficit and organized a $13 billion dollar surplus in 10 years. Never mind that that surplus was eliminated in two years by Harper because Canadians were "overtaxed." Now we're being taxed the proper amount (save for corporations, but that adjustment is coming soon) and we're spending billions on prisons while our crime rate is falling and new fighter jets right after we've decided not to conduct combat missions overseas anymore. And, go figure, after all their tax adjustments and spending initiatives, we're in the red.

Tax-cut and Spend Conservatives: we knew after the PC/CA merger that the "socially progressive" wing would be suffocated to death; but who thought that they would also terminate any hint of fiscal conservatism too?

On promoting consumer culture and demeaning Canadian citizenship

2010-12-22T14:09:00.012-06:00

Believe it or not, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney took the opportunity to affirm the Canadian citizenship of fictional character, Santa Claus, at a citizenship ceremony of 100 new Canadians in Calgary.

By swearing in a man dressed up as Santa Claus the Minister has manged to:

Demean the symbolism of the Canadian citizenship ceremony,
Promote and advance Western consumer culture as that actively erodes and suppresses the religious importance of the holiday season to Christians and person's of the Jewish faith.

It's insanity, really, to be so inappropriate and politically opportunistic. If I was a new Canadian being sworn in, I would find the ceremony cheapened as the Minister preaches the importance of Santa Claus' citizenship as promotional piece for Canadian arctic sovereignty. I would ask the question: how important and serious can this ceremony be when fictional characters, created by a multinational corporation for the purposes of pushing its products, is symbolically sworn in as a citizen right after me? I have to commend these new Canadians for putting up with this public slighting.

However, I suppose I am most surprised at the overt promotion of secularism by a Conservative Member of Parliament during one of the holiest times of the year for Christians and Jews. I mean, if a Liberal or New Democrat had done this, I would expect nothing less than seething conservatives calling for the heads of politicians who act as footsoliders in the War on Christmas.

And while I find the right-wing "War on Christmas" declaration extremely problematic for describing what's going on in much of Western society, I do take a radical position on the integrity of Christmas and I lament the rise of consumerism as the only acceptable public display of celebration during the December holiday season. I am unapologetic for wishing people "Merry Christmas" and am uneasy in the suppression of religious symbols in public spaces.

Perhaps Santa Claus was paraded around at the citizenship ceremony to promote the supremacy of Canadian sovereignty over the North Pole. Alright, I get that. But I have to wonder if there is a more hokey and ridiculous way to make that statement. It's politically opportunistic at the expense of the integrity of the holiness of the Christmas and Hanukkah celebrations; which is to say nothing of the cheapening of the achievements accomplished of these new Canadians in becoming citizens. Moreover, it promotes the false idea that Christmas in Canada is a secular holiday for spending money and pretending that you are Santa Claus to others. It ignores and suppresses the holiday traditions of these new Canadians and it speaks volumes as to what symbols are socially acceptable to display.

The press release did not provide information on whether or not there was a balance of traditions and symbols along with the swearing in of Santa Claus but I would be surprised if there was.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, making a charade of achieving Canadian citizenship all the while subverting religious expression and observance of faith in the promotion of a consumer Canada. This is the "conservatism" Calgarians elected. I hope they are happy.

Wikileaks: It's not free speech

2010-12-10T13:39:00.007-06:00

Part 1: An issue of semantics?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't necessarily view the Wikileaks drama as being an exercise of acting on a person's right to free speech. My question: how is it a person's right to be able to view a confidential document, pass judgment on it, and leak it to the public, via the World Wide Web, under the blanket of anonymity? I am not convinced that that action is one of a person's civil and political rights.

However, I may be persuaded that Wikileaks is a matter of freedom of information, particularly government documents. Private documents, on the other hand, are another matter. Do I as a member of the general public, the Canadian citizenry, have a right to know what's going on in the boardrooms of TD Canada Trust? Or Bell Mobility? Or Nexen? Perhaps I do given that we are all interconnected via the economy and their poor management could affect my bottom line; but that kind of justification is really stretching it.

Moreover, we have to look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to be able to even claim such global rights. From which we can measure whether or not Wikileaks has anything to do with the right to free speech or freedom of information.

On free speech, the UDHR is clear in its preamble,

...Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...

And that's it for free speech. As we all know, as Canadians we are free to speak our mind. Except if we want to express beliefs that invoke hatred of others or intend to put others in harms way. In this respect, we have accepted that there are reasonable limitations to free speech. You cannot yell "BOMB!" on an airplane because you wish to say the word bomb at the top of your lungs. That doesn't cut it. Likewise, if you knew that by announcing sensative information in a crowd of people that may contain a population would use said information to harm others, is it not reasonable to limit that speech on behalf of the lives that may come under threat?

