Regarding Dion's Electoral Reform Concerns

Dion raises a few concerns about Harper government senate reform initiatives and how to bring Liberal reform ideas to the table without suffering from shades of the past.

Dion says Senate Reform Bill Will Weaken...
Mr. Dion said all the government’s bills to reform the Senate have been bad, including the most recent, Bill C-7 to reform the Senate with tenure limits and elections, which he called "the worst one." He said the bill will weaken Canada's democratic system.

"At the end of the day, you will have two elected Chambers, the House and the Senate. I'm not against electing Parliamentarians. I think it's dangerous to do that if you don't have a dispute mechanism between the two Chambers," he said.

[...]

"I'm interested in all of these proposals under discussion and I'm supportive of them, but I wonder about how they're going to be perceived in presentation," said Jeff Ravetts, a delegate from the riding of Scarborough Southwest, Ont. "As we talk about doing government differently, electing government differently, we're still under discussion as the 'natural governing party of Canada' so, if we make demands that are different from the way we governed for a number of years, as we request transparency, which we didn't necessarily provide, as we ask for proportional representation when we spent so long benefiting from a lack of a proportional representation and democratic reform, how do we present that without assuming an air of hypocrisy?

First, I don't think there is much that can be done about whatever the conservatives choose to do with respect to senate reform. Their have been enough appointments to the senate recently that whatever this particular ship is carrying it's probably going to sail.

However, there is plenty of time to come up with a better plan and replace any legislation that was apparently flawed after a resounding election win. Yes, I know, you'll hear a lot of scoffing today, but something to keep in mind is that whatever bad news comes down the pipeline before then, it won't have been the fault of the liberals because there aren't any in power.

Recently, I wrote a post about revamping the election process. Calling for proportional representation in the house, based on the current riding system, with the current system's allocation of house members being used to fill the senate instead.

Based on recent concerns I'd simply add that we give the house, as the proportional body, the pants in the family. The senate would be subservient, performing a similar role to now, unless it were to muster a 66% threshold in which case it could stop a piece of legislation.

To flesh things out a bit -- the proportional system that I've proposed would reward those that best represented the will of the people locally. Not voting on issues that suit local needs would quickly find someone else elected for the riding in question. At the same time parties would still have to find ways to work together to form and maintain a government.

Perhaps less obvious is the fact that it would allow people to cast their vote exactly how they wished. Under the current model people have to be concerned that votes can be split -- giving a riding to a candidate for which the majority of the people voted against. This would broaden the discussion and allow less mainstream views to be heard.

These are things we need.

However, the big question is whether or not we have enough courage to stand up for what is right even if it risks the ability to win the election. Put a plan on the table, suggest it will involve a referendum to implement, and then lay down a platform of governance independent of the plan. Do both based on principles and beliefs and simply let the people decide.

Canada's Access to Information Act

Let's get some information out concerning the access to information process currently available in Canada.

For those looking for intimate legal details here is the Access to Information Act itself. The forms to fill out are available online from the Treasury Board of Canada's web site:

Access to Information Request
Determine which federal government institution is most likely to have the information you are seeking.

To apply for information under the Access to Information Act, complete the Access to Information Request Form. Describe the information being sought and provide any relevant details necessary to help the institution find it. If you require assistance, refer to Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information for a description of program records held by the institution or contact its Access to Information Coordinator.

There are some fees involved depending on the type of information requested and the source departments involved. You'll need to send your request to the appropriate Access to Information and Privacy Coordinators for the departments involved. It may be worth an email or a call to the appropriate party to make sure the details are up to date.

There are some tangled links between government sites but the confusion seems to lead eventually to the web site of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. Importantly, their page entitled Making an ATIA Request to the OIC contains the following snippet:

Also, a list of all requests made ... to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada under the Access to Information Act can be found here for quick reference.

The page referred to is the Completed ATIA Requests page. Note that you can request a copy of these previously completed requests.

However, as noted by the CBC, there are some remaining issues with respect to how this policy has been implemented by the government.

