Harper’s Response to Quebec Flood Victims ‘an Insult’

While Manitoba controls its flood and got two Prime Ministerial visits and plenty of support, Quebecers are left to deal a retreat of Canadian Armed Forces, all the while, Harper visits the rest of the brigade in Afghanistan. NDP leader Jack Layton took the opportunity to tour the region and called Harper’s actions ‘an insult.’ He is the first national leader to tour the region and many of his newest seats are in the area.

The Conservative Majority Government that campaigned on being ‘Here for Canada’ has turned its back to the 3,000 residents of the Richelieu Valley in Quebec who aren’t getting a break from the rising Richelieu river, nor will they see one any time soon.

An abnormally wet winter and spring has precipitated to a higher Lake Champlain and no where for water along the Richelieu Valley to go, but up. This has been the first time in over 100 years that the Richelieu river has reached these levels which have broken records three times.

The hardest hit of the region is the community of Saint-Paul-de-l’Ile-aux-Noix where Layton visited Monday morning with a few of his newly elected members of his Quebec-based caucus. He promised flood victims that he would speak to Harper directly about their many concerns.

However, residents are skeptical about Layton’s ability to change the situation and what they want is for the military to stay and for the water to go away. One woman in the region said that she has sleepless nights thinking about the mess that she will have to clean up when it is all over. Other residents didn’t care which politician came, they didn’t think it would make any difference.

One of the concerns that residents are raising in particular is Harper’s decision to withdraw the military as water levels rise. When the water recedes, sandbags that can weigh as much as 30 kg will be left for the residents to clean up on their own.

People in the region are now entering the fifth straight week of the flood where people literally need to use boats to cross the streets. Several thousand homes and businesses too, are underwater.

"It's been predicted for quite some time that we're going to have worse weather -- stronger weather," Layton told The Canadian Press. "All the insurance companies have been predicting it, weather scientists have been predicting it. We're going to have to take a look at how we respond, as a society."

Defense Minister Peter MacKay, however, made it clear during his visit to the region last week that the soldiers, which peaked at 800, will assist residents with the developing emergency but not the clean up.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has been in the region four times announcing that the province would establish three task forces. One would focus on reconstruction, another on temporary shelter, a final on disaster prevention.

Over the weekend, heavy rain and strong winds caused the Richelieu river to rise another 25 cm bringing it to its highest levels for the third time  in 45 days.

"The same level as 6th of May, which I think was the highest," Saint-Paul-de-l'Ile-aux-Noix Mayor Gerard Dutil told CTV News Channel on Monday.

"Hopefully, with the weather persisting, we should be able to do something in the next 10 or 15 days, but we will have to come out of it soon," Dutil said.

If the river peaks as officials expect in the coming days, it will take weeks of good weather for the water to disappear and for a clean up operation to be able to take place.

Despite the Harper Government’s decision to leave Quebecers stranded, a site called SOS Richelieu  has managed to get more than 7,500 people to volunteer for its clean up operation that could start as soon as the weekend of June 11 and 12.

Other relief efforts include a Red Cross concert in Montreal on June 1 and a comedic fundraising event in Saint'-Jean-sur-Richelieu on June 7.

Liberals choose Bob Rae as Interim Leader

The Liberal Party of Canada has chosen Bob Rae to set the framework for the future of the party that will be handed off to another leader in 18 to 22 months depending on when the next convention takes place. Rae will the the Liberals’ fifth leader since Paul Martin resigned in 2006 after he lost to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. With the task of rebuilding the Grits at hand, Rae as an extensive amount of political experience.

While Rae has a lot of experience, there are a number of holes that can be exploited by the NDP and Conservatives to further derail the once mighty party. For one, Rae was the premier of Ontario from October 1990 to June 1995. Rae’s provincial NDP party took power after the extensive damage that was done by Mike Harris’s Conservatives. He lost in 1995 to Mike Harris after alienating all sides, raising taxes and making unpopular cuts to healthcare and education in order to try to slay the problem. 

Ontario, under Rae went through a painful recession, and his failure to come to grip may be ammo for the Conservatives and NDP to come and say, how can the Liberal Party choose  a man who has such a terrible economic record to become their leader? Whether that tactic will work, is another thing, but Rae can’t hide the record, it is there, what he will have to do is make the case that he has learned and grew as a result.

However the quadrupling of deficit in one year, doubling of provincial debt in three, $5 billion in additional spending in the first year, the tax hike for the civil servants who supported him, won’t just go away. As an even bigger hit, as Rae repeatedly raised taxes to try to balance the books, the revenues as a share of GDP were higher under the tax-cutting Harris Tories.

However, putting his record aside, Rae realizes that this is an important time for the Liberal Party.

"The people of Canada gave the Liberal Party a very clear and tough message in the last election," Rae told reporters. "We know that we have a lot of rebuilding to do."

"I have no illusions at all. This is a job to help the party rebuild." Liberals must "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start all over again."

As for the Liberals’ stature at returning, Rae "can assure you that the Liberal Party has a future that is every bit as promising and great as our past achievements have been. And [he has] no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Party is here to stay."

Bob Rae has been in it for the leadership position since 2006 where he lost to Ignatieff and Dion.

Whether Rae will be a disaster for the Liberal reputation or savior has yet to be seen in the coming months. As third party status, the Liberals will be fighting for attention while they try to rebuild their party.

In the end of the day, the Liberals will have to analyze whether a leader can pull them out of the rubble. Were Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff just wrong leaders, or have the Liberals changed too much from their roots to be taken seriously or be inspiring? Any leader can be inspiring, it all depends on what they are trying to sell. The new leader quick fix likely won’t work this time around, time to do some soul searching. What made the Liberals such a strong party in the first place?

Layton’s New Job

Jack Layton has always had a fighting spirit, and he must be so happy that Harper has a majority. This may sound insane, but Harper having a majority actually does benefit him. Since Harper has a majority, he can bark at him and never risk toppling the government. In this case, smooth sailing for him to boost his image. All he needs to do is reject everything Harper does he will look golden by October 19, 2015.

Try being the official opposition leader in a minority government. It isn’t easy. While Layton pinned the Liberals as weak for going along with what Harper said and did, it is obvious that it was strategic. Unless Canadians wanted a near election call every few days, the Liberals had no choice but to abstain or throw in the towel. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois placed themselves in a position where they would always oppose the government. It can be guaranteed that if Layton had been the official opposition leader last time, he would have been forced to support the Harper Government every step of the way as the Liberals would have used the non-official opposition status to tender to the same advantages that Layton had – corner the official opposition into choosing between an election and stable, yet majority-like government.

Canadians can expect a loud, but silenced, opposition. As Harper has a majority, listening to Layton and taking his advice is at his discretion. In other words, expect the paraphrase “Canadians elected us to do X and this is the platform that Canadians voted for, therefore we will not back out of our plans” to become a regular statement from the Conservatives.

Today, Layton addressed his troops, promising to hold Harper to account. Today, Layton wants to pin Harper as uncompromising and against Canadians needs, another strategic move as the Conservatives will clear the way for their agenda. With a majority government under their reigns, Canadians will see and feel the power that the Conservatives have to shrug off opposition attacks and carry on with motions – this time, they don’t need to assign a confidence motion to almost every single one.

Layton may have tripled his seat count, but he lost his voice in parliament in the process. An ironic twist of events, but one that Layton will try to capitalize on. It is easy being the opposition leader in a majority government since your voice means next to nothing and people will think that you are against what the government is doing – regardless of where you actually stand.

Layton announced today, "We have here — standing shoulder to shoulder — the experienced leaders of today, with decades of experience, and the young Canadian leaders of tomorrow, and of many years to come."

Layton’s caucus includes a number of ministers that are under 30 and the youngest being 19-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault.

Layton told his caucus that Canadians gave him the task "to hold the Conservatives to account, and to propose practical solutions that will drive the agenda and the country forward."

Layton said that the NDP will focus on families when Parliament resumes on June 2. He told the crowd that Harper was more focused on rewarding his friends referring to the new Senate appointments.

"Stephen Harper’s very first post-election priority was to reward failed Conservative candidates with high-paying Senate appointments," Layton said.

Fabian Manning and Larry Smith left the senate to try to get into the House of Commons. When they failed, they joined defeated former cabinet minister Josée Verner in Harper’s list of appointments to the upper chamber.

