Right of Center Ice

Greens move ahead of NDP in QC, ON, Ssk/MB

2009-10-27T19:05:00.002-05:00

Is the GPC really taking votes away from every party? It certainly seems that way.

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll (Oct. 23) doesn't bode well for Liberals as they sit at 25% (-4) to the CPC's 40 (+1). The NDP remain unchanged at 13% and the GPC have jumped 3 points to 11%.

However, in the regional breakdown - the biggest surprises come in QC, ON, and Ssk/MB where the GPC has put the NDP behind them in popularity. In Quebec, the support has come from losses in support to the LPC, CPC and NDP. In Ontario, the Liberals are the only party to have lost support with the GPC and NDP rising at the same amount (2 points). In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the story is incredible: the GPC has shot up 11 points to 14% with the CPC losing 5% and the LPC 4%. The NDP gained ground in Ssk/MB but only to 13%.

The GPC has been gaining support accross all regions in Canada, yet the true measure of their sucess will come if they can grab a seat in the next federal election. While the GPC usually polls well while parliament is in session and support bleeds during elections, this continued rise in support could very well mean a more reliable base come election time.

Good Luck Greens!

Harper's Pre-Recession deficit

2009-10-19T10:01:00.007-05:00

Ralph Goodale does it again. Goodale has been one of my favourite members of parliament for years, and today he's come out with a real gem for progressives to sink their teeth into.

After months of denial, the Conservatives finally had to release the audited financial statements of the Government of Canada for last fiscal year (2008/09). They revealed that for the first time in more than a decade, this country fell back into the red by about $6 billion.

Here’s a key point to note: This deficit began BEFORE, not because of, the recession!

These financial statements reflect primarily what was happening BEFORE the recession hit last fall.

We all know the factors that put Canada into deficit. We were tax cut into the black and spent into the red. Goodale charges that by the time the recession is over and all the money has been spent, we'll have $170 billion dollars to pay back tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that...

I don't want to be very rosy about the Liberal Red Book - it slashed a lot of money from essential public services like health care. I'm not keen on going back to lean days where underfunded programs become starved for fiscal help from the government. Which leads to option number two, taxation. Which is a tricky issue for the Keynesian at a time like this.

Right now, we should be cutting the GST further, so the theory goes, to spur on consumer spending. Income taxes should also be cut, to stretch the incomes of Canadian families. But that would prolong government deficit and, with less money coming into Ottawa, we're left with program cuts anyways.

Our last two quarters have shown growth in the economy, officially "ending" the recession. But that doesn't mean surplus' and all the good things that come with a growing economy. Not the way Harper has played our cards.

Unfortunately for Mr. Goodale, and progressive Canadians, I cannot seeing this news - as important as it is - having any impact on the mood of the electorate. Similarly, as much as Cheque-gate seems to stir the ire any who didn't vote Conservative, I believe that the public is simply "scandaled-out." Furthermore, I'm not sure if Canadians view the LPC as having the moral authority to call the CPC out on their poor ethics. But Dipper's shouldn't raise their glasses in celebration yet, since it is painfully clear that the electorate doesn't believe the NDP has the moral fiber to replace the Liberals or the CPC as the government/government-in-waiting.

Let's count them up: Broken Income Trust promises; the Cadman Affair; In-and-Out Scheme; the CPC sues Elections Canada; countless CPC candidates being forced out of their positions because their views differed from Harper on social issues and party politics; Garth Turner leaves the CPC caucus; Bill Casey is forced out from the CPC caucus; and now, Cheque-gate and the misappropriation of taxpayers dollars to pay for partisan advertising under the guise of Canada's Economic Action Plan.

Where's the outrage? Where are the feelings that we have been duped by a man and his party that was launched into 24 Sussex on a platform of accountability, transparency and fiscal conservatism? When will Canadians wake-up and realize that we traded a fiscally sound, yet, morally questionable Liberal government for a fiscally unbalanced and morally contemptuous Harper PMO?

Polls say that Canadians trust Harper more than any other leader. I'd like to know how those ostriches could answer the phone with their heads stuck in the political sand.

I suppose that just like Paul Martin, Stephen Harper's days as PM are numbered, just as long as Canadians stop questioning the agenda of the government-in-waiting and it's leader, and start focusing on the ills of the government-of-the-day.

(H/T to penlan at Politics - for the people for bringing Goodale's post to the blogosphere first.)

Fantuz signs 3-year deal with Roughriders

2009-10-15T19:32:00.004-05:00

On a related note, 2008 Rookie of the Year Weston Dressler won't see any more action this season as he suffered a broken foot in the Riders 32-22 win over the Toronto Argonauts last week.

Naw, I'm just kidding. Well, not about Dressler's broken foot. However, I do wonder what took Andy Fantuz nearly 5 weeks to decide on whether or not to resign with the Saskatchewan club.

Either way, looks like I don't have to discard my #83 jersey next season! In celebration, I think I'm going to wear it.

Go Riders.

Deficit, deficit, go away! Come again some other day.

2009-10-09T16:01:00.004-05:00

They don't want to raise taxes. They don't want to cut spending. What do Harpercons want? They want the deficit to magically disappear. Apparently, they'll just phase out the stimulus spending from the next um-teen budgets and then the deficits will eventually wither away as the government returns to balanced spending. But I feel that one thing is being overlooked.

If the government runs a deficit in year 1 and a balanced budget in year 2, where did the money owed in year 1 go? It doesn't simply go away. It becomes debt.

It's easy to not go into deficit with balanced spending. It's hard to get rid of debt with that approach considering Harper will just phase out stimulus spending and maintain existing program spending.

