Reading or writing about politics can be an exercise in both cynicism and hope: cynicism because the worst of human nature is often on display in the performance of our elected officials, and hope because of an underlying belief that our democratic system always allows for the possibility of change and improvement.
The following video, although not political, offers an antidote to our cynicism. I hope you will be as encouraged about humanity's potential as I was after viewing it.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Bob Rae's Political Judgement
Having lived in Ontario during Bob Rae's tenure as Premier, I do not regard him with any degree of esteem (a polite understatement). The latest confirmation of the correctness of my opinion came recently when a friend sent me the following email:
Subject: Bill # C-428 THANKS TO RUBY DHALLA AND BOB RAE
It will receive second reading at the next sitting of parliament...
Please read the bill and make your own decision..if you disagree with the bill, please send this to every Canadian of voting age in your address book..
Hopefully by letting your member of parliament know your feelings on the bill, it will be defeated.
If you agree with the bill, you don't need to do anything..
Bill C-428 An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirements)
Bill C-428 will allow recent immigrants to apply for OAS (the CPP) in 3 years instead of the existing 10.
This bill had first reading in the house on June 18, 2009. It was seconded by Bob Rae!! MP Ms. Ruby Dhalla who introduced the bill represents the riding of Brampton whose population is mainly East Indian. Right now you have to have lived in Canada for 10 years in order to qualify for Old Age Security (CPP). She wants the time reduced to 3 years. Thousands could come to Canada when they are 62 years old, never having worked or contributed to this country's tax system etc, and qualify for full Old Age Security (CPP) benefits. 10 years minimum is reasonable. 3 is not!
Look this up - Google C-428 and you will see this bill has only one purpose, to featherbed a select group of people for votes.
I certainly hope this bill does not get passed. It is about time we called our elected MP's to ask them to NOT support this bill. Their response may be one factor in helping us determine who gets elected in the next election.
What Can You Do?
1. Spread the message
to family, friends and email buds.
2. Write letters, send emails to all your list, and call Members of Parliament
It is time Canada looked after it's Vets and long-term citizens before tossing OUR hard-earned money around on people who have no right to this money, never having paid taxes or contributed to our economy. If a family wishes to bring elderly relatives here and are willing to waive their own right to collect these funds in order that the elderly relatives can receive them...fine...otherwise, look after them yourself and do not expect the Canadian taxpayers to do it.
There are too many people abusing the generosity of the Canadian people. We need to stop the madness....NOW!
While I do not agree with the rather inflammatory tone in part of this message, I do think it shows a key Liberal, Mr. Rae, badly out of touch with the sensibilities of many Canadians, especially with regard to their sense of fair play. While it is probably no mystery as to why Ms Dhalla authored the bill, given the bad publicity she weathered about a year ago over her treatment of Phillipino nannies, as well as the fact that her riding houses many immigrants, I find it hard to understand why Mr. Rae would have seconded the bill.
In my view, should Michael Ignatieff ultimately be deposed as Liberal leader, the worst mistake the Party could make would be to select Bob Rae as his successor.
Subject: Bill # C-428 THANKS TO RUBY DHALLA AND BOB RAE
It will receive second reading at the next sitting of parliament...
Please read the bill and make your own decision..if you disagree with the bill, please send this to every Canadian of voting age in your address book..
Hopefully by letting your member of parliament know your feelings on the bill, it will be defeated.
If you agree with the bill, you don't need to do anything..
Bill C-428 An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirements)
Bill C-428 will allow recent immigrants to apply for OAS (the CPP) in 3 years instead of the existing 10.
This bill had first reading in the house on June 18, 2009. It was seconded by Bob Rae!! MP Ms. Ruby Dhalla who introduced the bill represents the riding of Brampton whose population is mainly East Indian. Right now you have to have lived in Canada for 10 years in order to qualify for Old Age Security (CPP). She wants the time reduced to 3 years. Thousands could come to Canada when they are 62 years old, never having worked or contributed to this country's tax system etc, and qualify for full Old Age Security (CPP) benefits. 10 years minimum is reasonable. 3 is not!
Look this up - Google C-428 and you will see this bill has only one purpose, to featherbed a select group of people for votes.
I certainly hope this bill does not get passed. It is about time we called our elected MP's to ask them to NOT support this bill. Their response may be one factor in helping us determine who gets elected in the next election.
What Can You Do?
1. Spread the message
to family, friends and email buds.
2. Write letters, send emails to all your list, and call Members of Parliament
It is time Canada looked after it's Vets and long-term citizens before tossing OUR hard-earned money around on people who have no right to this money, never having paid taxes or contributed to our economy. If a family wishes to bring elderly relatives here and are willing to waive their own right to collect these funds in order that the elderly relatives can receive them...fine...otherwise, look after them yourself and do not expect the Canadian taxpayers to do it.
There are too many people abusing the generosity of the Canadian people. We need to stop the madness....NOW!