Layton acknowledged that he wouldn’t have had the support he got if it weren’t for Quebec and menti0ned his 59 Quebec MPs in his speech.

On Wednesday, the NDP and Liberals will be holding caucus meetings. The Liberals will be trying to lick their wombs while choosing an Interim Leader.

The Conservatives haven’t met since they won their majority.

Layton will announce his shadow cabinet by the end of the week.

In the end of the day, it is shaping up for a Layton/Harper showdown in 2015 and Layton will be using the majority safety blanket to attack Harper from a distance that won’t have repercussions on the stability of the government. Assuming Layton doesn’t mess up, or propose an unrealistic plan, he is enroute to enjoying his term as Official Opposition leader in a majority government – quite frankly, his political career must be relieved that it is a majority government.

Conservatives will reap the benefits

Stephen Harper has a lot to smile about. He won a majority government with only 39.6% of the vote – imagine if he would have had to try to get the 54% that he has in seats in votes… He doesn’t have to care about what his opposition thinks or says. The fact that he increased the size of government, which will give Canadians a new $9 million bill will likely be forgotten in 4 years.

It will be forgotten, just as all of his controversies within 2 years were forgotten on May 2 – there was a long list of them too… The future is bright for Stephen Harper. He even has an official opposition leader that will be no challenge in the next election… Canadians believe him when he says that the $70 billion in new spending that the NDP want to implement doesn’t grow on trees – that is no secret. In the Conservative camp, la vie est belle.

No one should be surprised at any of the outcomes that are arising, or any of the outcomes that have yet to come. We have seen Stephen in minority and he hasn’t changed for his majority – why would he? He has a majority now…

So we now have a government who was elected on the promise of slaying the deficit while stating once elected that it won’t be in the upcoming budget. Added onto that, the Conservative vision for smaller government was smashed when it appointed one of the largest cabinets in history, aligning with Brian Mulroney and Paul Martin.

And on top of that, these new Conservative MPs will be getting nice salaries and perks off the taxpayer’s backs – which is standard, but this time, we are paying $9 million for them… the largest bill the Canadian taxpayer has ever had to pay for a government’s salary – especially in a time when family budgets are tight.  Was that a slap in our face or what? We the tax payers are going to be taken for a ride, and quite frankly, it wouldn’t make any difference if it was the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP who were in charge at the moment.

What is disappointing is that Stephen took Canadians for idiots and it worked. What is disappointing is that he promised to slash $4 billion from bureaucracy and lined his pals with $9 million… now is the time to be scaling back, but it is clear that the Conservatives need a larger cut to suit their reward.

The 2011 figures state that each of our elected officials will be raking in $157,731 annually -  the 19 year old NDP representative from Sherbrooke, Quebec must be happy. Instead of working at a golf course, he will have made $630,924 in 4 years, a lot more than enough to cover university, if he still bothers to go.

Harper, meanwhile, will get double that and a car allowance. His $317,574 taxpayer-funded salary is modest in comparison to the bank presidents and the top executives in the private sector that he promised to support with further cuts to their taxes.

The Ministers will each be making $233,247 annually plus a car allowance while Ministers of state make $214,368 without a car allowance.

Marjory LeBreton is the leader of the senate, and she will be making $207,800. Meanwhile, her fellow senators will each be making $132,300 per year.

When you sum a PM with 25 ministers, 11 ministers of state, the senate and senate leaders, and include the perks, the sum will come close to $9 million – this doesn’t include the staffers.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives quietly approved increases in the maximum salaries that political staff are entitled to receive. On April 1, these changes took effect, all the while Harper promised to balance the budget by 2014-15 with cuts, obviously these cuts won’t effect his people, they will effect us. Harper said at the time, that this would be achieved "by controlling spending and cutting waste."  It is now clear that things that help people are waste and things that help his party are great, Conservative supporters can be so proud!

Harper defended his choice by saying,

"I think it's important to know when you're talking about austerity, that this government has reduced ministerial budgets significantly," he said after his cabinet was sworn in at Rideau Hall.

"So the question here is not cost. The question is making sure that we have a ministry that is broad, representative of the country and tries to use people's talents to the maximum. ...

"I think it would be a mistake to try and have a smaller cabinet that would make less use of people."

When Mulroney appointed his first Progressive Conservative cabinet in 1984, a minister earned $95,200 and they each had a $17,600 tax-free expense allowance. Mulroney made $115,100 plus tax-free expense allowance.

Martin’s first cabinet came in late 2003. A minister’s salary with car allowance was $208,522 and junior secretary of state job earned $189,312. Martin made $280,522 at the time.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that for every dollar that a cabinet minister makes, taxpayers will pay four dollars at the same time.

Statistics Canada, meanwhile, states that the median after-tax income that a typical Canadian family of two makes is $63,900.

In four years, Canadians will likely forget all of this. Perhaps they were willing to accept Harper’s plea that the opposition was in fault for his flip flops and out of the kindness of their hearts gave him a chance. Or, perhaps, Layton’s plan was detrimental for the country and the Liberals were obviously out of the game. Or, perhaps, as Stephen Harper once wrote, the electorate is “uninformed and apathetic.” It goes to show that regardless the reason, Canadians were obviously played for fools and now they shall pay the price.

Canadians will pay $9 million per year for extra treats and goodies for their Conservative government that only represents 39.6% of its population’s values and completely goes against what it stands for. Stephen, as a word of advice – it may be late now… don’t ever promise that you are going to reduce the size of government, we all know that once you get in, the power consumes you. But don’t worry, Canadians will likely give you your second majority mandate in four years. La vie est belle Premiere Ministre, La vie est belle!

To all of us Canadians that are forced to live with the fact, is it not ironic that Conservatives say that it is wrong for tax payers to shell out money to fund healthcare and social programs and that it is wrong that tax-payers pay for those who “don’t want to work and abuse the system” but when it comes to dealing with taxpayer’s funds, they make it clear that it is fine for Canadians to pay their higher salaries and bureaucratic costs?

Conservatives Expand the Cabinet and the Senate

Conservative-minded people are supposed to take a minimalist mind to government. Reduce state intervention, reduce state size, reduce state spending. Today, Stephen Harper unveiled the biggest cabinet ever and appointed 3 unelected ministers to the senate. During his term in office, spending  increased and Harper plans to spend more on prisons, corporate tax cuts and F-35 fighter jets.

For a man who says that appointing senators is undemocratic, forming his 55 senator majority didn’t seem to be much of a hassle. As for state reduction, 39 cabinet ministers is more than plenty to get the job done and now matches Brian Mulroney and Paul Martin for having the largest cabinets ever. It is in fact, one third larger than his original cabinet in 2006.

Harper meanwhile dismissed his critics.

"I think it's important to know when you're talking about austerity, that this government has reduced ministerial budgets significantly," he said.

"So the question here is not cost. The question is making sure that we have a ministry that is broad, representative of the country and tries to use people's talents to the maximum."

So do we really need such a big cabinet? What happened to less government is more?

Meanwhile Larry Smith, Fabian Manning, and Josee Verner can comfortably settle into their new taxpayer-funded jobs in the senate which remains appointed, costly and useless.

Meanwhile, Harper tries to turn everyone’s attention by stating that he wants to focus on the economy.

"The mandate given to us by the voters of Canada on May 2 allowed us to focus on the economy and more generally on stability. If the economy is our top priority, we will be working very hard on all the priorities we campaigned on."

In order to remedy the loss of Laurence Cannon, Harper has made pit-bull John Baird his Foreign Affairs minister. Baird accepted his new position stating, "As foreign minister I will be fighting hard for things like freedom, things like democracy, things like human rights, the rule of law."

Jim Flaherty, Peter MacKay and Bev Oda keep their posts. Jason Kenney will chair the powerful cabinet operations committee making him the government’s chief operating officer. Peter Van Loan will now be the house leader. Tony Clement will now be the Treasury Board president and Christian Paradis takes over from where he left off as Industry Minister.

Newcomers have also been named to the bloated cabinet – Peter Penashue from Newfoundland and Labrador will now not only be the first Innu in cabinet, but also the intergovernmental affairs minister. Toronto rookie Joe Oliver will now become the natural resources minister.

If the government wanted to reduce its size, here is a good position to scrap… minister of state of sport will be chaired by Bal Gosal.