After all this I have one remaining question. If I find dirt on the government through an ATIA request will anyone know that I made the request? Given the behavior of the Harper government I'd rather not make myself visible to them. Strange that a citizen would feel that way isn't it?

Addendum

Here is an interesting article on The Star explaining why Canada's freedom of information system is in a shambles...

Ethical Oil: Domestic Puppets

It turns out that Ethical Oil and Our Decision are really domestic puppets. First, let's check out Kathryn Marshall on CBC's Power and Politics to defend her groups claims about environmental groups (go to 4:43 to get to the point quickly):

Now, as you know I've been stating that it's obvious that Ethical Decision (really, why pretend they are truly different organizations) is a government shill wrapped in the pretense of being a grass-roots organization.  If you were paying attention a few weeks ago you would have seen clear synchronization between Harper, key players, and the Ethical Decision team.

While it was originally obvious, the clip above starting around the 4:43 point really drove home how much of an attack dog front group this was.  However, additional stunning evidence has come to light.  It turns out spokesperson Kathryn Marshall, whom I refer to as The Drivelist, is married to one Haimish Marshall. So what right?

Haimish I Marshall, Chief Research Office, Abingdon
Before Angus Reid, Marshall was the Manager of Strategic Planning in the Office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper where he oversaw the quantitative and qualitative research efforts of the central agencies of the federal government... He is married to Kathryn.

Now, I realize that some heavy kool-aid drinkers will never be convinced, but the coordination with the Harper government, the rampant propaganda and spin used by Ethical Decision, and last but not least the direct ties to Harper's office drives the last nail into the coffin of doubt. More about radical conservative activist Haimish Marshall from blog Conservative Home:

After working on the successful national Conservative campaign in 2006, he served as the Manager of Strategic Planning in the Office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper until September 2007. He is a well known strategist and activist trainer within Conservative circles.

I think the proposed pipeline may be Harper's Moby Dick. He'll ride this whale to damnation for himself and his party. Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherfucker! Enjoy the ride...

Addendum

The twitterverse is really tearing this apart. Check out the following pictures from @stephenlautens posted originally on twitter:

Check out more of the neighborhood:

How much could you need? Okay, here you go...

Federal Documents Spark Outcry by Oil Sands..., Globe and Mail, 2012-01-26
Whistleblower claims PMO Tried to Silence..., Marketwire, 2012-01-24
Unethical Oil: Questions of Fraud?, Canada II, 2012-01-16
Ethical Oil, the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis and..., Desmogblog, 2012-01-15
Ethical Oil Political Connections, Part 1..., Deep Climate, 2012-01-13
Cozy Ties: Astroturf 'Ethical Oil' and Conservative..., Desmogblog, 2012-01-13
Ethical Oil: Domestic Puppets, Canada II, 2012-01-13
The Real Foreign Interests in the Oilsands, Ottawa Citizen, 2012-01-12
Sierra Club vs Ethical Oil (full), CBC Power and Politics, 2012-01-12
Northern Gateway Debate a Tale of Two Provinces, Vancouver Sun, 2012-01-09
Environmentalists Hit Back Over Pipeline Hearings, The Star, 2012-01-09
Radicals Working Against Oilsands, Ottawa Says, Globe and Mail, 2012-01-09
An Open Letter from Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Canada, 2012-01-09
Unethical Oil and its Canadian Friends, Vancouver Observer, 2012-01-08
China's Oil Sands Deal Will Have Lasting Impact, Globe and Mail, 2012-01-04
The Brilliance of Ethical Oil, Canada II, 2011-12-31
Oilsands PR Battle Goes After Chaquita Bananas, The Star, 2011-12-19

UPDATED: Link to YouTube video was no longer working. Changed to use direct link to CBC's video archive.

Radical Free Market Capitalists vs Public Good

Anyone who hasn't consumed free market think tank generated kool-aid will find truth in the following snippet:

In Defence of the Public Sphere
For longer than anyone can remember, conversations about the public sphere have been dominated by relentless bashing of everything public per se as inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt -- public transit, public services, public education, public infrastructure, public-sector unions, and so forth. 