On a person's freedom to information the UDHR is more concrete. Article 19 states,

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Here we have a rights-based justification for Wikileaks and the information posted to the Internet. Using the "bomb on an airplane" analogy; it is my right as an individual to be told that there is a bomb on the plane if there is reason to believe that information is correct. Notice that in Article 19 the word "expression" is used. We are free to express our opinions, which is different than being free to speak whatever words come into our heads. Our opinions ought to be informed, thought out, and considered carefully. If it is your "opinion" that there is a bomb on the plane just because you saw bags you did not recognize as your own being loaded into the cargo hold, then you're a moron. Moreover, expressing that opinion is not the same as being free to speak "BOMB!" on the plane without reprisal. Or is it?

What we can glean from the UDHR is that we, as the global citizenry, are free to speak our minds - with some legal limitations based on societal norms and customs - and that we are free to hold opinions. Those opinions are formed based on the information we are presented and that which we seek. Additionally, we are free to seek information from the media (and in this day and age that would include social-media) regardless of frontier, meaning all forms of media being considered equal.

Part II: "When you control the mail, you control... information!" - Newman, from Seinfeld

Information is the key to the success and failure of Wikileaks. Information that is readily available is no good. A recipe on a soup-can label is not as valuable as the one that is used to make the soup inside the can.

I have already touched on whether or not everyone in the world is privy to any piece of information - whether it effects them directly or not. I am tempted to use a "global public good" argument for the value of "information" in a very general sense. But I hesitate because I can hear some of my former economics professors blood pressure rising at the very thought. Perhaps one of my readers who is more versed in global public goods and/or has thought this thing through for more than an hour and a half may help me out here.

The bottom line is that while we are free, as citizens of the world, to have access to information regardless of frontier there are reasonable limits to what information is acceptable for me to know. For example, is it my right to have the blueprints to a nuclear facility? Is it my right to know how much money my boss makes? On the flip side, would I defend my co-workers right to know how much money I make?

I'm not saying, "what we do not know cannot hurt us" - what I am trying to say is that as a collective society we need to develop a better understanding of what we deem is crucial information to the public and what is not. Is it crucial to know how much money the manager of a car dealership makes and how would we pass that information along? Is that more or less important that how much money the Prime Minister makes? Should we choose between the two? Not necessarily, but we need a framework for which we include or exclude information based on the priorities of our society for it's well-being and enrichment.

Part II: The hammer is coming down whether we like it or not

Lastly, I am not going to run to the defense of Wikileaks because it hides the identities of whistle-blowers. I am one who believes that you ought to own what you say. If you feel that by leaking to the internet the cables of your boss, say Hilary Clinton, then maybe you should put your name on the bottom of it. If your information is genuine and will lead to a more just and fair Secretary of State, then fantastic! If your information is meant to slander and cast doubt upon the Secretary of State... then perhaps it's good for the water cooler but not good for the country. Leaking secret, embarrassing information and expressing radical dissent is not new. Take the original whistle-blower himself: Martin Luther.

If Martin Luther had not put his name on the bottom of his 95 Thesis, where do you think we would be today? Would the reformation and counter-reformation movements have never taken place? I doubt it, but what I could probably guarantee is that the Catholic Church would have come down pretty hard on the inhabitants of Wittenberg; forestalling the (hopefully) inevitable.

Today's Wikileaks is the modern day Wittenberg Door - except the part of Martin Luther is being played by everyone who submits documents and represented collectively by the odd Mr. Juilan Assange. Oh, and except for the part that Luther didn't really want to break up the Catholic Church he just wanted to reform it. On that note, Assange's goals are far less clear beyond a general "accountability" he hopes to bring to the world's largest corporations and governments; which is to surely blow up in our collective faces about as much as criticism of the Catholic Church did in the 16th century.

I agree with many op-ed pieces that believe the Wikileaks drama will only lead to greater security. We'll have a counter-access-to-information age whereby companies and governments will become more secretive and, possibly, more nefarious in their intentions. In an non-zero sum situation, as in life, actors (employers/employees, civil servants/public, etc.) generally have a choice to cooperate with one another for the benefit of both parties or to defect on their cooperation to benefit themselves individually. This is the "tit for tat" strategy of game theory. When two players are competing it is best for each player to cooperate or defect based on the last move of their opponent. If your opponent cooperates and you both benefit, then you should reciprocate and cooperate to keep the good times rolling. The strategy goes that as soon as one cheats (or defects) to gain at the others expense, then the other should defect at their very next opportunity. Defections will continue until someone cooperates and cooperation will continue until one defects.