Harper has left some good advice that may be helpful to NDP leader Jack Layton who has a caucus of rookies to train. "Any hockey coach will tell you that if a team is going to keep winning over time, it must maintain a corps of veterans and then gradually blend in new talent,” Harper said.

Jack Layton came out on the public scene for the first time since becoming Official Opposition leader and criticized Harper’s cabinet and appointments of new senators.

"While it might be a new cabinet, there are an awful lot of the same players there that steered the last government through contempt and scandals," Layton said.

"We'll give these new ministers a fair shot. We will challenge them when they are doing the wrong thing. We'll be on the lookout for every decision that they make on behalf of the Canadian people."

In terms of the new senators, "Mr. Harper talks about Senate reform but he's doing things in the same old way, in fact even worse," Layton said.

"He's taking people who have been defeated, who have been rejected by voters.... You should earn your place in the Senate and if you can't get elected, you shouldn't be appointed to the Senate two weeks later."

Meanwhile, Harper made the best of his limited choices in Quebec when his seat count there was halved as a result of the NDP surge. Four out of his five seats will be cabinet ministers.

Maxime Bernier will be the minister of state for small business and tourism after being exiled for forgetting that he left secret documents at his girlfriend’s apartment in 2008.

Ed Fast from British Columbia will become the new Trade Minister, while Bernard Valcourt returns from the Mulroney days to become the minister of state for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and francophonie.

Meanwhile, 10 of the 28 women that were elected in the 166 seat Conservative caucus made it to cabinet – none of them are newly elected.

Rob Merrifield of Alberta and Rob Moore of New Brunswick were dropped from the cabinet.

A Speaker will be elected on June 2 before the speech from the throne on June 3.

For a government whose focus is supposed to be on cutting spending and cutting government size, this new government has quite a bit of fat to start trimming off, too bad this fat can’t be trimmed off as it was put there. Is this the kind of government you had in mind?

WikiLeaks: US Held off on Arctic Sovereignty Claim To Avoid Influencing the 2008 Election

WikiLeaks has leaked a diplomatic cable that suggests that in fear of influencing the outcome of the 2008 election – which gave Harper’s Conservatives a strengthened minority government – the White House delayed the release of a potentially controversial policy directive on the Arctic. The directive, titled the National Security/Homeland Security Presidential Directive, released in January 2009 was one of Republican President George Bush’s last policies before Democrat Barak Obama took office later that month.

The directive firmly reiterated the US rejection of Canada’s claims over the oil-rich Northwest Passage by asserting US military “sea power” in the region.

The decision to delay the announcement came after a confidential cable was sent from the US Embassy in Ottawa on September 12, 2008 – five days after the 2008 Election started and carried “WILKINS” Which presumably indicates the cable was sent or authorized by David Wilkins, the former US ambassador to Canada.

The cable was labeled “sensitive but unclassified” and “not for release outside of the US government.” It advised that the release of the new US policy in the midst of the Canadian election “has potential to insert the United States as an issue in the campaign and negatively impact US-Canadian relations.”

The cable notably suggests that “all parties vying in the election” would be likely to criticize the new US policy but that “other parties would be especially harsh in their criticism of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives for not having dissuaded the US from issuing that new policy.”

The message goes on to state additionally that "harsh criticism might resonate widely among the electorate, and we run the risk of provoking a response that could lead to a hardening of positions and a lessening of the overall excellent co-operation we maintain with Canada in the Arctic."

The cable concludes,"For these reasons, Embassy requests the Department and other Washington agencies delay the release of the NSPD/HSPD on Arctic policy until after the conclusion of the Canadian federal election on October 14."

The US released its directive on January 12, 2009 and leading experts such as Robert Huebert, a political scientist at the University of Calgary expressed surprise that there was “no effort here to sugarcoat anything” and framed the emerging international conflicts in the Arctic in “black and white” terms.

"I think Canada has gotten a real wake-up call with this," Huebert said at the time.

Key agencies were directed to define the full extent of US Arctic boundaries because of the country’s “compelling interest” in the region and highlighted climate change and defense against possible threats from terrorists that may arise as there is "a growing awareness that the Arctic region is both fragile and rich in resources."

The directive also contained a suggestion of unilateralism that sparked the bulk of Bush’s international criticism during his eight-year presidency.

The text stated:

"The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests.

"The United States also has fundamental homeland security interests in preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating those criminal or hostile acts that could increase the United States vulnerability to terrorism in the Arctic region.

"This requires the United States to assert a more active and influential national presence to protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the region."

Greenpeace, an international environmental activist group weighed in to the US embassy cable and a number of other newly leaked cables on WikiLeaks that illustrate a picture of growing tensions between the US and Canada behind-the-scenes. The tensions come as both countries compete over boundary-making, military activity and economic development in the increasingly accessible Arctic region.

"These latest WikiLeaks revelations expose something profoundly concerning," Greenpeace oil campaigner Ben Ayliffe said in a statement. "Instead of seeing the melting of the Arctic ice cap as a spur to action on climate change, the leaders of the Arctic nations are instead investing in military hardware to fight for the oil beneath it.

"They're preparing to fight to extract the very fossil fuels that caused the melting in the first place. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire.”

In the end, it turns out that Bush wasn’t Harper’s amigo after all, he just needed an ideological friend to become a pushover to get the ball rolling for an American takeover.

Related Article: WikiLeaks Strikes Again… This time Concerning the Arctic and Afghanistan

Ministers want Action Plan Signs to be Permanent

The Action Plan signs that act to promote federal stimulus projects are popular with Conservative cabinet ministers. The signs are so popular that some ministers want the signs to stick around permanently.

The Canadian Press obtained documents that reveal a formal recommendation for a “permanent signage” program went to PM Harper at the request of his ministers last December 17.

The opening line of the 12-page memo to the Prime Minister read, "Interest has been expressed by Ministers in the placement of permanent signage at selected, completed Economic Action Plan (EAP) project sites."

"If you agree, we will work with departments and your Office to ensure implementation of the guidelines."

A Spokesman from the Prime Minister’s Privy Council Office – the bureaucracy that serves the Prime Minister – said that the recommendation set out by the memo was rejected.

However, PCO spokesman Raymond Rivet said in an email, "Any permanent signage is a decision of individual departments and agencies," which suggests that the idea may not necessarily be dead.

An annex that was attached to the original memo said that Infrastructure Canada has already set up guidelines stating that, "Permanent plaques are usually appropriate for any new building which provides public access."

"Plaques recognizing major renovations, especially that reflect new uses, are also appropriate."

The Privy Council co-ordinated a weekly tracking exercise that counted each of the 8500-plus temporary “Economic Action Plan” signs that were installed over the last two years and reported the totals directly to Harper.

Critics cited the sign-counting and tracking exercise as evidence that the Conservatives were more concerned with propaganda than job creation.

Infrastructure Canada said of the 4000 projects that are funded through the stimulus find, 50 have a plaque along with 10 projects from the Building Canada Fund.

The annex in the memo states that at Industry Canada, the “Minister (Tony Clement) chose not to participate in permanent signage.”

“Very few requests” for permanent signage were initiated in western Canada under the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RinC) program that provided funds for renovations for arenas.

The same program in Ontario states "recipient should not be required to install plaques at RinC/Ontario REC project sites." The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency gave “no consideration” to permanent signage at its RinC projects.

Canada’s Economic Action Plan was the name given to the Conservative’s 2009 budget that sent the country into a deep deficit to fund a two-year public infrastructure spending spree to try to fight the recession.

The plan was supposed to have retired but the branding exercise was so successful that Harper touts all future budgets to be "the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan."

Announcing and re-announcing the stimulus projects provided plenty of positive media spin for the Conservative MPs and candidates.

Leading to the fall of its minority government, the Conservatives spend $26-million in taxpayer-funded ads to promote its Action Plan that would have never happened if the opposition didn’t force it into a corner. It is also worthy to note that criticisms have been raised pertaining to the Government’s ability to get their signs and ads out faster than the promised money.

The election campaign that finished on May 2 featured Conservative candidates preaching about their economic stewardship while warning that the recovery was fragile – the central line from their taxpayer-funded ad campaign that was featured on TV. The election is now over, and the eureka surplus has disappeared, along with the one that was promised in their platform.

