Renewed parliamentary abortion debate is a belated Christmas present we could do without

CBC is reporting that Winnipeg South MP Rob Bruinooge “the chair of a secretive anti-abortion parliamentary caucus” (ed: a super-secret parliamentary caucus??) is pledging to rekindle the abortion debate in Canada. While the PM did not speak directly on the issue, he released a statement through a spokesman stating that “[the government] will not introduce or support legislation on abortion” (no word on the current fate of the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act"). Call me crazy, but I’m going to guess that the PM is trying to balance his ongoing efforts to incrementally move the center of Canadian politics, with his need to keep the loyalty of the pro-life members of his caucus, by not directly speaking on the issue.

While I disagree with the ideology behind the pro-life movement, I do agree with the sentiment Mr. Bruinooge expressed here:

“I believe that having open debate on important topics like this is essential for any democratic movement. It's a democracy, and we are putting our ideas out for debate."

That said, I don’t believe this is the appropriate time for such a debate. First of all, I think there are other issues (poverty, disease, climate change) which are more pressing that our parliament isn’t dealing with adequately, and the quality of the debate (where existent) sucks.

Second, our country currently sits divided as a result of Mr. Harper’s handling of the recent constitutional crisis, and the concept of a “loyal opposition” in general. Opening the abortion box is only going to further divide this country against itself, because no matter how the debate ends, one group is going to be pretty pissed off, and not content to just let the issue be. As I outlined in my coverage of the coalition debate, Mr. Harper and his government are currently facing a crisis of legitimacy. If the PM wants to hold on to his job, he should be working with the opposition to implement unifying policy, not further dividing this country into “us vs. them” camps.

Senate Appointments: It’s all about confidence and legitimacy (or lack thereof)

Lets put aside Prime Minister Harper’s blatant hypocrisy at fixing an unrepresentative and unelected body, by making sure it remains unelected and unrepresentative. Let’s ignore for a second that (as Calgary Grit brought up) only 4 of the 18 appointments were women. Let’s ignore the fact that the Prime Minister has extended his “I am the state” mentality to appointing senators and justices without parliament, as well as enforcing party unity upon them (so much for democratic renewal). Lets even ignore the wonderfully large target that Senator Duffy now presents the blogging community.

Instead, lets focus on two quotes:

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled … they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for,"

Um, actually, Mr. Prime Minister, no one voted for you either, at least not to be Prime Minister. By continuing your “anti-democratic” tirade, you are hurting Canadian democracy. You are misrepresenting our constitution, you are abusing the trust that citizens place in you, and well, sir, you are lying. You are our legitimate Prime Minister only as long as you hold the confidence of the house. I really shouldn’t have to explain responsible government to you. I expect, though, you already know all this, and are just abusing the confusion many Canadians have with respect to our parliamentary process to your own ends, and are fostering a sense of fear among the people you represent.

A rational person would have used the time allotted to them by the Governor General to do their job: to find ways in which they could regain the confidence of parliament, or even reflect on ways in which his/her own actions have precipitated the crisis. For whatever reason, you have failed to do this.

In any case, it should be obvious to most that you don’t have the support of the house, and therefore your government lacks the necessary legitimacy. What does this say about your senate appointments?

"Each incoming Senator has also declared his or her unwavering commitment to support Canadian unity and oppose the coalition."

So…. You made these people “declare his or her unwavering commitment” to oppose Canadian constitutional convention? That’s treason, Sir!

Tangential Query: Is it possible for a member of this government to defend their chosen course of action on any given issue without mentioning the word “Liberal”?

Ed Stelmach's evolving opinions towards deficit spending

Ed Stelmach, February 23rd, 2008

“A Progressive Conservative government will never put Alberta back into a deficit position,” said Stelmach. “We have a plan that provides the services and infrastructure to Albertans, while keeping more money in the pockets of Albertans. Our plan is realistic and achievable. It works for Albertans.”

Ed Stelmach, October 14th 2008

“Compared to other jurisdictions, we're well prepared to weather any storm,” said the premier, who also cautioned that his Progressive Conservative government will never allow Alberta to go back into debt.

“We will not ever run deficit budgets,” he said. “So if we have to adjust in years forward, we'll do that.”