While I do not agree with the rather inflammatory tone in part of this message, I do think it shows a key Liberal, Mr. Rae, badly out of touch with the sensibilities of many Canadians, especially with regard to their sense of fair play. While it is probably no mystery as to why Ms Dhalla authored the bill, given the bad publicity she weathered about a year ago over her treatment of Phillipino nannies, as well as the fact that her riding houses many immigrants, I find it hard to understand why Mr. Rae would have seconded the bill.
In my view, should Michael Ignatieff ultimately be deposed as Liberal leader, the worst mistake the Party could make would be to select Bob Rae as his successor.
Helping People to Help Themselves
If you have read my other blog, you may know that I am an enthusiastic supporter of and volunteer editor with Kiva, a non-profit microfinance organization dedicated to helping people in various parts of the world help themselves.
The concept of Kiva microfinance is surprisingly simple: by circumventing the often arcane and corrupt machinations of governments and working directly with lending institutions in developing countries, the micro financier reads online the loan request of the entrepreneur, and for as little as a $25 loan, can help that entrepreneur meet his or her loan goal for purposes that can range from buying more chickens for a poultry-raising business to buying more seeds for a farm.
Kiva's motto: Loans that Change Lives, is an accurate description of the possibilities for the incremental improvements in living standards through microfinance.
I hope that you will visit their site.
The concept of Kiva microfinance is surprisingly simple: by circumventing the often arcane and corrupt machinations of governments and working directly with lending institutions in developing countries, the micro financier reads online the loan request of the entrepreneur, and for as little as a $25 loan, can help that entrepreneur meet his or her loan goal for purposes that can range from buying more chickens for a poultry-raising business to buying more seeds for a farm.
Kiva's motto: Loans that Change Lives, is an accurate description of the possibilities for the incremental improvements in living standards through microfinance.
I hope that you will visit their site.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Criticizing the Harper Government Can be Harmful to Career Prospects
I was going to write a post exploring the casualty list of those whose criticisms of specific Harper Government policies have resulted in dismissals, demotions, or resignations, but the Globe and Mail has already done it this morning in its online Political Notebook.
The latest victim is RCMP Marty Cheliak, whose vigorous support of the long gun registry has earned him much praise and recognition amongst police forces across the country but apparently incurred the ire of Harper, who dearly wants to eliminate it, no doubt another sop to his hardcore constituency. While the Government denies any role in the matter, citing it as an RCMP decision, his removal as head of the Canadian Firearms Program, nine months after his appointment, does not pass the smell test and appears to be part of the growing pattern of intolerance of criticism that Mr. Harper is known for.
The official reason for Cheliak's removal? He is not bilingual. Funny, that didn't seem to be an issue until now.
Message received loud and clear, Mr. Harper.
The latest victim is RCMP Marty Cheliak, whose vigorous support of the long gun registry has earned him much praise and recognition amongst police forces across the country but apparently incurred the ire of Harper, who dearly wants to eliminate it, no doubt another sop to his hardcore constituency. While the Government denies any role in the matter, citing it as an RCMP decision, his removal as head of the Canadian Firearms Program, nine months after his appointment, does not pass the smell test and appears to be part of the growing pattern of intolerance of criticism that Mr. Harper is known for.
The official reason for Cheliak's removal? He is not bilingual. Funny, that didn't seem to be an issue until now.
Message received loud and clear, Mr. Harper.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Heather Mallick
In today's Toronto Star, Heather Mallick has an interesting column pertaining to the McGuinty Government's decision to permit Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario. She raises the question of whether or not all governments' mortal fear of directly raising taxes is justified.
Read it and see what you think.
Read it and see what you think.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Dalton McGuinty
In his column in today's Toronto Star, Jim Coyle has an interesting view of Premier McGuinty's decisions to venture into online gambling and permitting Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) in Ontario. While I tend to see the two as cynical moves based on a need to raise provincial revenue regardless of the detrimental effects, Coyle sees them as evidence of progressive and canny leadership, at the same time observing contrasts in both style and substance with Conservative Leader Tim Hudak.
Well worth reading.
Well worth reading.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
James Travers' Column Today
In his column today, Toronto Star political columnist James Travers insightfully addresses a situation that I have written about a couple of times, the fact that the Federal Liberal Party seems to stand for nothing, judging by its feckless opposition to Stephen Harper's harmful policies. I am taking the liberty of reproducing the entire column, with parts that I have bolded for added emphasis:
Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada
by James Travers
OTTAWA—This country has a problem. It has a ruling party that twists the truth and an Official Opposition that can’t, or won’t, straighten it out.
This summer’s oddly hot topic is one example. Gutting the census is nothing less than another Conservative act of public vandalism. Wagging an angry finger is nothing more than another empty Liberal gesture.
Opinion polls reflect that repeating pattern. For more than four years now Canadians have consistently told pollsters they don’t support Conservatives and don’t trust Liberals.
One unlikely way to end that impasse is for Stephen Harper to come clean about what he doesn’t like about Canada and how Conservatives are changing it by stealth and increment. Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.
