Enough of the Economic Action Plan ads, buy Canadians a Tims instead

Sick of all those ads for the Harper government's Economic Action Plan?  You know what I'm talking about, the never ending spots telling Canadians what a great job the federal government is doing in building prosperity.  Its ironic that their first inclination when the global financial crisis hit was to do nothing.  It took the threat of a budget defeat and a loss of power to get them interested in fighting the recession. 

But fight it they did, taking their cue from the opposition parties they converted to the idea that government can take an active role in steering the economy.  In fact they're absolute zealots to the cause now, borrowing tens of millions of dollars to tell us all about it.

Listening to a CBC radio interview this morning, the cost of this....uhm, Adscam (?) is somewhere between $60 and $65 million. 

Even simple minded idiots like me realize all this advertising is little more than propaganda, designed to help Harper and his merry band win the next election.  All governments engage in this crap.  

What blows is that they're paying for it on the credit card, our credit card.  The feds haven't had a balanced budget for ages now.  Finance minister Jim Flaherty has replaced surplus budgets with massive deficits and has Canada sitting with the largest accumulated federal debt in our history.

So it occurred to me as I was listening to the radio and sipping my Timmy's this morning.  If the government is willing to borrow this kind of cash hoping that I and other Canadians will re-elect them in a couple years, why not skip the ad agencies and just buy Canadians some coffee from Tim Hortons. 

Sixty million will buy a lot of coffee, surely more than enough to give every person of voting age their java fix.  And with it being roll up the rim to win time, there are added spin offs with vehicles, barbeques and prepaid credit cards to be won.

Sure the ad agencies and broadcasters wouldn't like seeing the gravy train come to an end, but that's life.  Media types can vie for another prize in the form of cash for life the next time the Prime Minister starts cramming the Senate with friends for Pam and Mikey to play with.  

Politicians afraid of the abortion debate - But are Canadians?

Many of Canada's elected representatives are scared to death of the abortion debate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Federal minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose among them.  Both are on record as saying that Canadians don't want this debate re-opened, or words to that effect.

Uh huh, right.  Obviously they don't want any debate to take place, and its easy enough to understand why. Its a vote loser no matter what they say.

Come out in favour of any restrictions whatsoever and you inflame the Pro-Choice camp.  Advocate for keeping the status quo and you run the risk of alienating voters more closely aligned with the Pro-Life side.  A politician can't win, which has left our federal Conservative government walking a tight rope.

Much of the Tory base is socially conservative, and their votes will be needed during the next federal election.  How do you keep the religious right voting Conservative while at the same time not alienating the greater majority of socially progressive Canadians?  It helps that the NDP, Liberals and Greens don't offer much is the way of an alternative to social conservatives, but they could just stay home and not vote. 

So what to do?  You play both sides, carefully, that's how. 

Witness the recent vote, (defeated) about creating a committee to examine the point at which a fetus becomes human.  Or the upcoming vote which calls on parliament to condemn the practice of abortion being used to terminate female pregnancies.

Then there's the more recent letter sent by three Conservative MPs to the RCMP asking them to investigate possible 'homicides'.  These alleged homicides were the result of abortions which were conducted that resulted in a live birth.

Why is all this happening?  One reason is that Canada has no laws with respect to abortions whatsoever, unique among all developed nations.  In Canada a child has no legal rights at any point during pregnancy, and is not accorded any legal recognition until it has emerged alive from the mother's womb.

Politicians might be afraid unwilling to discuss abortion, but such is not the case with all Canadians.

Québec considers lowering voting age to 16?

Recent news is suggesting that Québec Premier Pauline Marois is intrigued with the thought of extending voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds.  -CTV STORY HERE-

Québec's first minister was in Scotland recently, where a vote on independence will take place in 2014.  Scotland will be allowing 16 and 17 year old citizens to vote in a referendum on separation.  There are many who consider the PQ's popularity among the youth of Québec to be strong, I am one of them, so extending voting rights to a younger demographic certainly makes sense in that light.

But what about the rest of our democracy?  Should our political parties consider giving high school students a say in more than just voting during a Québec referendum, but in other elections as well?

Teenagers voting???  Gimme a....wait a minute, this makes sense.