NDP Gain Quebec Conservative Seat Via Recount

A judicial recount of the ballots cast on May 2 granted the New Democratic Party another seat in Quebec. On election night, Bernard Généreux was declared the winner in the Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup riding with a 110-vote lead over the NDP’s François Lapointe. A tabulation error granted the Greens 100 votes from the NDP but the NDP candidate still managed to win by nine votes.

The NDP now tie Joe Clark’s Progressive Conservative seat count in 1980 to form the largest ever Official Opposition to a majority government. This extra NDP seat now gives them 59 seats in Quebec and 103 overall leaving the Conservatives with only 5 in Quebec and 166 nation-wide.

Elections Canada said on Friday that a recount would be held in Winnipeg North where Liberal incumbent Kevin Lamoureux defeated New Democrat Rebecca Blaikie by 45 votes on May 2. This recount will start Monday.

Automatic recounts are already underway for other ridings like Etobicoke Centre in Toronto where Conservative Ted Opitz leads Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj by 25 votes and Nipissing-Timiskaming in Ontario where Tory candidate Jay Aspin holds a 15-vote lead over Liberal Anthony Rota.

If all of these recounted seats switch to the second place party, maybe it would be due to consider a nation-wide recount to ensure that the results of May 2 are valid heading into the next parliamentary session.

WikiLeaks Strikes Again… This time Concerning the Arctic and Afghanistan

The Americans just aren’t buying Harper’s arctic promises, but instead thinks that it is nothing more than a political joy ride, a WikiLeaks cable suggests. The cable came from the US Embassy in Ottawa and was posted by an online whistleblower.

It turns out that what happens behind the scenes contradicts the public message that the American and Canadian governments are getting along…

The cable exposes thoughts of American officials on Harper’s Arctic plan. The thoughts tended to narrate to the Arctic being an election agenda with no accomplishments or signs of progress.

"Conservatives make concern for 'The North' part of their political brand . . . and it works," says the note, entitled "Canada's Conservative Government and its Arctic Focus."

"The message seemed to resonate with the electorate; the Conservatives formed the new government in 2006."

The cable was dated January 2010 and bears US Ambassador David Jacobson’s signature. The document goes on to make fun of Stephen Harper, stating,

"The persistent high public profile which this government has accorded 'Northern Issues' and the Arctic is, however, unprecedented and reflects the PM's views that 'the North has never been more important to our country' -- although one could perhaps paraphrase to state 'the North has never been more important to our Party.'"

The cable also outlines the American view of broken promises in the North.

Once elected, Harper hit the ground running with frosty rhetoric," the notes says, referring to his 2006 election.

"Harper (who was still only Prime Minister-designate) used his first post-election press conference to respond to the United States Ambassador's restatement the prior day of the longstanding U.S. position on the Northwest passage."

The cable said that bringing it up again in 2008 was a continuation of rhetoric, stating, "That the PM's public stance on the Arctic may not reflect his private, perhaps more pragmatic, priorities, however, was evident in the fact that during several hours together with Ambassador Jacobson on January 7 and 8, which featured wide-ranging conversations, the PM did not once mention the Arctic."

Americans support Stephen Harper in public on the economy, and foreign policy, but in leaked cables, a new mind set of American officials’ views on Harper are portraying the opposite. The Americans went into damage control as this leak was a hard one for the Canadian Government to swallow lightly.

This is not the only time the Americans were exposed as being critical of Harper. In an earlier leak, the Americans criticized Harper’s handling of proroguing, senate reform, mocked his crime agenda, and criticized his piracy record.

In another recent leak, the Afghanistan mission was viewed as a “political football.” The leak states that Canada reconsidered the Afghan combat end date in 2009 and was released from a US diplomatic cable.
The March 15 cable, marked secret, said that the ministers "agreed that 'all options are back on the table' with respect to Canada's military role in Afghanistan after 2011."

The cables release more information about conversations that were held between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

"It will take time for the government's public rhetoric to catch up to this 'new reality,' however, requiring some 'patience' on the part of allies," the senior adviser apparently told U.S. officials on March 16.

He urged that Allies should not "publicly press" Canada to extend its troop deployment past 2011.
A "truly final decision" would have to be made by fall of 2010, with a plan in place by Jan. 1, 2011, due to operational requirements.

The cable acknowledges that an extension to the combat mission in Afghanistan was a “highly sensitive political football.”

"PM Harper and his Cabinet would be venturing into politically sensitive territory to try to re-sell a further extension to an increasingly dubious Canadian public," the cable said.

The cable also stated that the topic would be a goldmine to recently defeated Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals. "Official Opposition Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff — who has also been firm about the 2011 deadline — has repeatedly accused PM Harper of going back on his word of obfuscating on other issues."

The Americans allegedly used this weakness on Harper’s part to make sure that he stuck to plan.

“Several weeks later — ahead of an important NATO meeting in France — the United States put forward a demarche, a formal diplomatic request, asking Canada to consider a combat mission beyond the scheduled 2011 end date, another diplomatic cable dated April 3, 2009, shows.

The request, sent April 2, 2009, was delivered to the prime minister's national security adviser, Marie-Lucie Morin, and senior foreign affairs and privy council staff.

Canadians likely spent night 'struggling'

The U.S. request asked that Canada "remain open to reconsidering its plan to withdraw combat forces after 2011" or at a minimum, keep reconstruction and training teams in Kandahar past the date.

Morin stressed that Harper in his public comments had so far "been clear on the 2011 position." But U.S. officials surmised that "intervention at the highest level might get the Prime Minister to show his cards."

The cable goes on to say that the April 2 request "likely went straight to the Prime Minister's party in Strasbourg," where world leaders were gearing up for a two-day NATO summit.
"Canadian officials probably spent the night struggling to formulate a response," U.S. officials mused.

American officials were also well aware that the very act of issuing the formal request had complicated Harper's public response on Afghanistan.”

CBC News

The rest of the cable discusses high profile meetings between Harper and NATO and how countries maneuvered themselves to keep the Afghan mission alive.

Kiss the Surplus by 2014-15 Goodbye – It was only a ploy to get your vote

The election results are barely a week old and the Globe and Mail Reports that the revised 2011 budget that will be presented next month will not show a surplus by 2014-15 as promised in the Conservative platform. This is the same platform that Flaherty tweaked publically and announced $11 billion in cuts to make the surplus appear a year sooner than that. 

However, despite the lack of appearance in the Budget, Flaherty insists that he will have economists look at it and get back to us… that is politician lingo for “never going to happen, sorry folks.”

“We will do the strategic and operating review and we will book [those savings] once the review is done. That will get us to balance a year earlier, but is not part of the upcoming budget,” Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Flaherty’s spokesperson.

Stephen Harper made the primary pitch of his campaign revolve around his economic management – the same management that diminished a $13 billion surplus in under 2 years – before the recession – and put Canada into a record $56 billion hole. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in November 2008, that there would be no deficit, and Harper said that there would be no recession 3 months after the economy slowed and the books hit the red. He warned that the spending promises in both the Liberal and NDP platforms would be detrimental for the economy and that he needed a majority government to maintain stability.

On CTV’s Power Play, Flaherty denied that he was committing to eliminating a year earlier – as he and his party did in the 2011 election.

Flaherty told Power Play, “No. I think we have to look at all of the data. We use an average of the private sector forecasters, as we have done for years now, to make sure that we’re on the right track, and in sync with the view of the private sector on the economy, so we’ll look at all these things, there’s a couple of platform commitments too that we’ll look at as well, but fundamentally it will be the same budget that was introduced on March 22.”

In other words, Flaherty just admitted that the Conservatives lied when they went around waving the extra $11 billion in cuts the the year advancement in deficit elimination and said that they found the $11 billion in the budget when he clearly states that he did not.

The Conservative Platform stated: “Through accelerated reductions in government spending, a re-elected Stephen Harper government will eliminate the deficit by 2014-15.”

The Conservatives claim that they can afford jets and corporate tax cuts and prisons when they are stating that they want to make cuts in public spending. (Logically, cuts mean cuts, not added spending and then cuts… spending extra defeats the purpose.)

On an added note, Harper warned that if the NDP were elected, gas prices would sky rocket… less than a week into his mandate, and gas prices skyrocketed…

Maybe the economy wasn’t the Conservative strong suit after all…

Supreme Court of Canada makes ruling

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that private government documents should remain private after the case was initially brought to the court by Stephen Harper’s Reform Party in the 1990s.