Harper owes that explanation. Since taking control of a universally admired country in 2006, the Prime Minister has been altering Canada without a majority mandate or clear statement of ultimate purpose.
Ignatieff has a duty to oppose that strategy. Since replacing Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader has threatened elections and fumed at Conservatives while drawing flexible lines in this capital’s blowing sand.
Harper’s determination and Ignatieff’s vacillation are connected by opportunities seized by Conservatives and missed by Liberals. Without significant resistance or the debate democracy demands, the Prime Minister has consistently advanced policies that are at best controversial and at worst corrosive.
Too often Harper manages to tip-toe dubious schemes past a dozing electorate. While the nation slept, Conservatives grossly abused the budget process with an omnibus bill bulging with unrelated plans to sell the public stake in the atomic energy sector and, even more remarkably, to relax environmental regulations just when the world is reeling from the BP oil spill.
As always, there’s more. There was little discussion of military priorities and less outcry over public safeguards in the sole-sourced contract committing Canada to spend some $16 billion replacing CF-18 fighters. Much was muttered and nothing done to stop Conservatives silencing diverse civil society voices by attacking Montreal’s non-partisan Rights and Democracy and stripping core funding from the umbrella agency has advised federal governments on overseas development for more than forty years.
To Conservative credit, Harper routinely gets the best of a fissured Parliament and an Official Opposition in disarray. The result is a country being forced marched to an unknown destination.
To Liberal shame, serial leaders, with the notable exception of Stephane Dion’s quixotic defence of a carbon tax, have failed to find principled places to stand. In trying every which way to regain power they continue to fall far short of convincing Canadians that a once great party would now gladly risk its hegemony to protect the national interest.
No party or leader willingly commits political suicide. Instead, they lurk in the shadows, weighing odds and waiting for a promising moment to strike. Still, parties risk everything when what’s good for them is seen to be more important than what’s good for the country.
Ignatieff knows that Liberals have taken too long to discard the tattered cloak of Canada’s natural governing party. Liberals are proving equally slow in grasping that an opposition afraid to oppose is an empty vessel voters will fill with blame when the ruling party goes too far.
Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology. Liberals will go nowhere until they are willing to risk something straightening it out.
Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada
by James Travers
OTTAWA—This country has a problem. It has a ruling party that twists the truth and an Official Opposition that can’t, or won’t, straighten it out.
This summer’s oddly hot topic is one example. Gutting the census is nothing less than another Conservative act of public vandalism. Wagging an angry finger is nothing more than another empty Liberal gesture.
Opinion polls reflect that repeating pattern. For more than four years now Canadians have consistently told pollsters they don’t support Conservatives and don’t trust Liberals.
One unlikely way to end that impasse is for Stephen Harper to come clean about what he doesn’t like about Canada and how Conservatives are changing it by stealth and increment. Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.
Harper owes that explanation. Since taking control of a universally admired country in 2006, the Prime Minister has been altering Canada without a majority mandate or clear statement of ultimate purpose.
Ignatieff has a duty to oppose that strategy. Since replacing Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader has threatened elections and fumed at Conservatives while drawing flexible lines in this capital’s blowing sand.
Harper’s determination and Ignatieff’s vacillation are connected by opportunities seized by Conservatives and missed by Liberals. Without significant resistance or the debate democracy demands, the Prime Minister has consistently advanced policies that are at best controversial and at worst corrosive.
Too often Harper manages to tip-toe dubious schemes past a dozing electorate. While the nation slept, Conservatives grossly abused the budget process with an omnibus bill bulging with unrelated plans to sell the public stake in the atomic energy sector and, even more remarkably, to relax environmental regulations just when the world is reeling from the BP oil spill.
As always, there’s more. There was little discussion of military priorities and less outcry over public safeguards in the sole-sourced contract committing Canada to spend some $16 billion replacing CF-18 fighters. Much was muttered and nothing done to stop Conservatives silencing diverse civil society voices by attacking Montreal’s non-partisan Rights and Democracy and stripping core funding from the umbrella agency has advised federal governments on overseas development for more than forty years.
To Conservative credit, Harper routinely gets the best of a fissured Parliament and an Official Opposition in disarray. The result is a country being forced marched to an unknown destination.
To Liberal shame, serial leaders, with the notable exception of Stephane Dion’s quixotic defence of a carbon tax, have failed to find principled places to stand. In trying every which way to regain power they continue to fall far short of convincing Canadians that a once great party would now gladly risk its hegemony to protect the national interest.
No party or leader willingly commits political suicide. Instead, they lurk in the shadows, weighing odds and waiting for a promising moment to strike. Still, parties risk everything when what’s good for them is seen to be more important than what’s good for the country.
Ignatieff knows that Liberals have taken too long to discard the tattered cloak of Canada’s natural governing party. Liberals are proving equally slow in grasping that an opposition afraid to oppose is an empty vessel voters will fill with blame when the ruling party goes too far.
Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology. Liberals will go nowhere until they are willing to risk something straightening it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)