Ed Stelmach, December 20th 2008
Spending, not cuts, premier's strategy: Stelmach embraces 'technical deficits' to cope with downturn

"I know it sends real vibrations across Canada for Alberta to be looking at a technical deficit, but the issue here is, I just don't want to lose momentum,"

Premier Ed Stelmach: "We always knew we had a volatile revenue steam". FSW: "Then why didn't you do anything about it?"

I usually try to avoid the Alberta PC press releases disguised as journalism found in Neil Waugh’s columns, but his recent sit down with Premier Stelmach has produced some quotes worth examining:

"This is a total, unforeseen global crisis”… "It's a national and international economic crisis, It's difficult to predict and I don't know if we've seen the end of it."

and

“We always knew we had a volatile revenue stream,"

Is it just me, or do these two statements not match up? Premier Stelmach, if you “always knew we had a volatile revenue stream”, why hasn’t more been done, and how could Alberta's current situation be "unforeseen"? Why wasn’t money put away in the heritage fund while we had the chance, rather than spending $940 a second in the ten days leading up to the 2008 provincial election alone?

While the crisis itself may have been unforeseen ten years ago, its roots stretch back into 2006 and 2007. The American crisis has been brewing for a while, and it was only a matter of time before it spread over the 49th into Alberta. To say it was "unforeseen" is not exactly the case.

Also, Albertans should take not of this line in an Edmonton Journal article:

Economists estimate the fund could keep the province from running a real deficit for about two years, but at some point, Stelmach will likely be forced to make some tough decisions.

"If you're not going to have a deficit, that means two things. Either you cut spending, or (increase) taxes," said Mel McMillan, a University of Alberta economist.

Californian Prop 8 supporters seek to nullify existing same-sex marriages

Via CNN: Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

It was bad enough that supporters of this insane legislation saw fit to impose their own values on an entire state, and revoke a legal right of a segment of the population, but now they're actually seeking to retroactively apply a hateful law that treats gay-Californians as second-class citizens.

I cannot express how completely disgusted I am right now with these people. Can someone please explain to me how a private relationship between two loving people has any effect on the "legitimacy" of the relationship between you and your spouse, and how Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage "honours the sanctity of marriage".

Stephen Harper's evolving opinions on deficit spending

Stephen Harper, February 5th 2008
"Canada's Harper says will not go in to deficit"

"The way to manage this economy through difficult global times is not -- as the Liberal Party would do -- to drive us into deficit"

Stephen Harper, September 27th 2008
"Liberals will produce $12B deficit: Harper"

"Liberal plans will create a deficit "to the tune of at least $12 billion," Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Saturday.

Harper didn't explain where the number came from, but Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has rejected the charge before."

Conservative Party of Canada, October 1st 2008
"Harper Scores on the Economy"

“When the election was called 25 days ago, the Prime Minister said the campaign would give Canadians a choice between clear direction and uncertainty. He pledged to keep our budgets balanced and taxes down,” said Conservative Campaign Co-Chair Marjory LeBreton.

Stephen Harper, December 18th 2008
Harper government plans deficits as deep as $30 billion

“Some people are talking in the neighbourhood of a five to 10 billion dollar deficit. Our own assessment is frankly that will not be sufficient given the challenges we're facing,” Harper told CTV News in a year-end interview.

“I think what will be more realistic in terms of the kind of stimulus our economy is going to need is going to be in the 20-billion to 30-billion dollar range.”

Mr. Prime Minister. How are voters supposed to know what (if anything) your party stands for if you attack your opponent for a position on one day, then adopt the same position the next?

Premier Stelmach: I hate to say “I told you so…”

But I told you so. At the time of writing, Oil is currently selling for $40.26 a barrel, Alberta’s budget was based on assumptions of $93.50 a barrel, and the Edmonton Journal is announcing that Premier Stelmach will be dipping in to Alberta’s “Rainy Day” fund to help avoid a deficit this fiscal year (which it is unable to, as “Government deficits are illegal in Alberta”).

The problem? Alberta’s “Rainy Day” fund is only $7.7 Billion. Alberta’s 2008-09 budget announced back in April was $37 Billion.

Back in October, when asked why the government wasn’t heeding the advice of former Conservative Premier Lougheed and managing growth in Alberta’s oil sector, the Premier responded by quoting from the book of Palin and calling Opposition Leader Kevin Taft (and by extension Peter Lougheed) a communist:

Mr. Stelmach: Obviously, now we see the true colour of the Leader of the Opposition. He sure as heck isn’t a capitalist, talking about managing growth through the government. Sounds more like what they were doing in the former Soviet Russia.