So how will the debt incurred from all the stimulus spending get paid off? I suppose Harper's approach is simply to let that pile up on top of the debt Canada currently owes. And I also suppose that we'll just pay down that debt when we start running surpluses again. Ah, good old surpluses.

But wait... what about all that dreaded surplus talk during the Martin government? The mantra that surpluses equal an over taxed population? I guess their position has changed.

Just like their last election campaign, where answers to policy questions were largely invisible given the fact that they didn't have a platform until a week before the ballots were cast, the Conservatives don't have answers for our complex questions. But that doesn't stop Harper from taking stabs at the Opposition. Nor does that sway the electorate from supporting the non-position of the Conservative status quo (at least according to Ipsos-Reid).

So what's a progressive to do? I'm going to hold my nose and try and wait this government out. I just hope that when the time comes to elect a new parliament that progressives aren't asleep at the wheel, cause we all know that this government is.

RCI Exclusive: Ignatieff at Laurier

2009-09-19T21:29:00.004-05:00

Today, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came to Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo and spoke to a packed house of Young Liberals and student politicos. Among them was yours truly.

I'm not a member of the Laurier Young Liberals or their federal counterpart, but I did take this opportunity to hear what Ignatieff had to say and how he presented himself to students. My experience with meeting and interacting with politicians is limited (Mayor of Winnipeg, Manitoba Minister of Advanced Education, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia MP Stephen Fletcher, GPC leader Elizabeth May), yet, I can say that Mr. Ignatieff carried himself extremely well. With the exception of Elizabeth May, Michael Ignatieff was the best speaker of any federal politician that I have heard in person. It was, in sum, an energizing and exciting experience.

The buzz on the blogosphere has concentrated on the eating of crow for all federal parties, with the exception of (maybe) the Bloc and the Liberals. The Bloc have stated all along that they will vote for any piece of legislation that is "good for Quebec." (When it's Liberal sponsored legislation, the CPC claims that anything "good for Quebec" is enabling of the Bloc's separatist aims.) The NDP, however, are in a sticky bind that is as plain as the bald spot on Jack Layton's head to everyone except for some prominent Blogging Dippers. This about-face in opposition to anything Harper looks at isn't political, it's about making parliament work. They're not "blind to the polls" and ignorant to the "majority" of Canadians that don't want an election, not like those Liberals - on the contrary, they're going to do their jobs and make sure this parliament is productive... unless they can break the 20% threshold.

I'm not going to be all hawkish about an election right now. The truth is, if Harper thought he could defeat Ignatieff, he would have triggered one by filling the EI package with some additional pieces of outrageous legislation that no one but Conservatives would vote for. But he didn't.

And to be sure, Ignatieff, I don't think, wants an election in the immediate future. He just doesn't want the other parties to define who he is. He doesn't want to suffer the same fate as Stephane Dion - being mocked and prodded by Conservatives and Dippers every time they abstained from a vote of confidence; leaving the NDP to claim that they're the only "true" opposition to the CPC and enabling Harper's "not a leader" message. So what's a Liberal leader to do?

Oppose, oppose, oppose.

And now Jack and his faithful are singing the same Conservative tune: Ignatieff wants a wasteful election, risking the Canadian economy, trying to take power all for himself... but we're not going to let him do that! We're going to make parliament work.

Except that isn't true. Well, it is true that there would have been an election should the NDP and Bloc not have supported the CPC EI "reforms." But it is hardly the responsibility of the Liberal party to ensure that Harper's government puts forth legislation everyone can agree on, and if not, vote for anything that would avoid an election because that's what the masses "want."

It is almost frightening how predictable the NDP can be. I'm almost more impressed with how the Bloc carries itself in parliament over the New Democrats.

This afternoon, Michael Ignatieff did not make a Liberal out of me, but he did speak a message that was positive, uplifting, and hopeful. It wasn't stacked knee-high with partisan banter and buzz-words. He stuck to the facts and gave us a taste of what kind of message the Liberals will project in the next election, whenever the writ is dropped. And that made me excited for the possibility of an Ignatieff PMO.

Harper's little coalition

2009-09-15T17:06:00.001-05:00

Propped up by the socialists and separatists.

I think I'm going to puke.

Poilievre is the new Anders

2009-05-29T17:24:00.005-05:00

Poilievre calls Ignatieff the father of the carbon tax 'tar baby,' will redneck Rob Anders come to his rescue? Better yet, the PMO will.

The term, whether you find it racist or not, is nevertheless derogatory and certainly unparliamentary. But then again, what are we to expect from a government on its heels?

Ignatieff's rope-a-dope strategy seems to be working. Let the CPC come at him with all the punches they can muster. All the political mud slinging in question period. All the name-calling and spinning. Not only will the CPC get tired from hammering away at the LPC but the public will start to see through the games. It will be at that point that Ignatieff will not need much energy to deliver a knockout punch. Just honest politics.

On the issue of our ballooning deficit and our incompetent minister of finance, the Prime Minister suggests that the government is actually saving the country from further deficit since they will not budge on their opposition to the Liberal's suggested spending initiatives.

But what Canadians ought to be aware of is the fact that Deficit Jim is hiding the truth from the public. If we're going to go into deficit, I at least want to know where our money is going. I want to know if there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I'm alright with a deficit - it is inevitable in our global political climate - but what I want to know is where we are going and how we are going to get there. The CPC government does not have an answer to this question, or if they do, they're certainly not going to make such a statement public.

We're going to have to spend money to climb out of this recession and I am not opposed to new spending should it create or protect jobs. I am not opposed to making EI eligibility easier, or protecting pensions. Nor am I opposed to the spending that comes with it.

I am opposed to irresponsible spending or a blind spiral into deficit. So, to answer the question posed to me by Peter Braid's (CPC) constituency office: who is on the right track with the economy? The Liberal plan, whatever it may be, cannot be any worse than the Conservatives plan, whatever it is.