Think about it.  All you basically need to vote in Canada is a birth certificate saying you're over 18 and a pulse, that's pretty much it.  It doesn't matter if you can't name even  three of Canada's ten provinces, or if you think the Prime Minister of our country is George Washington Lincoln Gretzky, here's a ballot go mark your X. 

Why shouldn't older teenagers be given a say in determining Canada's future, be it at the federal, provincial, regional, or municipal level...oh yeah, let's not forget school boards.  Damn this country is so over governed.

If a 90 year old who is likely departing this world in the next few years has the legal right to vote, why not someone who in all likelihood will be contributing to Canadian society for the next fifty years or more?

Canada's prison plans - Following a failed US example?

It has fallen off the radar of late, our current government's plan to increase Canada's prison population by expanding the prison system.  Capacity is being increased substantially while laws have been changed to ensure more people are incarcerated and for longer periods of time.

Much of this happened without much in the way of debate or discussion, due to the Conservative majority win in our most recent election. 

Given our current Prime Minister's seeming love for all things American, I read with interest a recent article published in the Jan/Feb edition of The Saturday Evening Post:  Jailhouse Blues.

The article makes the point that the United States represents five per cent of the world's population yet houses twenty five per cent of the planet's prisoners.

Is this a model we're looking to follow?  Obviously Canadians have concerns about law and order, and we want our communities kept safe.  That obviously means removing certain members from the overall society.  But are we interested in returning rehabilitated individuals to society, or merely looking to warehouse people until they're released, giving them little hope of succeeding on the outside?

The issue is obviously complex, and almost certainly without a perfect solution.  But incarcerating offenders is expensive, whether they be violent or non-violent offenders. 

Given that our federal government is running large deficits year after year this is likely a discussion worth having.  For fiscal conservatives such as myself I'm not thrilled when I see hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars being spent to further an agenda based on what may very well be flawed reasoning. 

Check the article out and share your comments. 

Safe powerful policy for Justin Trudeau

I will be taking a break from blogging for the next month or so, but before taking my leave I will part with some, (in my not so very humble opinion) sage advice for Liberal leadership aspirant Justin Pierre Trudeau.

Conservative commentators and pundits have been clamouring for something substantive in the way of policy  from the Papineau member of Parliament.  Showing political acumen perhaps beyond  his years, Mr. Trudeau has been wise not to oblige.  After all this is not a general election, merely a contest to determine the leader of the third party in the House.

But Justin appears to be very much the gentleman, an individual who carries himself with poise and with class, something long missing from the Canadian political scene.  As such I'm sure he must be itching to give his detractors some steak to go with all the sizzle.  

It would be unwise to make any bold statements this far in advance of the next election in 2015.  After all, who knows what the issues will be?  Why corner yourself on something that the Conservatives will try to hang you with in three years time.  

That doesn't mean you can't outline some powerful policy initiatives however.  And here are four ideas for starters, complete with annotations, just click each point.  

I will suggest that Justin tell the Liberal party specifically and Canadians in general that a Trudeau led Liberal government will not:

• Waste taxpayer dollars on the building of a fake lake.
• Ask taxpayers to look after his hair.
• Campaign on ending patronage and then set the record for Senate appointments in one day.
• Renege on a promise to protect senior's nest eggs.

My favourite in all those is the stylist that Canadians taxpayers footed the bill for, not for Justin but for Prime Minister Harper.  Conservatives love mocking Trudeau for his gorgeous 'pretty boy' locks, but at least taxpayers aren't asked to foot the bill.  

See y'all sometime in November.  

Everyone is talking about Trudeau

Ever since he became Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has dominated the Canadian political scene.  Love him or loathe him, any discussion on federal politics has started and ended with Stephen Harper.  

There's a famous quote attributed to PT Barnum:  

"There's no such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right".   

And in today's age of hyper connectivity and constant news, Stephen Harper has probably been getting more publicity than any politician in Canadian history.  

Until now.

Much, (I am sure) to the consternation of die hard Conservatives, Justin Trudeau is now the dominant subject of political discourse. And the reaction one sees, be it from right wing news outlets or neo-con posters commenting on the web, seems to say....HOW DARE HE!!!