The court ruled unanimously on Friday morning that daily agendas produced by the Prime Minister and his cabinet are not subject to public scrutiny.

 

When Stephen Harper was the leader of the Reform Party in the 1990s, he and his party had a dispute about how PM Jean Chretien ran his daily agendas and wanted to access private government documents. At the time, Laurie Throness, chief of staff to the current transport minister, made the request while she was a researcher for the now-defunct Alliance Party, a precursor to the current governing Conservatives.

She now joins her party, and her leader, in their major flip flop to ensure that documents stay private. Depending on which Harper you look at, this can be win or lose. If we consider Harper as a Reformer in the 1990s when Chretien came under fire for police brutality at an event, this is a major loss. If we consider Harper as a Conservative from 2006 to present, this is a major win.

On a side note, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has released a document entitled “Like Sheep to Slaughter” which gives the Harper Government an F- when it comes to access of information. It urges Canadians to be vigilant on their freedom of expression.

"More than half of the federal institutions surveyed for their performance on access to information ranked below average and five failed outright. The governing party was ruled in contempt of Parliament for failing to produce information about major spending programs. All of which may explain why journalists seem to be using the access system less often than in the past."

“Like Sheep to Slaughter” - Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

Statistics in the report say that 44% of federal access to information requests aren't met in the 30-day limit and it takes an average of 395 days to resolve a complaint concerning access to information.

"We shouldn't be complacent about our free expression rights here in Canada," said Bob Carty, CJFE board member and journalist who was one of the authors of the 40 page report.

"The structural problem of access to information on the one hand and the spontaneous events of the G20 summit show areas where we have to be very vigilant," he told CTV.

"There's an opportunity right now for the Harper government to do the right thing to make this a more accessible government," said Carty. "We will be watching the Harper government's performance in deeds not words."

"There is reason for concern," said Carty. "If we drop our guard we better be very careful about where our country and democracy is going."

The report gave the Office of the Information Commissioner was given an above average grade, and Suzanne Legault, an A-.

In the end of the day, this court ruling means that Canadians have even less to say about their government’s actions and even less to say about how their country will be managed.

The Irony… This Week’s most Ironic Stories Surrounding the Government of Canada

There are a few pieces of irony that accompany this week’s news stories… These ironies consist of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to keep government documents secret, the promised surplus that won’t be seen in the upcoming budget, and the American mocking of Harper behind closed doors – as exposed by WikiLeaks – while publically supporting him. An ironic week indeed; let’s get started.

Supreme Court of Canada makes ruling

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that private government documents should remain private after the case was initially brought to the court in the 1990s.

When Stephen Harper was the leader of the Reform Party in the 1990s, he and his party had a dispute about how PM Jean Chretien ran his daily agendas and wanted to access private government documents. At the time, Laurie Throness, chief of staff to the current transport minister, made the request while she was a researcher for the now-defunct Alliance Party, a precursor to the current governing Conservatives. She now joins her party, and her leader, in their major flip flop to ensure that documents stay private. Depending on which Harper you look at, this can be win or lose. If we consider Harper as a Reformer in the 1990s when Chretien came under fire for police brutality at an event, this is a major loss. If we consider Harper as a Conservative from 2006 to present, this is a major win.

The irony: Harper initially wanted a transparent government where he could access the documents that Jean Chretien had while he was in government, but now that Harper is in government, and the opposition wants in, there is no chance of that!

We can go to a further extent and say that it is ironic that Harper won in 2006 initially on a platform of accountability, and passed the accountability act, but now that his staff are being found to be lobbyists and convicted fraudsters – notably his right hand man Carson – everything is alright and it can be swept under the rug.

On a side note, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has released a document entitled “Like Sheep to Slaughter” which gives the Harper Government an F- when it comes to access of information. It urges Canadians to be vigilant on their freedom of expression.

"More than half of the federal institutions surveyed for their performance on access to information ranked below average and five failed outright. The governing party was ruled in contempt of Parliament for failing to produce information about major spending programs. All of which may explain why journalists seem to be using the access system less often than in the past."

“Like Sheep to Slaughter” - Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

Statistics in the report say that 44% of federal access to information requests aren't met in the 30-day limit and it takes an average of 395 days to resolve a complaint concerning access to information.
"We shouldn't be complacent about our free expression rights here in Canada," said Bob Carty, CJFE board member and journalist who was one of the authors of the 40 page report.

"The structural problem of access to information on the one hand and the spontaneous events of the G20 summit show areas where we have to be very vigilant," he told CTV.

"There's an opportunity right now for the Harper government to do the right thing to make this a more accessible government," said Carty. "We will be watching the Harper government's performance in deeds not words."

"There is reason for concern," said Carty. "If we drop our guard we better be very careful about where our country and democracy is going."

The report gave the Office of the Information Commissioner was given an above average grade, and Suzanne Legault, an A-.
 

Kiss the Surplus by 2014-15 Goodbye – It was only a ploy to get your vote

Stephen Harper made the primary pitch of his campaign revolve around his economic management – the same management that diminished a $13 billion surplus in under 2 years – before the recession – and put Canada into a record $56 billion hole. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in November 2008, that there would be no deficit, and Harper said that there would be no recession 3 months after the economy slowed and the books hit the red. He warned that the spending promises in both the Liberal and NDP platforms would be detrimental for the economy and that he needed a majority government to maintain stability.

The election results are barely a week old and the Globe and Mail Reports that the revised 2011 budget that will be presented next month will not show a surplus by 2014-15 as promised in the Conservative platform. This is the same platform that Flaherty tweaked publically and announced $11 billion in cuts to make the surplus appear a year sooner than that.

However, despite the lack of appearance in the Budget, Flaherty insists that he will have economists look at it and get back to us… that is politician lingo for “never going to happen, sorry folks.”

“We will do the strategic and operating review and we will book [those savings] once the review is done. That will get us to balance a year earlier, but is not part of the upcoming budget,” Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Flaherty’s spokesperson.

On CTV’s Power Play, Flaherty denied that he was committing to eliminating a year earlier – as he and his party did in the 2011 election.

Flaherty told Power Play, “No. I think we have to look at all of the data. We use an average of the private sector forecasters, as we have done for years now, to make sure that we’re on the right track, and in sync with the view of the private sector on the economy, so we’ll look at all these things, there’s a couple of platform commitments too that we’ll look at as well, but fundamentally it will be the same budget that was introduced on March 22.”

In other words, Flaherty just admitted that the Conservatives lied when they went around waving the extra $11 billion in cuts the the year advancement in deficit elimination and said that they found the $11 billion in the budget when he clearly states that he did not.

The Conservative Platform stated: “Through accelerated reductions in government spending, a re-elected Stephen Harper government will eliminate the deficit by 2014-15.”

The irony: First: The Conservatives claimed they would fix the economy after destroying it. Second: The Conservatives said they were sure that they could achieve this goal when they now say that they can’t. Lastly: The Conservatives claim that they can afford jets and corporate tax cuts and prisons when they are stating that they want to make cuts in public spending. (Logically, cuts mean cuts, not added spending and then cuts… spending extra defeats the purpose.)

On an added note, Harper warned that if the NDP were elected, gas prices would sky rocket… less than a week into his mandate, and gas prices skyrocketed…

WikiLeaks Strikes Again… This time Concerning the Arctic and Afghanistan

The Americans just aren’t buying Harper’s arctic promises, but instead thinks that it is nothing more than a political joy ride, a WikiLeaks cable suggests. The cable came from the US Embassy in Ottawa and was posted by an online whistleblower.

"Conservatives make concern for 'The North' part of their political brand . . . and it works," says the note, entitled "Canada's Conservative Government and its Arctic Focus."

"The message seemed to resonate with the electorate; the Conservatives formed the new government in 2006."

The cable was dated January 2010 and bears US Ambassador David Jacobson’s signature. The document goes on to make fun of Stephen Harper, stating,
"The persistent high public profile which this government has accorded 'Northern Issues' and the Arctic is, however, unprecedented and reflects the PM's views that 'the North has never been more important to our country' -- although one could perhaps paraphrase to state 'the North has never been more important to our Party.'"

The cable also outlines the American view of broken promises in the North.

"Once elected, Harper hit the ground running with frosty rhetoric," the notes says, referring to his 2006 election.