EI Reform...what? EI Reform, please, Mr. Prime Minister.

2009-05-17T13:17:00.005-05:00

Is Harper really willing to go into a summer election over EI Reform? I'm not so sure.

"We're not adverse to further improvements, but we will not be pressured, and we don't think it's responsible that the opposition constantly threatens an election at a time when the country is facing economic peril," Conservative House Leader Jay Hill told CTV's Question Period Sunday.

So, the Opposition should be asking for EI reform nicely then? Maybe, maybe not. Hill seems happy with the 5 week extension that the government has already given EI beneficiaries. Anything more than that would cost taxpayers too much, approximately 1.5 billion a year, and going into more debt is not an option for this government. Or is it? Just a few days ago the PM had this to say on deficit spending during the recession:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is suggesting the federal deficit, pegged at $85 billion over the next five years, could get bigger to fight the recession.
Harper told Quebec mayors Thursday that negative balance sheets will grow "as large as they have to" while the economy struggles to recover.

And again, he reiterated his belief that Canada is in the best of positions in the global recession and that we have a kind of leg up on other countries in the sense that we can afford spending now and paying debt down later.

"Our deficits will be large, but they will be temporary," Harper said. "In fact, in the short term they will be as large as they have to be, to help us weather the recession.
"As a country we can afford it. But only if these deficits are temporary and our stimulus spending ends when the recession ends."
He said Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is the envy of developed countries, and that the country can afford a flurry of spending.

So what is the issue over another 1.5 billion to save 1.4 million jobless Canadians? It must be the Opposition's approach, which is to be sure, ballsy bordering on confrontational. But what leg does Harper have to stand on to dissolve parliament and send the public into an election over more deficit spending that he himself has been trying to justify to Canadians for the last week?

Ignatieff has played his ball well. He knows that the NDP and Bloc would not bring down the government for the hell of it and by backing EI reform, he's put the NDP and the Bloc into awkward position: they don't want an election right now but they do want to change the rules of EI. If they support the Liberals they could go into an election that they don't want, yet, keeping true to their principles. If they side with the government they avoid an unwanted election yet go back on their promises. Harper either engages in a Conservative-Socialist-Separatist alliance to avoid an election (this detante rings a bell) or sends the public to the polls with little justification beyond not liking the tone in which the Opposition request EI reform.

Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that Jay Hill has the balls to complain about the Opposition threatening an election over every piece of legislation that they put forward since this was one of Harper's favourite tactics to push Dion around in the last parliamentary session. Maybe Harper should take a page out of Dion's book and abstain from the EI vote. Wouldn't that be something.

I'm one of those election hawks that would love to see Harper go down in the summer. Speaking with Conservative voters here in Alberta and Ontario, I'm getting the sense that Stephen's iron grip on the PMO and the party has some of the grass roots and base-voters perturbed and would almost prefer to see a Liberal, rather than Conservative, minority government come out of the next election to push the party to replace Harper. Some have even admitted to me that they believe that Harper would be a terrible majority Prime Minister.

With the CPC broadcasting attack ads, being down in the polls to the LPC, sitting on their hands in parliament to reforming EI, and fighting within their caucus over Mulroney - it feels like they're the Opposition trying to claw their way into the government. Ignatieff over the last month seems more like the Prime Minister than Harper and this is exactly the image he wants to project to Canadians - and I think it's taking.

I dare Harper to send us into an election. It will be his, not Michael's, swan song.

Obama eats Dijon and Republicans lose their shit

2009-05-10T02:38:00.003-05:00

Dijongate is in full force, with Fox News and a conservative blogger leading the charge against the president for his choice of the apparently un-American mustard atop his cheeseburger during a recent impromptu lunch stop with Vice-President Joe Biden.
Fox's Sean Hannity has been telling his viewers that MSNBC - and reporter Andrea Mitchell in particular - are trying to hide Obama's Dijon-loving ways from the public.

Hannity has been referring to the president's lunch as his "fancy burger."

"It was Grey Poupon, which is equally snotty," alleged one commenter on Hannity's website.

"Now, I have nothing against Dijon mustard, but the image didn't fit with the image being spun by the White House and MSNBC. Dijon mustard on a Hell Burger had a very John Kerry-ish quality about it."

[William] Jacobson blogged about other incidents in which Obama has revealed his weakness for the spicy French condiment.

It's a key ingredient, for example, in the president's favourite tuna salad, and he also had the gall to request it during his first trip on Air Force One.

"And the mainstream media didn't cover it," Jacobson wrote.

That liberal media is constantly covering up the truth about Obama's choice of mustard and I for one am sickened by their unabashed bias! America does not need any more partisan condiment toppings in the White House people! It's time, for both sides of the mustard aisle, to come together and finally work to solve this financial crisis in the US of A.

Actually, check that: does anybody seriously care if Obama eats a burger with Dijon? There are bigger fish to fry Sean Hannity. And after that fish fry should Obama want to relax with a glass of Cab-Sav we should be so grateful that it didn't cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and trillions indebted to foreign creditors.

But let's continue on this "Obama is an overspending elitist who the liberal media is protecting at the expense of the principles and morals the country was founded on," rant.

More "leadership" from our Commander and Chief

2009-05-07T10:31:00.003-05:00

Harper, taking his queues from American politics, follows in the footsteps of Bush and Obama by making a surprise visit to Afghanistan.

With headlines like these, is it any wonder why Canadians have our electoral system confused with the Americans? And of course, Harper and his caucus is happy to play the part of the government the people elected.

US media tours. Surprise visits to Afghanistan. Stimulus packages and the intentional misleading of Canadians against constitutionally acceptable coalition governments. This is Harper's leadership. This is the Harper government. For a moment, I forget which country I'm living in. Is this Canada? No, this is Governor Harper's 51st state.