Such bashing, accurate or otherwise, has invariably been coupled with the corollary assumption that the private sector is inherently better and more efficient. 

If the last couple of years have accomplished anything, they ought to have put the lie to that. The financial and industrial elites have been remarkably efficient at lining their own pockets (much of the time with our money), but at advancing the public good? Please.

I think you can narrow down the concept of public good by finding very obvious public bads. For example, if a company pollutes the water such that consuming it threatens health, then a public bad has occurred.

Free market economists do not always measure the cost of such a bad. In fact, free market economics doesn't measure anything that is not expressed in terms of money. The problem is that many things happen that aren't visibly defined by money.

This is the little secret of the free market economists. Or, perhaps, it shows that they can only think in terms of money. Public bads, referred to as "externalities" in economics, have simply been driven out of the public discourse. Sadly, the concept of public good has been driven out as well.

If you go back in history, you'll find that whenever something is not noticed, such as various forms of pollution, people will suffer until it can be proven that an economic activity is the source of the issue -- and only then can action finally be taken. This also explains big oils efforts to fund studies to obfuscate the nature of climate change.

Our society needs to find a way to either recreate commercial enterprise so that it is able to focus on the public good as well as profit or to recognize that there are often hidden costs that are not currently showing up on a balance sheet. This is where government is supposed to step in and protect the public interest.

The global financial crisis, for example, was brought about by a lack of governance. Rules were relaxed, activities were explicitly excluded from governance, and inappropriate levels of risk were taken. Reducing the risks to society are the reason Canadian banks were regulated -- which did reduce their ability to participate in some free market reindeer games, thankfully for us.

The idea of adding the cost to society of greenhouse emissions to the balance sheet is where the C02 cap and trade proposals originate. It would impact industries based on the size of their carbon footprint. It would force society to adjust to an economy that generated less C02. A lot of companies don't like the idea of being less profitable when having to pony up for environmental impact.

Tell me, where does the Canadian and global public good reside on the C02 issue?

Bonus reading... discussion of emissions trading on wikipedia.
Bonus reading... how corporations erode government concern for civil issues.

Dickwad Politicians Cry About Mean Tweets

Funny, I thought those in public office were used to dealing with amateur commentary.

Fantino tirade targets 'slanderous' Twitter users
"Recently, I had the occasion to peruse a number of so-called tweets between a number of users, whose communications back and forth included the most flagrant defamatory reference to local community-spirited individuals whom I personally know to be decent, ethical and truly honorable people," he wrote.

"All of which caused me to think that the authors of those communications must naively believe that the Internet gives them protection from the reaches of legal consequences, that communications over the Internet are somehow protected by the notion of freedom of speech or that their anonymity is guaranteed."

I don't know about you, but I'm not about to change my tweeting style because of some sanctimonious ass.  This is double true when said ass'es government is working with transparently flagrant propaganda groups attempting to influence public opinion.

Frankly, after Tony Clements screw-up on twitter and Joe Oliver's rant about decent, ethical and truly honorable people, I can only hope said dickwad is planning on chasing down government operatives abusing citizens and taxpayers in this manner.

However, I suspect that this is more likely a sly attempt to scare some people away from saying negative things about incompetent, greedy and unethical politicians who aren't worthy of being human seat warmers for the positions of power they occupy.

The whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't such a clown act.

Frankly, I do actually assume that except for certain types of statements towards non-public figures that I am protected by free speech. Does Canada no longer allow free speech? Inquiring citizens want to know.

Yes Minister

Oops, it looks like if you talk politics long enough on Twitter that you'll end up getting a friendly governmental visit:

Interestingly, I think I know which tweet resulted in this visit. It had something to do with decrying the blatant childish propaganda being spewed by Twitter accounts Ethical Oil and Our Decision.

These two shills for the government are visibly skewed and never bother to mention all the foreign money involved in both the oil sands and the pipeline proposal.

More posts about oil sands issues.