"Harper (who was still only Prime Minister-designate) used his first post-election press conference to respond to the United States Ambassador's restatement the prior day of the longstanding U.S. position on the Northwest passage."

The cable said that bringing it up again in 2008 was a continuation of rhetoric, stating, "That the PM's public stance on the Arctic may not reflect his private, perhaps more pragmatic, priorities, however, was evident in the fact that during several hours together with Ambassador Jacobson on January 7 and 8, which featured wide-ranging conversations, the PM did not once mention the Arctic."

The irony: Americans support Stephen Harper in public on the economy, and foreign policy, but in leaked cables, a new mind set of American officials’ views on Harper are portraying the opposite. The Americans went into damage control as this leak was a hard one for the Canadian Government to swallow lightly.

This is not the only time the Americans were exposed as being critical of Harper. In an earlier leak, the Americans criticized Harper’s handling of proroguing, senate reform, mocked his crime agenda, and criticized his piracy record.

In another recent leak, the Afghanistan mission was viewed as a “political football.” The leak states that Canada reconsidered the Afghan combat end date in 2009 and was released from a US diplomatic cable.

The March 15 cable, marked secret, said that the ministers "agreed that 'all options are back on the table' with respect to Canada's military role in Afghanistan after 2011."

The cables release more information about conversations that were held between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

"It will take time for the government's public rhetoric to catch up to this 'new reality,' however, requiring some 'patience' on the part of allies," the senior adviser apparently told U.S. officials on March 16.

He urged that Allies should not "publicly press" Canada to extend its troop deployment past 2011.
A "truly final decision" would have to be made by fall of 2010, with a plan in place by Jan. 1, 2011, due to operational requirements.

The cable acknowledges that an extension to the combat mission in Afghanistan was a “highly sensitive political football.”

"PM Harper and his Cabinet would be venturing into politically sensitive territory to try to re-sell a further extension to an increasingly dubious Canadian public," the cable said.

The cable also stated that the topic would be a goldmine to recently defeated Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals. "Official Opposition Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff — who has also been firm about the 2011 deadline — has repeatedly accused PM Harper of going back on his word of obfuscating on other issues."

The Americans allegedly used this weakness on Harper’s part to make sure that he stuck to plan.

“Several weeks later — ahead of an important NATO meeting in France — the United States put forward a demarche, a formal diplomatic request, asking Canada to consider a combat mission beyond the scheduled 2011 end date, another diplomatic cable dated April 3, 2009, shows.

The request, sent April 2, 2009, was delivered to the prime minister's national security adviser, Marie-Lucie Morin, and senior foreign affairs and privy council staff.

Canadians likely spent night 'struggling'

The U.S. request asked that Canada "remain open to reconsidering its plan to withdraw combat forces after 2011" or at a minimum, keep reconstruction and training teams in Kandahar past the date.

Morin stressed that Harper in his public comments had so far "been clear on the 2011 position." But U.S. officials surmised that "intervention at the highest level might get the Prime Minister to show his cards."

The cable goes on to say that the April 2 request "likely went straight to the Prime Minister's party in Strasbourg," where world leaders were gearing up for a two-day NATO summit.

"Canadian officials probably spent the night struggling to formulate a response," U.S. officials mused.

American officials were also well aware that the very act of issuing the formal request had complicated Harper's public response on Afghanistan.”

CBC News

The rest of the cable discusses high profile meetings between Harper and NATO and how countries maneuvered themselves to keep the Afghan mission alive.

Is There Something Wrong With Canada’s Electoral System?

If you take the results of this election – percentage-wise and compare the actual seat count with the hypothetical based on proportional representation, you will see that the Canadian people have been cheated. With a governing majority based off of 40% of the votes, it doesn’t require much knowledge to realize that 60% of the population that voted – 61% – are not represented in this equation. This scenario means significantly less seats for the Conservatives, and a Green Party that meets the official party status with 12 seats. Maybe it is time that Canadians considered electoral reform to ensure their voices get heard. It is democracy, isn’t it?


Above is how democracy in Canada would look like if the seats were distributed based on the percentage of votes cast vs. the seats that were granted by riding. It makes a strong difference. To those who want to get technical, 39.6% is not the majority of the population.
It is time that Canada reconsider its electoral system. When a party can claim they represent Canadians with only 39.6% of its populace behind them, you know that there is a problem.

The current system works by having voters place an X on a ballot to choose the candidate that they want to win in a riding. Once the votes have been tallied in each riding, the party who has the most amount of elected candidates forms the government where the party that has 50%+1 of the seats forms a majority government.

There are two alternatives to this winner-take-all system. One would be a midpoint between the two setting requirements for each candidate. Another would be to have the people decide the number of candidates and the candidates themselves would be chosen alternatively.

Alternative Vote System

An Alternative Vote system would require at least 50% of support for each MP. Instead of placing an X next to a candidate, voters are asked to rank them numerically.

The ballots would first be put into piles based on first choice. If no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, the second vote of the least popular candidate are redistributed into relevant piles. The process is repeated until a candiate gets more than 50% of the vote. The candidate is then declared an MP and the party with the most MPs at that point forms a government.

Diagrams Courtesy of The Guardian

Variants of Proportional Representation

A proportional representation would split the seats based on the amount of votes each party got. Therefore, if a party got 33% of the vote, the party would get 33% of the seats.

The system can work in several ways. A party list system would have people vote for parties and the seats would be proportioned based on the vote count. An open party list system would have people vote for parties and candidates where the seats would be equal to the vote distribution and the candidates to fill the seats would come from a list that is generated by the results. A closed party list system would have people decide how many seats each party gets and then the party would choose which candidates earn the availible seats.

Both of these new systems would give people more say. The proportional representation system would give people the most say because the total tally of votes would determine the seat count whereas in the Alternative Voting system, they are valid until the 50% threshold is met.

Electoral reform is worth the debate in Canada. Having a government that doesn't represent the majority of its people doesn't make sense. Now that a party has a majority government with only 39.6% of the 61% of casted votes, it is sure that only 24% of Canadians are represented in this situation and represented by a government that can't be defeated, and its motions set to pass no matter what the opposition parties say.

A Twist in Canadian Politics, the NDP Come in Second–Not Without Controversy and Diverse Faces

In Monday’s election, the NDP was handed 102 seats in the House of Commons in a silencing Conservative majority mandate. Among these 102 candidates, the bulk comes from Quebec where new and fairly young candidates are being investigated for being elected illegally. Within a few days of the result, not only is the NDP undergoing damage control, but they are being targeted for statements made by their deputy leader concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Monday’s election results were historic bringing in a wave of NDP candidates at the expense of the all-mighty Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Majority that will spell 9 years of Conservative power – to think that if Harper get’s re-elected, he will tie the Liberal record of 13 years under Chretien and Martin. This election also saw the collapse of the Liberal Party where they reached the lowest seat count in history.

However, if one thing is for sure, the 141 seats that didn’t turn blue will have nothing to say as 167 blue seats can pass legislation comfortably. The opposition can scream and yell, and propose legislation, but don’t expect them to get far in this dynamic. The reality remains for Jack Layton that he had more voice in the last session with 36 seats than he has now with 102, but this dynamic will allow him to take a four year break where he will come back fighting in four years.

Despite this mute in the legislative process, the NDP have become the story of the campaign and now of the week in politics. From their surprising surge of support to the controversy that surrounds their elected officials, the NDP have made the news.

Meet Your New NDP MPs

The new MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau, known as “Vegas-girl” didn’t campaign for a day in her riding – let alone visit it – and she won her seat. However, her nomination papers came under fire where Elections Canada was forced to investigate. Her nomination came under fire when a man on her list of electors didn’t remember signing her nomination papers. In order for a candidate to be considered to run for a riding, 100 residents in the riding must sign that candidate's nomination papers.

All the while, Conservative candidate Marie-Claude Godue in the Berthier-Maskinonge riding wanted a by-election to get the result that gave Brosseau a victory by a margin of 5,735 votes, overturned. This margin is he official margin from Elections Canada after validating the results.

All the while, if you want to get to know the candidate for the francophone riding, she is 27-years-old, lives in Ottawa, speaks little to no French, and has a diploma in advertising from St. Lawrence College. Before getting that $157,000 annual pay check (plus expenses), she worked as an assistant manager at Oliver’s Pub on the campus of Carleton University where the job is now up to grabs offering a salary between $38,000 and $53,000.