Liberals unveil elegant new logo

2009-05-03T00:23:00.005-05:00

Simply put, I like it. It's elegant and sophisticated. It signals a new era for the party and a decisive change of leadership and vision. Smart move, great look.

(H/T CalgaryGrit & LPC.)

Bill Casey resigns. Elizabeth May runs?

2009-05-02T16:40:00.005-05:00

This news is a touch late to reach RCI, but it is definitely worth talking about.

Long time Progressive Conservative, turn CPC, turn Independent MP Bill Casey has resigned his seat to be a senior representative with Nova Scotia's Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. Casey's riding, Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley (C-C-MV), is right next door to Central Nova; the riding in which Elizabeth May battled Peter MacKay for representation in the 08 election.

Elizabeth May has made it clear that she is going to run again in Central Nova in the next general election. Ignatieff has made it clear that there will be a Liberal candidate to face both her and MacKay. And MacKay knows that he won't lose.

Cumberland-Clochester-Musquodoboit Valley could be the next Green riding in Canada, except it will be hard to determine if May can swing the Casey faithful to her camp. Every candidate was beaten handily by the Independent Casey in the last election. Any Conservative candidate in a by-election will have a hard time winning-over the C-C-MV electorate and the last Liberal candidate, former Progressive Canadian party leader Tracy Parsons, was totally ignored. The New Democrat candidate came in a distant second (by the tune of 22,000 votes). The GPC didn't run a candidate as they endorsed Casey's candidacy.

Which brings me to the dynamics of a by-election, should the government live to see it's e-day. Both Harper and Ignatieff will try to parachute big-name candidates to prove to the rest of the country that they have the momentum going into a general election. Add Elizabeth May to the fold and we've got an election worth watching.

I don't imagine it would be difficult for May to mobilize her 08 volunteer team to swarm C-C-MV and put together a decent campaign. After all, Casey won on his personality and values to the community and May has all of those things should voters be able to get past the Green stigma. That being said, it could swing Conservative if voters primarily see themselves as conservative people and the CPC candidate is a local moderate who is well-known.

I'd call a C-C-MV by-election as a toss up between any party with the Greens being a real threat should May run. The NDP was the runner-up in the last election, but the Liberals historically come in second with a secure 20-25% of the vote.

Every party in C-C-MV lost votes to Casey (save for the Greens and fellow Independent Rick Simpson) especially the CPC and LPC. That leaves a lot of support up for grabs that may or may not go back to their historical parties. Which, in my opinion, bodes well for E-May and the Greens.

Here at RCI, we'll keep on top of the candidate's list and by-election day as soon as Harper drops the writ.

Ignatieff the "torturer/American/Harvard-phony/Bushite/Russian-Prince/foreigner/Harper-lite" takes LPC helm

2009-05-02T14:02:00.010-05:00

It's official. Conservatives and New Democrats gather up your sticks and stones! I've heard and read a long list of things that Liberal opponents call Michael Ignatieff. Among them are strange anti-American and anti-academic slurs hurled at a man who studied in abroad and worked in the US for an Ivy League school. Apparently, that's a bad thing. It's also a bad thing that he has a political philosophy and has met with the Obama Administration. It's even worse that he is of Russian background and still speaks his native tongue. In sum: Ignatieff isn't a Canadian to New Democrats or Conservatives.

Forget the fact that my own CPC MP, Diane Ablonczy, was born in the United States. And remember that former NDP leader, David Lewis, was also born in Russia. And the last time I checked, being educated at Oxford and Harvard was generally accepted is an admirable accomplishment. But instead if you've studied abroad, live an academic life, and embrace your culture (being true to your narrative), then you must be some sort of latte-sipping liberal who looks down upon the rest of society. And the rest of society, in turn, ought to look smugly upon you.

I guess if you're not the son of a mill worker or an economist who rode the coat-tails of a populist Western party representing a Calgary EDA, you must be one of those ignorant Bay Street Starbucks elitists.

And they say Canadian politics isn't interesting.

From RCI to you: Welcome, Mr. Ignatieff, to party leadership in Canadian politics.

Harper in bed with the Socialists and Separatists

2009-04-30T01:08:00.003-05:00

Read 'em and weep blogging Cons! And what's the prize behind door titled "Hypocrites"? Why, it's a potential trip to the Vancouver Olympics!

I guess Jack was wrong when he said that the "new coalition" was between the LPC and CPC. And I suppose that working with the "separatists" isn't all that bad, seeing as how the entire CPC caucus decided to back a Bloc motion yesterday to put 2.6 billion into Quebec pockets.

Should Harper reach a deal on EI, pensions, credit regulation and Quebec tax-harmonization and independence - giving into the platforms of both the NDP and the Bloc; how far does that bring his government from the December LPC-NDP Coalition?

Harper is grasping at straws if he thinks he can take the credit for "making parliament work." He won't come out looking like the good guy on any of those issues as the Bloc and NDP will make sure it is known that it was them pushed the PM to the edge to get them done. And it will all be out of the fear that Ignatieff would replace Harper as prime minister should an election be held in June. Which says what about the NDP and the Bloc?

I hope that there are changes to credit card regulation in Canada, and that pensions and EI are protected during this crisis. What I'm not okay with, is extending the shelf-life of the Harper government and calling it "solving the problems of the kitchen-table." Who has more to lose in an election? The NDP wouldn't make up the government even if we had a recession circa 1930. Gilles' problems stem more from provincial politics than federal. And Ignatieff, for all of the "honeymoon" talk, seems to be the real deal - the guy to defeat Harper.