Right wing loathing of Trudeau was already rampant before Justin even declared his intention to run for the Liberal leadership.  It is starkly evident from the Sun TV broadcast of Justin's boxing match with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau.  Calling JT a 'Shiny Pony' and deriding him as a former drama teacher, you can almost taste the acrimony Ezra Levant has for the Papineau MP.

If you watch the post fight interview though, notice the class Trudeau exhibits with Mr. Levant.  Class, and respect, something we haven't seen enough of lately in the political arena.  Even after the Conservative champion has gone down to defeat, Levant can't summon up the class to be gracious.

Ratchet that loathing up a notch now, and throw in a measure of fear.  Yes fear, Justin Trudeau represents a very real threat.  

And with wall to wall coverage the young Trudeau has been able to do something that Monsieurs Ignatieff and Dion were incapable of. Justin is introducing himself to Canadians, on his terms.

Crisscrossing the country he's already been to Calgary, Mississauga and Dieppe New Brunswick, with more to come. Should the Big Blue Machine  start smearing him with Rove style attacks at this early juncture, they might appear desperate.  

And the simple reality is, while JT may not be the reincarnation of his father, he is every bit as much a lightening rod for public attention.  

It doesn't matter whether the media is left wing or right wing, Sun TV or CBC, they're just filling demand.  And what people want to hear about right now is Justin Trudeau and not Stephen Harper.

A nice change if you ask me.  

Justin needs to use his boxing skills outside of the ring

I've often compared politics to chess, or at times a hockey game.

Now the appropriate metaphor appears to be boxing, given Justin Trudeau's ring defeat of a heavily favoured Conservative Senator, a fomer Canadian Forces member and a karate blackbelt. Young Mr. Trudeau didn't beat three opponents, just one. Tory Senator Patrick Brazeau had those seeming advantages and the calendar on his side to boot, being 38 to JT's 40.

Despite being a three to one underdog, Canada's dauphin stunned everyone by scoring a technical knockout when the referee finally halted the fight in the third round. That was after several previous stoppages to ensure the Senator was fit to continue.

Boxing and politics, both contests where opponents try to land their gloves on one another while at the same time defending against attack. Not always an easy task, take a reckless swing and you can leave yourself ungaurded against a big punch.

Just ask Stephane Dion, he of the ill fated but bold Green Shift.

The former Libeal leader tried to land a haymaker by proposing an overhaul Canada's tax system, advocating the reduction of income taxes while raising them on carbon production. Dion's gaurd down, he was pummelled by Harper and the Conservative machine with a flurry of punches about the Liberals looking to 'tax everything'.

The Conservative won that fight on points, returned to power, but with another minority.

Dion bloodied, the Grits turned to Michael Ignatieff. But before the former Harvard prof could even get between the ropes he was getting hit left and right over his long absence from Canada's shores. The highly intellectual and new savior wasn't able to mount any offence whatsover and was knocked out cold by the Harper machine. The Liberals were relegated to thrid party status and Iggy failed to win even his own seat.

Of course young Mr. Trudeau hasn't yet won his party's leadership, although it looks like a foregone conclusion. Right now he's in training and working out hard. But if things play out the way most are expecting he's just getting ready for the main event when Canadians next go to the polls in 2015.

We're still waiting to see if any big name sparring partners will step forward, Marc Garneau seems the most likely. The Conservatives will be watching carefully, this is an open session after all, the gym doors aren't closed. Stephen Harper and his advisors will be putting JT under a microscope to discern any weaknesses that can be exploited down the line.

And if the Montreal area MP is as cagey as he appears, he won't give them any.

Justin's boxing skills were, at least in part, learned from his late father Pierre. And the elder Trudeau was very skilled at using boxing tactics outside the squared circle. Pierre Trudeau loved the Socratic method, the intellectual version of counter punching. Goading his opponents into defining a position on a given issue, the elder Trudeau would find an inevitable flaw in their argument, rip it wide open, then hold it up for all the world to see.

That's what many Conservative commentators are doing right now with Justin Trudeau, calling for him to outline concrete policy initiatives. In boxing its called jabbing, a sharp quick thrust, not meant to inflict any real damage but rather to illicit a response. The dominant hand is kept close, gaurding against attack, while the non dominant hand is thrust quickly but with no real weight, toward the oppoent.

Pretty boy - but no depth, nice hair - but no substance, famous name - but no resume....JAB JAB JAB.