Unlike candidates that are younger than her, she has been silenced and wasn’t findable after the election. People in the riding aren’t thrilled about her victory either.

“I’m disappointed,” Francine Martineau told the Star, “that people voted for someone without realizing she didn’t give damn about Berthierville.”

“For certain, it’s not going to help Berthierville very much. But then, what else is new?” Carole Lachapelle said, shrugging.

“I feel disenchanted,” Jacinthe Brissette, mayor of Lanoraie told the Star as she wondered how the NDP would allow such a candidate to run. “What do they take us for? That we have no importance?”

Others argued that they will give the unknown woman a chance because she is new.

“I didn’t know,” said daycare owner Francine Belhumeur, who added it wouldn’t have affected her choice. “We wanted change, period. We should give her a chance.”

Brosseau is not the only notable member of the new Official Opposition.

Conservative cabinet minister Josée Verner in Louis-Saint-Laurent was beaten by Alexandrine Latendresse. She is 27-years-old and graduated from Laval University last week. Her controversy surrounds the picture to the left showing her pointing a toy gun while wearing a t-shirt that reads, “I still hate George Bush.”

Pierre-Luc Dusseault is the new MP for Sherbrooke who is currently a university student and the youngest-ever elected MP with an age of 19. His intention was to get a job at a golf course for the summer, but now he intends to be making $157,731 annually.

If one thing can be said about this new Official Opposition, it is that it has never been seen before.

Controversy over Conspiracy Claim

There is also controversy surrounding Thomas Mulcair. deputy leader of the NDP, who made a statement doubting the claims of the American Military and US President Barack Obama that Osama Bin Laden was killed. His foreign affairs critic, Paul Dewar contradicted Mulcair’s statement saying that the Americans did what they had to do.

"I don't think, from what I've heard, that those pictures exist. And if they do, I'll leave that up to the American military," Mulcair told the CBC.

When he was asked to confirm whether he believed the photos existed again, Mulcair said: "No, I don't think they do. If they've got pictures of a cadaver, there's probably more going on than we suspect in what happened there."

As a result of this statement, the NDP’s opposition responded. First came the Liberals on Twitter.

Former astronaut and Liberal MP Marc Garneau tweeted that he "almost fell out of my chair when Mulcair said he doubted the existence of Osama bin Laden photos."

"Osama bin Laden is dead and photos were taken. To suggest otherwise is a serious lack of judgment."

Dimitri Soudas, Stephen Harper’s right-hand man tweeted, "The White House made it clear that pictures exist. Absolutely no reason to doubt that."

And now Paul Dewar, Foreign Affairs Critic for the NDP wrote in a statement, "We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama's statement.

"I understand that the U.S. government has photos, but decided not to release them as they do not want them used as trophies.

"This is a legitimate concern. We agree these types of photos shouldn't be used as propaganda tools."

 

Was The NDP Vote a Protest Vote?

As the party now mutes its members and sends them to boot camp to be ready for the ‘government in waiting’ status, it is notable to point out a similar event that happened in Quebec politics that happened not too long ago.

Quebec had long been a competition between the Liberals and Parti-Quebecois. In 2007, Jean Charest got punished as Quebecers wanted change and didn’t want the PQ. So backbench party Action Democratique du Quebec comes along and forms the official opposition out of nowhere. This resulted in the first minority National Assembly in Quebec in a very long time.

In this scenario, suppose that the Quebec Liberals are the Conservatives, the PQ is the Liberals and ADQ is the NDP. In 2007, in this scenario modeled off of what happened in Quebec, the Conservatives got 48 seats, the NDP got 41 seats and the Liberals got the lowest seat count ever and for the first time fell to third party status with 36 seats. The NDP (ADQ) had long been a distant third in Quebec politics and it was always a competition between the Liberals (Conservatives) and PQ (Liberals).

In the following election, the ADQ (NDP) was reduced to 6 seats, the Liberals (Conservatives) were given a majority and the PQ (Liberals) formed a very strong official opposition, just a matter of 6 seats away when combined with the new Quebec Solidaire seat (Let’s call them Green) and the left overs of the ADQ.

What can we take from this? The ADQ came in with a powerful wave in 2007 and was scrapped in the following election. The PQ was scrapped in 2007, but came back with a roar in the following election. The Liberals stayed in power.

If the NDP surge in Quebec is anything like the ADQ surge – which at the time was claimed to be a will for change, come October 19, 2015, many of these new NDP ministers may simply disappear and the Liberals will come back in full force. So if Quebec made a protest vote with the ADQ, who is to say that those 70 NDP seats was not a protest vote as well?

Conservatives win a majority government

The Results are in, the Conservatives won a majority government which secures them for 4 years of uninterrupted power. They and the NDP were the big winners while the Liberals were wiped out and the Bloc Quebecois decimated.

For the next four years, people will have no choice but to accept the actions of the Conservative government as there is no say for the people when there is a majority government – regardless of the incumbent party. Below we will compare the new parliament with the old one.


The Conservatives only needed 155 seats to form a majority and with 168 seats, they cleared that limit by a comfortable margin. The big gainers, however, are the NDP who single-handedly reduced the Bloc to 3 seats from their mighty empire and raked up 103 votes to form the new Official Opposition. The Liberals fall to third with a distant 33 seats and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May beat her Conservative opponent to bring their only seat to parliament.

Seats at Dissolution on March 25:


Seat projections as of 12:13am May 3 from the election of May 2:


Stephen Harper’s Conservatives will now rule for up to 9 years and be 4 years shy of the Liberal era. It marks historic gains for the NDP and historic losses for the Liberals.

Notable Candidates who lost in their ridings were: Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Party Leader and Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Quebecois Leader.

Changes


On a final note, it is a shame that a party that has disrespected democracy in every fashion has been given not only a second chance, but an over-powering will to have their long desired power. It is highly recommended that people reflect the true consequences of this result and reflect upon whether it is the choice that they wanted to make. This is not to sound anti-Conservative, nor is it in any way to present any bias against the conservatives, but the actions that they have waged – each fully covered on the site – are truly unacceptable to democracy and if it would have been any other party, they would also have been denounced in the present for their current and most recent actions.

The results of this election are likely due to the NDP surge that split many other ridings that they did not capture. This allowed the Conservatives to enjoy a free ride on the fault lines that were created as they conquered through ‘the split.’

Election is Tomorrow: Conservatives ban more protesters from rallies and their Record Highlighted

From the student to the environmentalist to this, a father and his wife who claim they are nobodies but are denouncing Harper’s Conservatives, tossed in the rain with distress on their faces. Harper has slapped democracy again. Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff welcomed a group of Conservative supporters to his crowd, and today, the Conservatives ban what they would consider a foreigner – a person who does not share their views. Tomorrow is the election and everything must be considered. In the previous post, we covered the agendas, and there are several features and posts on the incumbent's government. Governments should be held accountable for their actions and Harper’s party is avoiding it at all costs.

Footage from CTV at 4:38pm May 1, 2011

Michael Ignatieff doesn’t ban his opponents…

What has Canadian democracy come to? Only those who share the views of the incumbent government are respected and heard. Any attempts at criticism get attacked and censored. Is this Canadian democracy at its finest?

Articles worth Reading:

Election 2011 Platform Comparison
Harper’s Economy
Harper, Do You Believe in Free Speech?
Harper’s Campaign Woes
The Harper Government
Stephen Harper’s Campaign Handbook
Wikileaks: American Officials Critical of Harper
Healthcare: Stephen Harper’s Worst Nightmare
An iPod Tax, Really?
Conservative Contradiction; Only the Tip of the Iceberg
Auditor General: Conservative Government Mislead Parliament
Can We Really Afford to Lose our Identity?
Tories Say it is Normal to Spend More in Conservative Ridings
If Elected, Harper will Scrap Democracy
Another Conservative Charged with Fraudulent Activity

Anyone who claims that an election is worthless and a waste of money is wrong. The fundamental purpose of an election is to give people a voice and a choice. Those who squander it allow people who care not about your rights, but rather your pocketbooks and blind loyalty to dictate over the masses.
There is plenty to criticize: the scandals, the lies, the contradictions, the failed record. To conservative supporters who disagree,it is time you make a hard reflection. To Liberals and NDPers who think that they can ride the wave of Harper’s mistrust and eventually do the same thing, note that if you do, people will take notice.