The Province’s projected $12 billion dollar surplus has been all but wiped out because of our dependence on one volatile commodity to pay for everything. Instead of investing in the heritage fund when we had the chance, instead of investing in diversifying the economy through the creation of “green collar jobs”, the Premier decided the best course of action was to call anyone who criticized him a communist. It should be “interesting” to see how the premier will respond to this. Since he can’t run a deficit, the only option left is large-scale budget cuts. To what, though? Education? Health Care? The Environment? The $7.7 billion stored under the mattress won't last forever, Mr. Premier. Something's gotta give.

Mr. Premier: Planning is not a four-letter word. It’s what responsible people do in response to economic uncertainty. We are heading for an economic crash, and you were asleep at the wheel.

Feed the world and let them know it's Christmas time: alternative holiday options

I had the joy of experiencing a bit of holiday cheer today. On my way back from doing some Christmas shopping, I decided to treat myself by swinging by the local Second Cup. When I pulled up to the drive-through, I was informed that the person in the car ahead of me had purchased my drink for me, in an attempt to spread a bit of goodwill. Lacking anyone behind me to purchase a drink for, I decided to put some funds towards a worthy cause, and sent some money towards Oxfam when I got home.

So if you’d rather avoid the insanity that are holiday drivers and shoppers, here are some options for “alternative gifts” or just a way for you to let the world know it’s Christmas time.

Oxfam
Founded in 1995 Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 organizations seeking to combat poverty and injustice. Oxfam comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief founded in the UK in 1942.

Donations can be directed towards a number of areas such as the Darfur crisis, Hurricane Relief, or the East Africa Food Crisis.


Canadian Physicians For Aid and Relief
Plant a Tree in Africa. Every dollar donated plants 2 trees. Since 1986, the organization has planted over 50 million trees


Spread The Net
Every $10 donated buys a bed net for children in Liberia and Rwanda to help fight Malaria. In Liberia, Malaria accounts for 32% of mortality among children under 5. In Rwanda, the number is 42%.


46664
Named after Nelson Mandela’s former prison number, 46664 is “an African response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic”. According to their website, , the money raised from concerts and affiliated campaigns has been used to finance the ongoing 46664 campaign and to directly fund the three major HIV AIDS projects in Africa that we support. The AWDF (African Womens' Development Fund) who manage over 400 HIV AIDS projects across the sub-Saharan continent; the FDC in Mozambizue; and the Goelama project in South Africa.


Free The Children:
Gift options from $25 to $8500. Funds go towards everything from building schools, buying school kits for children, planting trees, training teachers or building wells.

Craig Kielburger founded Free The Children in 1995 when he was 12 years old(what have you done lately). The organization is focused on freeing children from poverty and exploitation.

Smarten Up, Canada: 51% of Canadians think we directly elect the PM

Here in black and white we have one of the big problems with our government relieved, and for once it has nothing to do with our elected representatives. The fault, dear reader, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.

Only 24% of Canadians surveyed correctly identified HM Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state (I will forgive those who said the Governor General, but certainly not those who said the Prime Minister).

17% of respondents described us as a "Representative Republic".

and here's the kicker:

51% claimed we elect our Prime Minister directly.

When Rick Mercer did the rounds with his "talking to Americans" bit, we all laughed and said "oh, look how little they know about our country, isn't that hilarious?". However in this case, it seems we know just as little when it comes to the important workings of our government, and Americans don't vote in our elections (unless they have dual citizenship). We do. Being a good citizen is much more than simply marking an "x" once every four (or three, or two) years (or months). We must become informed not only about the crises our elected representatives seek to face, but about the most essential workings of our government as well.

If we choose to remain blissfully ignorant, we are inviting unscrupulous partisans to take advantage of us for their own ends. If we are unable to think for ourselves, and rely only upon others to educate us on the issues of the day (or whether one party is engaging in a “coup d’état”) we are not citizens, but serfs.

Patriotism is the Last Refuge of the Scoundrel – Environmental Edition

CBC posted a story yesterday from the UN Climate Talks in Poland where Green Party leader Elizabeth May was quoted as saying “It was embarrassing being a Canadian at these meetings”, due to our government's inability to take global climate change as a serious threat. As I read the headline and saw the large number of comments posted on the story, I leaned to my girlfriend and predicted that one of the first 5 comments would be of the “Canada – love it or get out” variety. It was the 3rd.