The undisciplined fighter gets annoyed with the glove of his opponent constantly flicking him in the face, and he responds strongly, going for the big blow and leaving his chin exposed.

If I was in JT's corner this would be my advice:

You're winning on points, the National Post released news of a poll that shows Conservative support tanking with you as Liberal leader. No need to go for the knock out, keep moving, bobbing and weaving. Be ready for that right, and if you see an opening and want to try a left-right combination, be damn sure your opponent's defences are down.

It worked on Brazeau I know, but now the stakes are higher and the opposition tougher.

Justin Trudeau understands social media...

Nice touch, hopefully young Mr. Trudeau can get Canada's youth excited about politics again.   Its been a while.

Stephen Harper is Sooooo unpopular that.....

I'm not going to put any stock in a recent poll that suggests the Liberals led by Justin Trudeau would easily win a federal election if one were held right now, because there's no campaign going on.  

But it does say something about how Canadians  feel about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.   All Justin Trudeau brings to the table at this juncture is a famous name, good looks and a perfect boxing record.  But that's all Canadians seem to need to tank Conservative support at the moment.  

Of course the Conservative attack machine hasn't yet fixed its cross hairs on the son of Canada's philosopher king.  Assuming JT wins, that will most assuredly come.  

The Harper Conservatives' political success hasn't been built around convincing Canadians that they're the best party to lead the country so much, but rather by scaring us about others who: 'Aren't here for us'.  Or who are 'not worth the risk'.  

Any thoughts for an anti JT slogan?  

Pro Choice abortion advocates can breathe easy...for now‏

On Wednesday Canada's Parliament voted down a motion put forward by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth that called for the creation of a committee to study at what point human life begins. Had the motion passed it opened up the possibility that a fetus could be given legal recognition.  In turn that could have led to restrictions being placed on when an abortion can take place. 

For those who believe in a woman's right to access abortion services under any circumstances, for any reason and at any point during pregnancy, they can relax.   But not for too long.  

A new motion was put forward by Conservative MP Mark Warawa which asks Parliament to condemn the practice of abortion being used for sex selection. If this new motion does comes to a vote, it won't be for another year or more. 

The obvious question is whether abortions take place in Canada for reasons of gender. The Canadian Medical Association thinks so, having recently suggested postponing the disclosure of a baby's sex until after 30 weeks based on statistics that suggest some ethnic groups are terminating pregnancies only when the fetus is female. 

Pro Choice militants will undoubtedly be all over this. Condemning a woman's right to abort a female fetus runs counter to the preferred status quo where there are no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever.  Delaying the disclosure of the sex of a fetus takes away choice.  And it could mean a dangerous delay for those wishing to abort a fetus based on gender.  Its common knowledge that if an abortion is chosen, it is best performed early in pregnancy and not later.  

The issue of abortion is a divisive one certainly, even for members of Harper's Conservatives. Of the 91 votes supporting Mr. Woodworth's motion, 87 came from the Tories, with 10 cabinet ministers breaking ranks with the Prime Minister and voting in favour. 

Pro abortion status quo advocates have reason to be concerned in my opinion. The potential for Mr. Warawa's motion to garner even greater support is very real. There are people who are generally supportive of the Pro-Choice argument, but still have issues with abortion being used for reasons like sex selection. 

The Pro-Life anti abortion lobby obviously does not have an ally in Canada's Prime Minister. If the PMO uses its power this new motion will never see the light of day and things can remain as they are now. Pro-Life Conservatives may not like it, but Pro-Choice advocates would be able to breathe easier and for a longer period of time.

The Harper government's growing say-do gap

We Canadians are a forgiving lot, we elect governments all the time that back track and flip flop on election promises...then we elect them again.

Pierre Trudeau campaigned against wage and price controls, then brought them in.  Brian Mulroney  said he had no interest in pursuing a free trade agreement with the United States before negotiating one.  And Jean Chrétien of course pledged to erase the GST before leading the Liberals to power.

No matter that all three said one thing and did another, Canadians re-elected them.  All three however were smart enough to go out on top, resigning their leadership while occupying the  Prime Ministers office.  Eventually Canadians get fed up with hypocrisy, and long stints in power often sees ruling parties becoming both tired and arrogant.  