Thinking of governments, the bureaucracy and the public; playing a three-way dance, Wikileaks is the ultimate form of defection. It is probably not the first defection, perhaps the government "defected" first by withholding critical information from the public. But that be the case, we can only expect governments to retaliate with another defection - making information more classified, more secretive, and concentrating power within the executive branches. The public would then have the choice to defect again, i.e. boycott an election. As you can see, the slope only gets steeper unless one party decides to cooperate (i.e. the public accepts more secrecy; the government enacts genuine reform).

Part IV: Cooperation or Defection?

When Martin Luther defected the Catholic Church responded appropriately. To be fair, the Church grossly misinterpreted Luther's criticism. But then again, the powers that be were interested in preserving the status quo. Much the same as today's liberal democracies, to say nothing of authoritarian regimes, and multinational corporations. "The people" have had their say, if we can trust those anonymous sources, and the ball is now in "the powers" court.

The Tea Party Strikes Back

2010-12-04T11:54:00.007-06:00

How dare President Obama attempt to the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich expire, adding a whopping 4.6% to an already "overtaxed" population! But America shouldn't worry, 'cause the Tea Party has got their backs. And I don't mean "America" in the collective sense, I mean those Americans who came out in droves to support the Tea Party movement and spend their hard earned dollars on Sarah Palin's book. These aren't the Wall Street elites or Washington Fat Cats. These are the kind of ordinary Joes that go to work, do their jobs, and need that 4.6% tax cut to go to their boss because what kind of a country has America become when the guys at the meatpacking plant cannot count on their government to favour the wealthiest people in the nation?

Stephen Colbert used the word "nothingness" to describe the justification of letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. And I believe it's the best look inside the ridiculous justification to feed the unemployed, underemployed and disillusioned lower-middle and middle class who vote Republican.

Enjoy.

Adding the Commissioner's Award to my resume

2010-11-26T09:24:00.007-06:00

Yesterday during the Gibson's Canadian Footaball League Players Awards, CFL commissioner Mark Cohon presented the Commissioner's Award to the Rider Nation.

"Each year, I have the privilege of handing out the Commissioner's Award to a person or group that has made an outstanding contribution to the development of Canadian football," he said.

"This year, the one hundredth year of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I decided to pay tribute to a group that epitomizes the way CFL fans love our league: the Rider Nation, which collectively does so much to make our league vibrant and strong and fun."

"I really believe our league is home to some of the best fans in the world, including passionate supporters of the Lions, Stamps, Eskimos, Bombers, Cats, Argos and Alouettes," Cohon said.

"But few would dispute, especially in the Roughriders' centennial year, that there is something special about Rider Pride."

The award was accepted on behalf of the Rider Nation by three generations of a family of devoted Saskatchewan fans: Randy Goulden of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, a Rider shareholder and a season's ticket holder since 1979, her son Tom Goulden, 35, her grandson Jonathan McLeod, 8, and granddaughters Kathryn Goulden-Maddin, 14, and Calen Goulden, 9, and Amarah Goulden, 7.

On behalf of Rider expats like myself, I'd like to thank Mark Cohon and the CFL for the award.

My family and I have been fans for three generations and across four provinces. We've been season ticket holders in Regina; loyal followers when the Green and White come to Calgary; Banjo Bowl survivors; and SkyDome seat-fillers. We watched as American teams strolled into town and we're proud of this league long after they've left. We know when to boast and when to keep our mouths shut - and usually the silence that fills the room after a boisterous Stampeder fan talks a big game for 3 quarters says more than any rebuttal I could ever think up.

During this year's Banjo Bowl I was booed. I was laughed at. I had beer poured on me. I read a sign that said "100 Years of Suck" and noticed a Bomber jersey with the name "Twelve" and the number #13. If I was called any of the names that were shouted to me outside of CanadInns Stadium, I'd sue the person for defamation of character. But today, our character stands tall.

Fans of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, celebrating 80 years of losing football this year, weren't commended on their spirit. Neither were the fair-weather fans of Calgary who tune in to Stampeder football in-between Flames' seasons. The Ti-Cat crowd might deserve a posthumous Commissioner's award - same with Edmonton. (And speaking of days of old, do the Argos even have fans anymore?) If you can find the 19,000 Alouette fans they might be deserving of a thumbs up (although, it's easy to build a fan base when a Grey Cup winning franchise is moved to your city...). The Lions would be the next deserving fan base for recognition. They always come out in droves and credit where credit is due, they made their Empire Stadium look fantastic.

Thanks Mark. We're glad to have this award. But it's not quite the one we want. We're after one, very special, award. And that's the Cup itself.

We can do it Rider Nation.

GO! RIDERS! GO!