Any election, now or in a year, will see the NDP shrink and, whoda thunkit, remain in the opposition. It would also see the Bloc challenged in Quebec like it has not been since the 1990s. The best situation for Jack and Gilles is to get as much as they can out of Harper and pull the plug. Why delay the inevitable? Unless, they're comfortable with a CPC PMO? Which, up until now, they have not been; and since December, they've been beaking at the LPC that they should have taken Harper down in late January and forced a Coalition Gov or election. Three months later, their tunes have changed.

Mirror, mirror on the wall! Who's the biggest jackass of them all?

Now is it time to reform our global food system?

2009-04-26T18:07:00.003-05:00

When the swine flu hit Mexico most people didn't really care beyond the WHO. At least, Canadians had no reason to worry. Some Americans in Texas and the southern states began to sweat, but these types of things are contained to poor semi-third world states, no?

Now the swine flu is in Canada. Alarmingly, it didn't come from one area of the country, but it has crept up at both ends of the country and the strain is spread easily between people, some of whom have never had contact with pigs in their life. But besides the concern for the young and the old in our society and the strain this might put on our health care system, what is it and how does is it a result of our global food system?

Over at the Huffington Post, David Kirby outlines how confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, are at the heart of spreading diseases like the swine flue, avian flu, etc. between animals. These confined quarters are the ideal conditions for a virial strain like the swine flu.

Pigs are nature's notorious "mixing bowls" for inter-species infections, and many swine flu viruses have long contained human influenza genetic components. Then, in the late 1990's - when industrialized swine production really took off in North America - scientists were alarmed to find that avian influenza genetic material was also mixed into the continent's viral soup.
So where did this new, virulent and highly infectious influenza emerge from? According to Mexico's Health Minister, Jose Angel Cordova, the virus "mutated from pigs, and then at some point was transmitted to humans." It sure sounds like something happened on some farm, somewhere.

For years, leading scientists around the world have worried that large-scale, indoor swine "factories" would become breeding grounds for new pathogens that could more easily infect humans and then spread out rapidly in the general population - threatening to become a global pandemic.

We know that hog workers in Europe and North America are far more likely than others to be infected with potentially lethal pathogens such as MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), drug-resistant E. coli and Salmonella, and of course, swine influenza. Many scientists also believe that people who work inside CAFOs are more at risk of contracting and spreading these and other "zoonotic" diseases than those working in smaller-scale operations, with outdoor pens or pasture and far lower animal density.

What authors Tim Lang and Michael Heaseman are calling our global food system, complete with CAFOs and genetically modified food, the "military industrial complex" since it now imitates all the qualities of the modern industrial factory. Profits are the bottom line and the lean production model is the mantra for "agribuisness."

I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with thinking that my food comes from a factory or "factory farms." (This is part of the reason that I do not eat WonderBread, since it doesn't really taste like it has ever been baked...) Factory farms are a part of our global food system and they are a part of Canadian agriculture. Grain-fed animals, many of whom are not inclined to eat grain by nature, confined to cages or pens - hundreds, perhaps thousands, to a barn literally eat, sleep, live and breathe in their own shit. They're "protected" against disease through inoculation - another human intervention into nature - and this is supposed to make us feel better.

If the thought of eating a genetically modified watermelon makes Canadians suspicious of the natural processes in growing our food, surely they should be as alarmed at the way most animals are treated on factory farms. (As a side note: an Environics poll back in 99 showed that 80% of Canadians want the government to mandate that GMO food to be labelled in our grocery stores. Today, I cannot imagine that number has dropped significantly to affect my line of argument.)

Our global food system needs to change if we are truly concerned with our health and our future as eaters. Factory farms need to be scaled down and traditional farming ought to be encouraged, and protected, by the government. The beginning of this change needs to come from the consumer: if we are concerned with how our food is being grown, under what conditions our meat and poultry are being raised and fed, and what implications this has on our health (and healthcare system) we need to be vigilant and change where we buy our food from.

Consider, for example, emerging Food Box programs in Canada. Food Box programs are designed to provide consumers an alternative to grocery chains in purchasing local, organic, fresh, seasonal produce. Local farmers sign up to Food Box programs and consumers can order which fruits and vegetables they want every week (depending on seasonality). The boxes are then delivered to your door or can be picked up at a local farmer's market. For a list of Food Box programs visit Foodshare.ca. Local eating is on the rise and it will become a way of life if consumers demand a new way of eating.

We can live, work, and eat in harmony with nature or we can alter it to suit our preferences. The former acts as a natural defense against viral outbreaks like the swine and avain flu, mad cow disease, etc. The other, is more convenient for the industrialized urban lifestyle, but it has it's own risks that - if I am correct, most people do not want to deal with in their life. Can we have it both ways? We cannot.

If Kirby is right, and I think he and fellows like Tim Lang, Michael Heaseman, and Michael Pollan - we need a shift to our global food system, away from the military industrial complex and lean production model, and back to a natural way of eating, to ensure a sustainable and healthy relationship with the earth. However, it is unfortunate that it has to take the deaths of dozens of people to bring consumers to this obvious realization that things, as they are, cannot go on.

We and They

2009-04-21T22:01:00.004-05:00

The differences were already evident the moment Ignatieff became a member of parliament and front-runner to succeed Dion. Harper has his MA in Economics from the Calgary School. Ignatieff was educated at Oxford and Harvard. Harper's former employers consist of the National Citizen's Coalition and the Canadian Alliance. Igantieff has taught at Cambridge and was the director of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Now, Harper and Ignatieff square off in the political arena and the differences continue to pile up. Consider their itineraries and plans in going to meet our cousins south-of-the-border.