Which brings us to the Harper Conservatives.  

Our current Prime Minister hasn't yet enjoyed the longevity of Messieurs Chrétien, Mulroney or Trudeau.  And it might just be the gap between Mr. Harper's rhetoric and the actions of his government that will keep him from repeating past electoral success.

Canadians have already witnessed a large separation between the words and actions of Harper's Conservative governments.  

He promised to leave income trusts alone, sounding off on the Liberal plan to tax them, then after getting elected...yep, he taxed them.  (Article Here)

After riding to power on a wave of voter disgust over Liberal waste with the Ad-Scam scandal, the Conservatives turned around and built a $2 million dollar fake lake during the G8 summit.  (Article Here)  

More recently they were found to have doled out  close to a million bucks to a meat processing company to help them buy new equipment that will keep sausages from exploding.  (Article Here)

There's more of course, turning a large surplus into a massive shortfall after pledges to never engage in deficit financing.  Or becoming the king of patronage after deriding the Liberals for so long about Senate appointments.

Will Canadians reach the tipping point over the next four or so years?  Hard to say, its a long  time.  

In the interim they can consider the Prime Minister's pledge to let science make the decision regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline.  Stephen Harper 'says' science will decide.  But what does he do?  He guts the very agencies charged with conducting the science so that it can't be done.   (Article Here)

We Canadians are a forgiving bunch, but eventually we do get fed up.

Harper government fighting Québec's law and order efforts‏

The federal long gun registry is back in the news. 

Québec has just won an injunction preventing the federal government from destroying the long gun registry, and has given Ottawa 30 days to comply by handing over the data collected on Québec gun owners. Those employed in law enforcement are happy no doubt.  (CBC Story Here)

The Canadian association of chiefs of police had argued for maintaining the registry as it provides them with what they consider a very valuable tool. I find it hard to argue with our police on this point. When officers respond to a call for something like a domestic dispute, I'm sure they like to know ahead of time if there are firearms in the house. 

Is it perfect? Of course not, but information can be a powerful tool. And if that information can be used to improve the safety of law enforcement personnel and the public, then I'm all for it. 

One of the points against the registry has been the price tag, but I have trouble buying this argument. Reports say the cost is in the neighbourhood of $4 million per year. That's chump change compared to the billions Ottawa is commited to spending on new prisons, US style 'super jails' we're going to be building despite a rapidly declining crime rate. 

Then there's the millions being spent to clean up immigration fraud. I realize that the immigrants being investigated represent less than one tenth of one percent of the total, but despite the cost I like the idea of Canadian citizenship not being for sale. If the money is there to fight immigration fraud and to build more prisons, certainly we can find a few million to help those employed in law enforcement. 

And the Harper goverment won't be the ones paying for it anymore, it will be Québec taxpayers, and likely other provincial governments who are strong on law and order and in providing police with the tools they need.

Time to stop stressing about Québec

We Canadians love to worry, we worry about the economy, about the weather, about the direction our elected representatives are taking the country.  When we've had Liberal governments in Ottawa, right wingers have worried about big government.  When its Conservatives on parliament hill we worry about Canada becoming a playground for business interests at the expense or ordinary taxpayers.

Worry, worry, worry.  And when we're not worrying, we're complaining.  Complaining about the same things we worry about and more.  We love to carp about long line ups and gas prices and all manner of things we really can't do much about.

And now, thanks to the recent Quebec provincial election we have something else to worry and complain about, a separatist Parti Québecois government.  

My advice, its time to chill out.

Yes the Parti Québecois has as its ultimate goal the removal of Québec from Canadian confederation, we all know that.  But it isn't happening any time soon, and probably not at all.  Pauline Marois and her party barely squeaked out a victory over Jean Charest's Liberals.  Even running against a tainted and tired government mired in allegations of corruption, the PQ couldn't even manage one third of the popular vote.  

Mme Marois is the sixth Pequiste first minister in Quebec's history. That's right, she's following in the footsteps of Levesque, Pierre Marc Johnson, Parizeau, Bouchard and Landry.  And Quebec is still here, still a part of Canada despite two referendums.

And I am certain that not everyone who voted PQ wants sovereignty.  Not when they've already achieved so much of what they've historically been looking for when the Harper government's recognized Québec as a distinct society.  