I’m sure the people who make this sort of augment believe blind faith in one’s country or one’s leader is some sort of virtue. They believe that we should simply trust that our leaders know better than us, that they have wisdom we simply could not dream of having, and that we should simply have faith in their desire to do what's best for us. Best not to worry our pretty little heads about it. Unfortunately, this is simply a trait of those who’d rather pawn off rational thought, as well as the major responsibilities of citizenship, on to others. It is the augment of the civically lazy, and the democratically inept.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Canada has had a fine track record in past accomplishments (peacekeeping, gay marriage legalization), but lord knows we haven’t always been right (treatment of first nations peoples). If everyone followed the “Love it, or get out” argument, there wouldn’t have been a civil rights movement, or a suffragette movement, or a gay rights movement, or democracy. If everyone thought as these people do, that we must accept the ideals of our state or move, nothing would change. Nothing would improve, and emerging challenges (be they environmental or geopolitical) would remain unchallenged. Would these same people have told Afghanis in 2000 under the Taliban to either “Love their country, or get out”?
(Note to comment trolls: I am not comparing our current government to the Taliban, but rather pointing out the absurdity of the "love it or leave" argument)

Blind patriotism is no virtue. In fact, is likely the greatest sin a citizen can commit. The true patriots in our country are those who acknowledge our country's flaws, and constantly seek to improve them. To blindly accept the mentality of “my country, right or wrong” invites tyranny from those willing to exploit a citizenry unwilling to seek ways to better their homeland.

To quote a wise man speaking in 1985 “Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed.”

Clusterf#$k to coalition: We make Rachel Maddow!

In the 21st Century, in Canada, the way to fight for your political life is apparently to demand that the Queen banish your enemies. - Rachel Maddow

Indeed.

Prop 8 - The Musical!

For those of you looking for some respite from the back and forth bickering over the coalition, Funny or Die Presents: "Proposition 8 - The Musical!" (Jazz hands).

In all seriousness, they bring up some good points - like how Leviticus says a whole bunch of things that we've since recognized as pretty dumb over the years.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Clusterf#$k to coalition: Please learn how our government works before spouting nonsense about "Coups" and "Power Grabs"

If nothing else, the recent wrangling over a coalition government has illustrated that a disturbingly large number of Canadians know little to nothing about how our government works. So let’s clear up a few things

1) When you go cast your ballot at election time, you aren’t voting for a Prime Minister. Or a party. Or a specific type of government. You are voting for a MP, and THIS IS ALL YOU ARE DOING. The Governor General then is tasked with finding someone who can organize those MPs into a government. Convention has dictated that the leader of the party with the most number of seats gets the first crack, and thus becomes PM – however if he/she is unable to do it, the GG can see if any of the other parties can form a government that represents the will of the country. Canadians didn’t “elect a minority government” or “elect Stephen Harper Prime Minister”. They elected 143 Conservative MPs. And 165 non-Conservatives. The Conservatives wanted to go it alone. The Non-Conservatives have chosen to work together. The House doesn't always need to resemble an elementary school playground.

2) Party leaders are not chosen by the electorate, but by party members. The Conservative party made Stephen Harper their leader, not the Canadian electorate.

3) Our system of government is called “responsible government”, which means the government (PM and Cabinet) needs the “confidence” of the House of Commons (support of 50%+1) in order to govern. Why? Because the House is comprised of the elected officials who derive their legitimacy from the electorate. In a minority situation, the government is supposed to navigate the waters of the house, and pass policies that achieve this support. Mr. Harper has failed to do this. He has (or will very soon) lost the confidence of the House, aka the confidence of 50%+1 of the elected representatives of Canadians… which means… Mr. Harper’s government has lost legitimacy!

4) “Canadians didn’t elect a coalition”: No, and they didn’t “elect” a minority either. Once the MPs have our support, its up to them to organize themselves in a way that makes a government work. We don’t elect a coalitions any more than we elect a PM. Yes, our electoral system has many flaws, I’ve said as much often before, however a coalition is simply a tool used to interpret the will of Canadians when we were asked a couple of weeks ago within the confines of our parliamentary structure, and is every bit as proper as a minority government.

This is not a power grab, or a coup. It’s how our government works. Does it need changing? You betcha, but it’s all we have right now, and Mr. Harper hasn’t shown much of an interest in making the system more democratic.