Harper goes on a US media tour stopping at FOX News. Ignatieff goes to Washington DC to meet with key advisors to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

Harper gets to speak with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Ignatieff gets to deliver the keynote address on Afghanistan on Thursday to an exclusive group of U.S. policymakers that includes Richard Holbrooke, the president's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Progressives get the ear of Obama insiders - Harper entertains the audience of the "Situation Room." If I didn't know better, I'd say Ignatieff was our Prime Minister.

I'd vote for the Layton New Democrats

2009-04-21T18:41:00.005-05:00

...if they could actually convince the Harper government to put forward a referendum on electoral reform. (H/T to Jerad Gallinger.) Well, maybe I wouldn't vote NDP in an actual election but I'd give them props! Changing the first-past-the-post system should be on the agenda of all the parties in parliament, especially the CPC and NDP since they are the parties who, historically speaking, usually occupy the Opposition's benches.

Moving from a FPTP system to Proportional Rep or a Single Transferable Vote would embolden their positions in parliament and force parliamentary cooperation. The sell would be to tie legislation that sets the number of years between elections to such a referendum. Say, 3 and a half years, a government must sit before an election is called. That way, the government could change, the balance of power could shift, without going into an election every 8 months should the party with the most seats refuses to cooperate with others. That is the kind of stipulation that Canadians would need in order to pass any kind of referendum on electoral reform.

That being said, it would be a hard sell to get the Liberals such a referendum. I would hope that the LPC would support a referendum, even though they might not want the electorate to pass it.

This could be the very move Layton needs to reposition himself as a relevant and viable leader for the country. He campaigned to be the Prime Minister during the 08 election, even though there was no way the NDP was going to take the most seats in the house. In a PR system, or STV system, he could be deputy PM. He could be king-maker, which in the parliamentary system, is sometimes better than being the actual PM - where you can take more credit than deserved when things go well and easily deflect retribution onto the government when things fail.

Could this Conservative-Socialist Coalition change Canada for the better? Could Stephen Harper actually be the reformer (not Reformer) his supporters claim he is? If this proposition comes into fruition we might have a Harper government for longer than any progressive would like, but it would surely spell the end of the Harper PMO since the balance of power in a post-FPTP parliament would lie with the Liberals, NDP and, you know it, the Greens. The Bloc would lose all of its relevance in parliament which might push a sovereigntist resurgence in provincial politics. But we'd just have to grit our teeth and cross that bridge if we came to it.

While this could be a mere Internet rumour, it's one that Layton should maybe consider. New Democrat support for 1 year and a planned election for Summer 2010 with an electoral reform referendum question attached. Sounds reasonable to me. It buys Harper and Layton some time to whether the economic storm in the hopes that their popularity rebounds with Canadians - something Ignatieff shouldn't be worried too much about. But even if LPC and CPC fortunes reverse it wouldn't be a Conservative majority and we'd be a short minority government away from a new era in Canadian politics.

Good news from the only pollster I trust

2009-04-16T18:09:00.005-05:00

EKOS has some good news for all who want to hear it! (H/T to Montreal Simon, where I saw this first.)

Asked which party they would support if an election were held tomorrow, 36.7 opted for the Liberals while 30.2 per cent chose the Conservatives. About 15.5 per cent supported the NDP, while the Green party was the choice of 8.1 per cent and the Bloc Québécois was backed by 9.4 per cent.

The survey was conducted using a hybrid internet-telephone research panel between April 8 and 13, and involved a random sample of 1,587 Canadians. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

A similar poll question was asked just after the December prorogation crisis, when the minority Conservative government almost fell in the face of a challenge from a Liberal-NDP coalition headed by former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.

It suggested the Conservatives had 44 per cent approval among the Canadian public, with dips for the Liberals (at 24 per cent) and NDP (at 14.5 per cent) compared to vote share those two parties had earned in the Oct. 14 federal election (26.2 per cent and 18.2 per cent respectively).

Quite the fall from grace! While Liberals might be upset with the Ignatieff coronation this May, instead of a leadership convention, they have to be happy with these numbers.

With these numbers Frank Graves, EKOS pollster extraordinaire, is right: a third minority government for the CPC is extremely iffy. And while this might not be good news for the CPC MPs and the PMO, their base seems quite content with the way Harper is leading the party. Harper has a 90% approval rating with his party and it looks like the only conservatives fighting about Mulroney are the ones sitting in parliament, which isn't the best position.

A happy CPC base, albeit stagnant (respondents who said they had voted for another party in the October election, Harper's personal ratings were "in the single digits or teens at best," Graves noted); a seemingly divided - or at least distracted - caucus; rising Liberal numbers under Ignatieff in Ontario and Quebec do not spell out good weather ahead for the Harper Cons.

Watch for the government to fall in June.

McTavish! Say it ain't so!

2009-04-16T17:57:00.002-05:00

Why coach Mac T? Why? You were the best thing Calgary Flames' fans had behind the Oiler bench.

Flames limp into playoffs... again.

2009-04-11T20:10:00.004-05:00

How does a team with a commanding lead in their division go from third overall in the Western Conference to 5th in a matter of weeks?

Some suggestions:

The Flames have seriously cooled since the arrival of Olli Jokinen. Something about the lines is simply not working. Consider 40-some consecutive scoreless powerplays.
Kippursoff is burned out. But how can you blame Miika for being tired when you have Curtis McElhinney backing you up? Cutting Cujo loose after last season will be food for thought in the 09 postseason.
The Canucks are just that good: HA! Luongo has played well, I'll give him that. But not spectacularly. They've lost some bad games in the last few weeks but the game that they didn't play poorly in was their game against the Calgary Flames last week. (Considering they won their last two games 1-0 against Los Angeles and Colorado, I wouldn't say that they're particularly on fire.)
They are cursed. I'm seriously starting to consider this as a viable excuse as to why the Flames have been simply terrible entering the last four Stanley Cup playoffs.