There are other reasons for Québecois to vote PQ.  The PQ has strong support with labour, and when unions do well the middle class is strengthened.  Limiting the amount of money that can be donated to political parties and eliminating the tax deductions that go with it is another.  

So relax English Canada, Quebec has elected PQ governments before and it very well may again, that's democracy.  Might I even dare suggest coming for a visit?  This is an absolutely incredible part of the country, and like many places in Canada, the people are warm and friendly.  

Don't wait for a referendum to show your love, take a trip and check out Montreal's nightlife, the Gaspé Peninsula with its incredible scenery, historic Québec City.  Drop in and offer up greetings, and if you really want to show some love, say bonjour instead of hello.

Is Canada's left on the rise?

Discerning trends and making forecasts on limited data is not always the best recipe for making accurate forecasts, just look at pollsters.  They take small snapshots of voter intentions based on some simple questions and then use the data to try and predict the results.  

As we've seen in Alberta and more recently in Québec, the results don't always line up with the data.  If it did we would have a Wildrose government in Alberta, and the PQ with either a majority or a very strong minority in Quebec.

Recent results, (not polls) from the bi-elections in Ontario and the provincial election in Quebec could easily lead one to surmise that the Canadian left is not only alive and well, but perhaps even on the rise.

Quebec voters opted for the left wing PQ (albeit with a bare minority), and Kitchener Waterloo just elected an NDP member to Queen's Park despite its reputation as a Conservative stronghold.

Are Canadians beginning to realize that the trickle down, supply side economic model espoused by the right is really just hammering the bejeebers out of wage earners?  Will our union movement, so long in decline, start to gain favour as people start to realize that when union membership grows so does the backbone of our economy, the middle class?

Too early to tell, but one can certainly hope.

That was one long walk in the snow Justin

If Warren Kinsella is right, and I have little reason to doubt him, then Justin Trudeau is going to run for the Liberal leadership. Given how long it took him to reach this decision I thought perhaps he was waiting for winter to arrive.  That way he could follow in his father's footsteps by taking a walk in the snow before making making up his mind.

Pierre Trudeau of course took his famous walk in the snow before announcing his departure from political life back in February of 1984.  I think it would have had a nice symmetry to it, combined with an interesting dichotomy.  The old man exiting the Prime Minister's office in the same way that the son aspires to it.

As for rumours that JT will insist on his team being all forty years of age or younger, I'm ambivalent....besides which I don't really care.  I can see positives and negatives to such a move.  The obvious negative is that it will eliminate some very experienced people.  The positive is that a lot of that experience is in running losing campaigns.

I do think he's the best choice for the LPC.

Québec - What happens after a vote for independence?

For some, perhaps for most, the question of Québec separation is a dead issue.  There are many who believe that the referendum in 1995 was the last kick at the can for those who want a sovereign Québec.

And they're probably right, maybe.

For my own part I view separation as still being a possibility, albeit unlikely.  I do think that the so called 'winning conditions' the likes of the Parti Quebécois envision can still come to pass.  I wrote about it recently here:  Québec's road to independence.

In broad strokes I think the winning conditions for a yes vote on independence would  be: 

1) The election of a majority PQ government

2) Deterioration of relations between Ottawa and the Québec government with Ottawa refusing to cede control of responsibilities like immigration and the administration of Employment Insurance.

3) Increased unpopularity of the Federal government in Québec.

4) The creation of a form of Québec citizenship with the possible disenfranchisement of non French speaking voters.

Doesn't seem like such a long shot viewed in that light does it?  

Some might point to recent polling which has the PQ only in minority territory.  However the electorate is volatile so I'm not going to put too much stock in polls.  Just witness Alberta's recent election.  On top of that I consider PQ voters as being perhaps more motivated.  And the PQ itself is likely more organized than its rivals, in particular the nascent Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ).  

So let's assume the PQ forms a majority and that a referendum does come to pass, with Québec voting for independence at some future date.  What then?

I'm no constitutional lawyer or expert, but this is what I think we'd be looking at.

Immediately after a vote for independence there would be euphoria for hardliners, uncertainty for many, and outright fear among some.  The island of Montréal would be in turmoil, with some packing up to leave and others vowing a referendum of their own.  Native communities likewise would be clamoring for the right to make up their own minds as to whether or not they want their lands and their citizenship to be accorded to Canada or Québec.