This will likely be the last article before the exclusive coverage of the results. It is greatly encouraged that you vote and that you vote for the party that best suits your needs. What is the point of paying taxes – increased or reduced – if you’re needs are not addressed?

The Conservatives got us into deficit and it will be the taxpayers who will pay us out. Note that the deficit happened before the recession. The Liberals made it clear that they weren’t going to raise taxes and the iPod tax was described by analysts as the closest to fiction that it get to.
Stephen Harper thinks his populace is “uninformed and apathetic” but on May 2, it is our choice to prove him otherwise.

His own party members released a 500-page document of all of his controversial quotes. Below is a sample from CBC.

-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 5 - on health:
"The federal government doesn't run the health-care system, it didn't create it and it's not going to fix it." April 12, 2001
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 9-10 - on health:
"Part of my skepticism with the Romanow Commission," he said, "is the idea that you can somehow just do a study and consult a lot of people. Ultimately, there is going to have to be experimentation and working with some solutions to find out whether they pan out or not." (no date - from Toronto Star article called "New Alliance leader rips health care..." The Romanow Commission delivered its final report Nov. 28, 2002)
-From the July 22, 2003 update, page 5 - on the Liberal Party:
"The fundamental strategy of the Liberal party for the last 30 years remains screw the West, get the rest." - 06/2003 (date partially cut off)
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 4 - on MP pay:
"Most MPs are bit players in today's parliamentary system, with the average backbencher merely acting as an ombudsman for constituents on non-partisan issues and as a local sales representative for his/her political party on the big issues. That's why we believe that before MPs demand more money, they should reform the system and give themselves a role that's deserving of more money." (Sept. 1, 1998)
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 18 - on social conservatism:
"We need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on your most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern Liberals to this building block of our society." Jan. 6, 2003
-From the July 22, 2003 update, page 5 - on polls about Iraq war:
"It's a little harder to read, you know, we have kind of all Liberal media sponsored polls here." - 03/2003 to Fox News (date partially cut off)
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 8 - on the Iraq war:
"We should not rule out any options. The Prime Minister's position today seems to be exactly our position." - Jan. 8, 2003 (not ruling out intervention without UN approval)
-From the July 22, 2003 update, page 6 - on Canada Post:
"The real problem is the double monopoly in postal service. The government gives post office management a monopoly over Canadians' mail, and then Canada Post gives CUPW union bosses the labour monopoly power to shut the service down... Only ending the monopoly will ensure that Canadians are never held hostage by another postal strike." - 02/1997 (date partially cut off) 9.
-From the Jan. 7, 2004 update, page 12 - on health:
"The solution is to have a healthcare system where people pay some of the costs themselves." "If we had a healthcare system based on insurance and we paid for these services out of our own pocket, this would be a non-issue." - referring to what the article's writer called broad-brush swipes at people whose behaviour is deemed costly (March 22, 1999)
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 11 - on election advertising laws:
"Studies have shown over and over again that people can hear political ads in all kinds of volume and make up their own mind. This whole idea that the voters can't decide, and the voters might vote wrong is a fundamentally undemocratic notion." - May 10, 2000
-From June 26, 2003 update - page 2 - on the UN and NATO - this was on Politics with Don Newman:
"I think the UN security Council, the role that some had hoped it would play post-Cold War, is dead. Not just because of this but because of Kosovo. NATO's role is also in doubt." 04/2004 (date cut off)
-From original Harper Quotations database - April 17, 2003 - p. 227 - on being a career politician:
"It has never been my intention to seek a second term or to become a career politician." May 10, 1996
"I can state categorically that I would not be a candidate in any future leadership contest ... The decision to run again would have meant that I was making politics my career ... I've been at this particular game for over a decade and on a personal level I feel it's time to get some broader experience outside Parliament. Parliament is already dysfunctional ... The last thing that Parliament needs is to be filled with people who have never done anything but partisan politics." May 10, 1996
-From June 26, 2003 update - page 1 - on an Ipsos poll showing only 15 per cent of Canadians thought Canada should contribute troops to a unilateral attack on Iraq:
"I don't give a damn about the polls." 04/2003 (date cut off)
-From June 26, 2003 update - page 1 - on John Manley and the Liberals opposing the US invasion of Iraq:
"I mean, this is a communications tactic worthy of Saddam Hussein." 04/2003
-From June 26, 2003 update - page 3 - on the CBC:
As published in the Langley, B.C. AdvanceNews: 'Harper accused Chrétien's Liberals "and frankly some elements of our national broadcasting corporation" of apparently wanting to prove that "the America of George Bush is not better than the Iraq of Saddam Hussein".' April 11, 2003
-From Aug. 28, 2003 update - page 1 - on Alberta:
"We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values." 02/2001
-From Aug. 28, 2003 - page 3 - on Elections Canada and then-Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley:
'"The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control." Please excuse my language, but when I learned Elections Canada's bureaucrats have pressed charges against a Canadian citizen, I just blew my cool. That is the exact language I used ... This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute of controls and regulations - and stiff punishments - on every aspect of "free" elections.' 08/2001
-From Aug. 28, 2003 - page 3 - on Elections Canada and then-Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley:
"Simply put, Kingsley is a dangerous man. It is appropriate that journalists have dubbed him Canada's 'Chief Electoral Ideologue' and 'Chief Electoral Nanny.'" 08/2001
-From Aug. 28, 2003 supplement, page 7 - on the Wheat Board:
'On the prairies, we [NCC] demand marketing freedom for farmers. The Soviet-styled Canadian Wheat Board monopoly has suppressed free enterprise and value-added production for too long ... Let's unshackle western farmers from the CWB. That's the only real "Farm Crisis" solution.' 02/2000
-From Jan. 7, 2004 supplement, page 4 - on Reform and Quebec: "I don't think anybody, frankly, in this party is very scared about pissing off the Bloc." June 7, 1996
-From Jan. 7, 2004 supplement, page 4 - on the Canadian Alliance: "This political party stands for values that are eternal ... this country will either adopt our values or it will fail." Dec. 20, 2001
*Note - John Baird said on April 5 that Harper was different from Ignatieff because "he's never criticized Canadian peacekeepers." It was in response to a question about both leaders having made (years ago) remarks about Canada that could be construed as negative.
-From Jan. 7, 2004 supplement, page 11 - on peacekeeping in Rwanda:
"I'm not being facetious these people are disappointed that the Hutu are returning home and there's no longer any need for them to be saved by Canadians ... They [the Liberals] launched the mission purely on the basis of television footage ... and mined it for public relations purposes." Dec. 9, 1996 (Context note provided by Conservative staffer says "The Leader discusses the debacle that was the UN involvement in Rwanda. Being overly critical of a military deployment may be considered a bit rich considering our advocacy on behalf of the liberation of Iraq.").
-From Jan. 7, 2004 supplement, p 13 - on health:
"The Canada Health Act must be opened up. The federal government is playing an entirely negative role in health care." Jan. 19, 2002
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 11 - on western alienation:
"I too am one of these angry westerners. The Liberals demonized the West and Alberta in particular ... we may love Canada, but Canada does not love us ... let's make the province strong enough that the rest of the country is afraid to threaten us." Dec. 18, 2000
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 43 - on bilingualism:
"That special status is needed to protect the French language in Quebec is simply false." Jan. 20, 2002
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 54 - on the Canada Pension Plan:
"Low and middle income Canadians are the ones who fund the Canada Pension Plan now. They seem to have the money to do it. If they have the money to provide government with pensions, why don't they have the money to invest it themselves? I think there's a fundamental contradiction here." Feb. 23, 1997
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 121 - on universities:
"I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small and provide excellent education and research in a number of specialized areas. I think the vast majority of young people should be going through non-university, post-secondary training." Sept. 15, 2000
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 138 - on immigration:
"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." Jan. 22, 2001
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-harper-dossier.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4db5f8c50d19dbfb%2C0

Anything can happen tomorrow. Both Layton and Ignatieff have set out their agendas and the NDP have had a boost in the last week that caught everyone off guard. Tomorrow is election day. The media doesn’t choose who we vote for, we do. Read the platform comparison, take note of the incumbent government’s actions and vote for the people that represents your values and interests best.