While we're on the subject, lets talk about THE SEPARATISTS (boogadaboogadaboogada): You know what, I don’t like regional or ethnic politics any more than you do. That said though, they were elected by the people of their ridings, and as such have just as much legitimacy as people like Misters Harper, Dion, and Layton. Besides, even the Tory government would need the Bloc’s support to stay in power.

Also, more coverage from away:
Huffington Post!
Daily Kos! Twice!
MSNBC!

***UPDATE***
It seems the National Post Blogwatch has picked up this post, and has noted the "profanity" in the title. The title of the post (and the label for my commentary on the countdown to coalition) is (for those of you who missed the refference) borrowed from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's coverage of the American Election. I usually shy away from swearing in posts, but I felt the comparison between our current situation and the he-said-she-said -joe-the-plumber-said of the American electoral process was apt.

December 6th isn’t a day for partisan dickery

Hey, uh, Rally For Canada Guys....
You know that day you chose for your little tantrum... December 6th... Are you sure that's the day you want to go with?

Aren't you forgetting something?
Something else that we should be paying attention to on that day?

What would you think if the Liberals/NDP/Bloc/Greens/Anybody chose to hold a pan-Canadian partisan protest on November 11th? You'd say that they weren't supporting our troops and that they were taking attention away from a day that (rightly) shouldn't be about the divisions between us.

The same holds true for December 6th. One of the worst days for Canada in the last quarter century. This is a day we should be remembering the women who lost their lives on that day, and the who continue to fall victim to assault and homicide today.

Choose some another day, any other day, for your protest. Power to you. I'm all about civic engagement. Just don't take away from that day. Our society still has a way to go before we achieve total gender equality, and we should be reflecting on that... and not on constitutional quibbling.

Nova Scotian Independent (and former Tory) to vote non-confidence

While I normally hate on Metro as a rag that I had to put up with being shoved in my face every morning on Edmonton's LRT, I'll give them credit for bringing this story to my attention: Independent MP Bill Casey of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley will be voting non-confidence in the expected vote on the 8th.

According to Casey:

"Rather than providing leadership and a badly needed economic stimulus package, Mr. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, opted instead to play partisan politics and, for some reason, attack unions and women’s rights."

That's one less seat the Conservatives have to support their agenda.

In other news, our little constitutional showdown is starting to make international news:
BBC
Wall Street Journal

World AIDS Day 2008: Here's hoping it doesn't get lost amidst the excitement in Ottawa

Going through my RSS news and blog feeds, there is definitely no shortage of things to blog about today. Constitutional wrangling and coalition governments, Liberal Leadership, the idiotic “Coup d’état” comments coming from CPC supporters, Somalian Pirates, and Alaskan Turkeys. However, among the headlines lies a reminder that today, December 1st, is world AIDS day. While the concept of a new PM and coalition government may indeed be appealing, here are some thoughts on this oft forgotten topic.

According to the Canadian AIDS society, there are an estimated 58,000 Canadians living with HIV/AIDS – up 16% since 2002, with 11 new people becoming infected every day. Infection rate for Aboriginal Canadians is 7.5%, yet Aboriginals make up only 3% of the population. Globally, 33 million people are living with HIV, and 2.7 million were infected in 2007 alone. While researchers have come a long way since the dark days of the pandemic, it is clear that there remains yet a long road to be traveled before the scourge of HIV is defeated.

The first step to combating HIV/AIDS in Canada should be expanding supervised injection facilities like the Insite Clinc in Vancouver to other large urban areas. Supervised Injection Facilities have been shown to decrease HIV infection among injection drug users, as well as decreasing crime and addiction levels, and could be a great tool in beating the illness at home. The problem is, we need a government that is committed to dealing with the issue.

In 2006, months after taking office, Prime Minister Harper skipped the World AIDS Conference in Toronto, and rightly took flack for it. This past year, the Health Minister spoke out against Safe Injection Sites, and the government appealed the BC Supreme Court ruling in favour of the Insite clinic.

Personally, I hope the next few days will bring us a government that views HIV/AIDS in Canada and around the world as a problem; and while I know the concept of a new government (and the bargaining that to bring it about) may be more exciting, I hope our leaders don’t forget to recognize today, honour the achievements we’ve made, and accept the long road yet to be traveled.

Elsewhere on World AIDS Day
We Move To Canada
Liberal Party (The only party to recognize the day on their website so far)