In short, there would be big trouble, and likely in my opinion, violence.  The hard line separatists having waited so long to finally win a vote for independence would not take kindly to those looking to rain on their parade and things would get ugly.

I have trouble seeing clearly what happens beyond that to be honest, but I have a pretty good idea.

The reaction in English Canada would be mixed as I see it.  Some would be saying good riddance, while others would take up the cause of the aboriginal and anglophone communities.  The east coast would be in angst over the complications of being part of a geographically divided confederation.

While all this hand wringing and debate is going on in Québec and in the rest of the country, I envision Québec's National Assembly voting on a unilateral declaration of independence, and naturally passing it based on the PQ's majority status.

English Canada would be in uproar citing the Clarity Act, with Québec waiting anxiously for recognition from foreign countries.  

Nobody would be happy, except for lawyers who would be having a field day.  

It could take years to settle, and I have no idea who would the winner would be.  The only thing of which I'm certain is that there would be plenty of losers.  The toll on the economy would be devastating as Canada would become like a leper as far as foreign investment is concerned.  

The comment section is open and I don't engage censorship so I'll leave it to readers to have at it.  I will delete those comments which are overly profane or of a threatening or menacing nature however.

Whaddyer think?

Ottawa citizen reports - Thomas Mulclair has a mortgage on his home

This is news? 

Postmedia Network, owners of such bastions of liberal journalism as the National Post and Ottawa Citizen, is reporting that NDP leader Thomas Mulclair has a mortgage on his west island Montréal home. 

How much does he owe?  Thanks to Postmedia's dogged research Canadians now know the mortgage is valued at a whopping $300,000.  Whoa Nelly, STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Of course, that's not really very juicy is it?  Gotta give it some spin, and here's where Postmedia really shines.  Apparently the property has been refinanced numerous times!!! 

The headline in the Ottawa Citizen reads:  NDP leader has remortgaged his home 11 times since early 1980s.

I wonder how many people will bother reading the article?  My guess, not many.  That's the beauty of a juicy and prejorative headline.

Okay, so what we're being told is that Mr. Mulclair has refinanced his home on 11 different occasions over the past 30 years and that the amount owing on the mortgage is $300K.  I  bet there are lots of Canadians who would love it if their home only had a mortgage at that amount.  Think of all the poor saps who've been buying into the Canadian housing bubble over the past 5 years or so.  Given the west island address I'm going to assume there's a fair bit of equity there as well.

Why refinance?  Why not?  With uber-low interest rates and many investments offering superior gains it can certainly be argued that freeing up equity to get your capital working is a very wise move.  Dare I suggest it could even be argued that is shows business and fiscal savy?

From where I sit this is very good news for the NDP.  It suggests to me that Conservative minded media outlets are paying attention.  Why?  Because the NDP under Mulclair is gaining some traction, and with the Liberals continued weakness, that could prove troublesome for the governing Tories down the road. 

Better still is that the dirt their digging up, well its too clean to call it dirt.  Next up we're probably going to be reading how many times the NDP leader goes to the bathroom.

EI changes nudge Canada further to the right

For the majority of Canadians, those who identify themselves as centre-left on the political spectrum, the announced changes to EI show further evidence of Canada evolving into a more and more Conservative nation.  Hrmmm, maybe I shouldn't capitalize in this case, we're actually becoming more 'small c' conservative in my view.

The proposed changes...pfffft, its a majority government so who cares if they're only 'proposed' at this point. 

The changes will make it more difficult to for those who've accessed EI multiple times to refuse work.  I have no doubt that some will take exception to this, arguing that it will result in people being forced into jobs which don't match their qualifications.  And that this is more pandering to business interests, forcing workers to lower their salary expectations.

There is merit to that argument certainly, and I do think Diane Finley stepped in it when saying that EI recipients should be working at McDonald's if they have the qualifications for the job.  I think the main qualification is a pulse.  I'm betting that's the line of attack opposition parties will take. 

Improving the economy, one Big Mac at a time.