Unfortunately, without a convincing win over Edmonton tonight, I cannot see the Calgary Flames moving past the Chicago Blackhawks. Maybe they could do it with home-advantage going into a Game 7 situation; but winning crucial games on the road has not been the Flames' forte.

I'd love to see a Flames/Canucks Round 2, but I'm not sure that either team will make it past their first round opponents. My friends will laugh, but remember the Flames and Oilers' cup runs: both teams began in 8th place. And right now, Columbus and Chicago look better than both respective Alberta teams.

I'm hoping for Calgary to come out tonight and kick the crap out of Edmonton in preparation for a tough series against Chicago. If Calgary is soft tonight, they'll be setting a terrible precident for the next few weeks.

If there is anything left in me, I might as well say it now: Go! Flames! Go!

Libertarianism gone wrong: An Eye for an ATV

2009-04-09T18:15:00.005-05:00

Let us fill in the blank in the CBC news headline: Farmer charged with shooting alleged thief overwhelmed by _________.

A.) Grief
B.) Remorse
C.) Joy
D.) Support

The answer is D. Support. One more news headline that makes me wonder if I really ought to go back to Alberta for the summer...

How can a guy who shoots at a thief riding his stolen ATV be lauded as some sort of hero? How is attempted murder an appropriate response to having a possession stolen? What kind of "lesson" is this for rural thieves? Watch out, Jimmy's got a gun?

Maybe a lesson has been taught to rural hooligans and criminals: next time, bring a gun yourself.

What a tragedy for Mr. Knight and his family; and what an embarrassing community has crawled out of the bush: libertarian gun-nuts who advocate for murderous vigilante justice in the face of due process over stolen recreational vehicles. Is this, my friends, the "Alberta Advantage?"

I hope the prosecution puts both Mr. Knight and the thieves in jail for a long time to set the record - and the law - straight.

"Right" to gamble be damned!

2009-04-08T12:07:00.005-05:00

When a supposed "hobby" needs provisions such as a "self-exclusion program" to keep gambling addicts out of casinos and other venues, there is an obvious problem with said "hobby" that society, and our governments, are supporting.

The extent to which gaming officials are responsible for keeping gambling addicts out of casinos is at the heart of an eye-popping $3.5-billion lawsuit filed in Ontario by a man who blew through hundreds of thousands of dollars on slot machines.

In his suit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., Peter Dennis argues gaming staff allowed him to keep gambling even though he had authorized them to stop him from entering casinos or throw him out if he went in anyway.

Dennis's inability to stay away from the slots had terrible consequences for him and his family, but senior gaming officials said blaming the "self-exclusion program" for his problems was both dangerous and misguided.

"What we find troubling is the belief that this program, when distorted to be something that it isn't, provides hope to real victims that somehow they have found a way not to be responsible for dealing with their own addiction," said Rob Moore, a senior vice-president with the gaming corporation.

"It's quite dangerous and misleading to think that one could transfer the responsibility they have, once they've confirmed they have an addiction, onto a third party."

Under the voluntary self-exclusion program begun in the mid-1990s, problem gamblers could sign a form authorizing the province's gambling facilities to use their "best efforts" to keep them out or remove them if they sneaked in anyway.

If the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission - a public entity - cannot properly enforce the self-exclusion program to do what it is meant to do, keep gambling addicts out of casinos, then what is the point of the program? Additionally, whose interests does the OLG have? Raking in addicts money and handing it over to the government? Or to the public who enters their facility?

I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to stop problem gamblers in the self-exclusion program. Swipe their drivers license to verify their age prior to entry and if they are a signatory to the program then they are flagged on the computer. This would require checking everyone's identification at the door. Which would be a minor inconvenience if the public and the government were truly concerned with tackling gambling addiction.

But wait! The self-exclusion program isn't meant to make casino employees into some sort of gambling addict police force says Rob Moore, a senior vice-president with the gaming corporation.

Still, Moore said, the program was never meant to turn gaming staff into detectives but rather to allow addicted gamblers to take a self-help step by having them acknowledge their problem.

"To presume that this one program is designed as a policing program to keep people out is just wrong," Moore said.

"It was not in its intent, design or its execution a commitment for us to exclude people or to stop people from coming into our facilities."

I repeat: to presume that this one program is designed as a policing program to keep people out is just wrong. WHAT? Excuse me? The program was designed to list addicts so that casinos could use their best efforts to keep them out. Apparently, according to the VP of the OLG, that isn't what it was meant to do. Then what, pray tell, is the program for?

Nothing. And that is why the OLG is facing a 3.5 billion dollar lawsuit. Because they enacted a mirage of a program that addicts believed would keep them out of casinos if they were not able to stay out themselves. Addicts, in a sense, asked for help and trusted the province that help was on the way. But it wasn't. And the most vulnerable people in casinos, gambling addicts, were not stopped from entering gaming establishments and throwing their money away - to the corporation that, ironically, proposed a program to stop that very thing.

Gambling is a deplorable activity that I personally find immoral for a society to profit from. I hope Peter Dennis gets a settlement that clears his debts and forces the province of Ontario to give the self-exclusion program some teeth to force Casinos and gaming establishments to act as they promised.

CPC schism not imminent

2009-03-23T13:05:00.003-05:00

Scott and Mark both blogged about a Hill Times article that muses a CPC schism following the stepping down of Stephen Harper.

First of all, it's telling of the political climate on the Hill that there are CPC supporters who are actually speaking openly about the day Harper is no longer the leader of the Conservative party. This kind of talk would never have been uttered a few months ago.