EI is a user pay system, and it irked me that under the Chrétien/Martin Liberals EI took in billions more in revenue than it paid out in benefits.  Of course under the Liberals we had balanced and surplus budgets thanks in part to the tightening of EI eligibility rules, so perhaps the Tories are thinking along the same lines.  But minimum wage jobs aren't going to do much to improve a person's standard of living.

At the end of the day EI is meant to be a hand-up, not a hand out.  And I, like many, know that there are individuals who milk the system.  I agree with Jim Flaherty's comment about there not being a bad job, there are no small jobs in my books...only small people.  There is dignity in work from where I sit, regardless of what a person is doing.

But he economy is fragile right now, with our massive housing bubble starting to show strain.  McJobs aren't going to get the economy going in the right direction.

Bottom line though, I think most Canadians won't have an issue with these changes, most Canadians are working thankfully.  Individual opinions might change however the first time a former EI recipient has to ask: "Do you want fries with that"?

Read the full story, with Minister Finley's McDonald's comments here:

Workers' EI history to affect claim under new rules

What are the changes to EI? Harper government says 'trust us'

I've been reading about proposed changes to EI legislation, with speculation rampant that benefits will become harder to qualify for, particularly for those who repeatedly access the program.

Okay, fair enough.

I don't consider myself an extremist on any issue, and that includes social programs like EI.  I'm certain that some on the left will deride any effort that makes Employment Insurance more difficult to obtain, however I'll hold back on forming an opinion until there's more information.

What does rankle me however is that according to a CBC story (HERE) the government wants the legislation enabling the changes to pass first, and then they'll provide the details. 

Uhm...that smells. 

After the F35 mess the Harper government is really pushing its luck in expecting the trust of Canadians.  In all likelihood though its probably more a case of the Conservatives banking on a lazy and ill informed electorate, especially when we're still in the early stages of a majority mandate.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley is reported as saying the changes will be fair and reasonable.  Well, if that's the case why aren't Canadians and our elected representatives being given the details? 

Our democracy is becoming more and more like the U.S. system every day under Stephen Harper, with decision making and control being centred in the PMO.  The only problem is that Canada lacks a body like the U.S. congress to provide a check on executive power. 

As far as changes to EI go, I'm not so blind as to think the system is perfect, and that changes can't be made to improve it.  I have no doubt that there are people accessing the system repeatedly even though they could be working. 

I actually agree with recent comments made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty regarding the dignity of work.  In a related CBC story from May 15th Flaherty is quoted as saying:

"I was brought up in a certain way. There is no bad job, the only bad job is not having a job," he told reporters. "I drove a taxi, I refereed hockey. You do what you have to do to make a living."

I have no issue with that statement whatsoever, I share the same view .  I too have taken jobs many might consider beneath them, I've been a janitor and pumped gas, I even drove a taxi myself...although that was a summer job and the cab was a bicycle called a pedi-cab. 

Whatever the changes are, this is a system that Canadians pay for and we deserve to know what the government is planning before the fact, not after. 

If Canadians can't get the straight goods on the purchase of billion dollar fighter jets we should at least get the details on EI changes with a chance for fair and reasonable debate before they're implemented.

Huffington Post Canada Poll says majority favour today's abortion debate

Today is the day apparently.  Canada's parliament is set to debate the creation of a committee to determine at what point a fetus should be considered a human being. 

Extremists exist on both sides of this debate, and when extremists have the floor democracy often suffers.  Into the fray stepped Huffington Post Canada with an on-line debate between the motion's author Stephen Woodworth and Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) co-founder Joyce Arthur.

The question being debated is this:

Currently Canadian law deprives a child of recognition as a human being until the moment of complete birth. Therefore Parliament should study what modern medical information tells us about when a child should be considered a human being.

Regardless of one's view I think we can all agree that democratic values should trump any one view, either for or against.  At least thats this blogger's opinion.  Obviously on-line polls aren't the best barometer of public opinion, but in the absence of any conflicting data I don't think they're totally without merit.

As things currently stand the numbers are 58% agreeing with Mr. Woodworth and 41% siding with Ms. Arthur, 1% are undecided.  Ms. Arthur is winning the debate however, given that she has swung most opinion her way, it seems most of the undecided agree with her arguments after reading the opinion pieces. 

You can read and take part in the poll here:

CHANGE MY MIND: When Should a Fetus be Recognized as a Child?