Secondly, while there is no clear successor (which is usually the case in political parties with such a cult personality) that does not mean that to two "wings" of the party - former Progressive Conservatives and Reformer/CA - won't play nice. Sure, each side has their candidates - Prentice and MacKay on the PC side, Day and Kenney on the CA bench, but that doesn't mean that any of them will get the job. What about Baird? Strahl? Or an low-profile candidate to come up the middle Stelmach-style?

The Progressive Conservatives were absorbed by the CA in 2003 because MacKay believed that he would never govern the country as a PC given the political climate of the day. The CA seemed to be the only viable political alternative to the Liberals in English Canada and with a little PC support in Atlantic Canada and disgruntled Quebec Liberals abandoning their party, a united front could beat Martin. And they did. Now what?

Harper's next election will probably be his last - he won't hang on as leader of the opposition in a minority Liberal situation, let alone a Liberal majority. Ignatieff could take a lot of Conservative support in Ontario, Quebec and BC back - and this will worry former Progressive Conservatives about their party's image with another Reformer/CA MP at the helm. But will it break the party apart?

I'm not convinced. Maybe the knives will come out during the next CPC leadership race, but as I see it right now no one is going to take a stand and jeopardize their standing as the government. A united face is being painted onto every CPC MP - backbenchers and all. But it will take more than a couple of Rob Anders' and Stockwell Day's to make the PC "wing" (what's left of it in the CPC) feel like they can go it alone and take 20-or-so seats to make a real impact in a Liberal minority situation. PC's will only break off if they think that by doing so they'll be Kingmaker in a Liberal minority and wield power from the opposition.

The problem with Human Rights language

2009-03-22T19:46:00.004-05:00

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 Articles covering an array of political and economic rights that everyone on earth is (or ought to be) entitled to, as per the United Nations. Here are a few of them:

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery.
Article 13 (1): Everyone has the right to free movement and residence within the borders of their state.
Article 17: Everyone has a right to own property.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25 (1): Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Some of your rights are pretty fundamental to life: liberty, freedom, adequate health and well-being, vacay-pay. But water? Clean, drinking water? No. That's a human need. Unlike vacation time. That's a right.

Hey. Hey United States, Brazil, and Egypt: try going four days without getting vacation pay. Then try going four days without water. Now which one should be enshrined as a right to all citizens, protected by international law and binding by signatories of the UN UDHR? Surely the answer is obvious.

If we're going to include food, clothing, housing, etc. as a part of an adequate standard of living then water should be there too. How is housing a right but water isn't? Seems to me, they are both rights since they are essential to life. But is that exactly what rights are supposed to protect - life essentials? What is the difference between a human need and right? How can the freedom of association, something not essential to sustaining life, be deemed a right when water is not?

If a billion people were being bought and sold as slaves, we'd be calling it a violation of their human rights. However, the billion people without clean drinking water we'll just describe as going through a human need shortage.

Ministerial bias: Gary Goodyear & Science

2009-03-18T11:35:00.002-05:00

I understand the stir among secularists over Science Minister Gary Goodyear's beliefs. Indeed, I take his non-answer to the question, "do you believe in evolution?" and a reference to his faith (Christianity), to reveal a belief in creationism without him actually saying it.

Of course, a flurry of speculation and concern has risen over Goodyear's capability to run the Ministry of Science should he believe in a creation myth over scientific fact. The analogy has been made that we cannot have the head of the Canadian Space Agency believe that the world is flat. True enough. However, I'd like to point out that all Ministers have a bias when they assume a post in cabinet.

Would we be concerned if the Minister of Defense was a veteran? Or if they were had been a member of green peace? What if the Minister of Health was a cancer survivor? Or a smoker?

My point is that religious belief is only one bias out of many that we all implicitly have. Oh, and not having a belief in organized religion (atheism) is a bias that is just as dangerous.

If Goodyear is not going to discriminate what kinds of research get funding from the government, whether it be stem-cell or evolutionary biology, then prodding him to reveal his opinion on human evolution is ridiculous and tantamount to a witch-hunt. If he had said that he did not believe in evolution and he was not a Christian, would the topic have been as controversial?

Let me be clear: I am not a creationist. In fact, I'm not in the business of defending the creationist myth as fact or something that Christians should accept as truth. I think that the creation myth is exactly that: a myth. And while I believe that God is capable of doing anything, including creating the earth in 6 days, there is quite simply overwhelming evidence to the contrary: that the earth, and human life, was a result of an evolutionary process. Which, I believe, is heavenly ordained. Faith and science are not contradictory.

But that is not the position we speculate Gary Goodyear to hold. Which says something more of the Conservative government as a whole rather than his competence as Minister of Science. It sends a message that this government, knowing the bias of their parliamentarians, puts people in ministerial positions whose biases may negatively affect their decision making.

What I want to know is: what made Gary Goodyear the best candidate for Minister of Science given his bias? Was it more a symbol of party patronage? Or are the suspicions of anti-Christian secularists correct, that Goodyear was put in that position to undermine science funding that juxtaposes his religious convictions?

I am not about to make that accusation, but I do wonder how capable is Goodyear at separating his faith-bias from his duties as Minister of Science? All parliamentarians come onto Parliament Hill with inherent bias' that they may not be aware of, but nonetheless, effects their work. It is acknowledgment of this bias that ought to put the public at ease should a Minister be open about setting his bias aside and doing his duty to Canadians.

But that is not what Gary Goodyear did. He dodged the question and did it poorly. Ultimately if every research proposal goes through a fair revue process, then Goodyear's beliefs should not be a matter of public inquiry. (Although, the implicit message Harper has sent the public by putting a creationist in charge of the Ministry is telling - who will go where should he get an uncontested majority government? What will the agenda in the Ministry of Science be then?)

I'm willing to keep an eye on what gets funded and what does not - and I'm sure the public will be doing that too.