Claiming: 9YW94AENWAHK

Harper Agenda: Americanize Canada

Goodbye wheat board. Elections in the senate. Militaristic stance on world affairs. Shunning UN. The equivalent of "Drill, Baby, Drill." Good Christ, I'm living in the US!

Remember the phrase... you won't recognize Canada when I get through with it.

Canada doesn't need to be a little US. We aren't going to achieve anything by copying our gridlocked and partisan friends from the south. We don't need a Prime Minister who considers himself a demigod who can make his own rules.

Fuck me, we have to find a way to hang onto our Country!

We need to start finding ways to keep the powers of the Prime Minister in check. The job of citizens has always been to keep power from eroding rights.

Oil Sands: Trouble for the Government?

I think there is room for a dark horse to enter into oil sands pipeline debate.

Consider if you will the position of the US on selling Canadian oil to China. We already have Chinese ownership of one oil sands project and I can almost guarantee that China has plenty of money on the table if the  Gateway project gets the green light.

What will Uncle Sam think? Though I doubt Uncle Sam has the nads to stand up to big oil these days I do think his relative the military-industrial complex does. Especially when you add all the hawks hiding in government agencies with three letter acronyms.

Here is one scenario for you. Companies, such as one causing a ruckus in London Ontario, wreak havoc on public perception of the Harper government. XL or else! We have many companies that are foreign owned which would be willing to make a stink if it meant breaking a union and suddenly getting great concessions across the border.

How this one plays out is ongoing delays from the US while we slowly come to the conclusion that BC wants to maintain a tanker moratorium -- and Harper can back down saying he doesn't want to step into the provincial domain in this regard any more than he does for health care.

Magically, after a reasonable period of time so it doesn't look too connected, the XL project gets under way with some added environmental protection to give the incumbent at the time something to crow about for the left while talking jobs and economy for the right.

Unfortunately, I can't see the development of the oil sands being stopped, no matter whether or not a pipeline is built.

I guess we can hope for the lessor of all evils? How many examples would it take to rile the citizens before our majority mad government would decide to care about the consequences.

Addendum:

The following article, from TheStar, about the Harper government trying to find ways past the regular approval process due to the length of time it will take raises some interesting questions:

• Would this imply the Harper government is playing hardball?
• Is energy a Moby Dick for Harper?
• Will bulling through the Gateway project spell the end for Harper?
• Is there enough hidden money on the line he'll sink the conservative party in the process?

Stay tuned, this looks to be an interesting if pricey proposition.

Where the Right Goes Wrong

I like to suggest that all sides of a debate generally bring something of value to the discussion.

With the current flavor of attack politics that we see this can often be hard to fathom. However, let's take a look at the concept of lower income level citizens and social programs that exist to support them.

What we often hear from the right is that people depend on these programs and become a burden on society. The preferred solution seems to be to cut funding and propose that everyone is personally responsible for themselves -- never mind that many effects in society are well outside the scope of personal ability to affect.

So, where does the right go wrong?

In the parlance of the right wing the policy they propose will leave the class of citizens they decry in a state that suggests many will receive less education and income than other segments of society. Strangely, these attributes are also ones that often lead to larger families and less advantages for children. What the right wing response is most likely to do is create a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is even more strange is that the right wing often assumes that poorer people vote left as it is the left which is most likely to extend aid.

Now, let's take a look at a solution that involves elements of both left and right thinking. From the left we start with the assumption that most people do not want to be using government assistance and that they would prefer to be self-sufficient. We help them get back on track.

However, we have to be able to find what merits may exist in the right's arguments. We need to make sure that people who are on assistance for longer periods of time find it harder to stay there. We need to find ways to both help them integrate effectively into the economy and later to be more forceful in that regard. This implies all of our bleeding heart tendencies can be expressed during the first segment of an assistance event and gradually tail off into a harder nosed right wing stance.

Obviously, this is fairly superficial analysis. Even so, I hope you will realize that moving lower income individuals into higher layers of the middle class is perhaps one of the easiest ways to increase productivity, lower taxes, and reduce the ranks of those most likely to end up on social assistance of some type.

Both the bleeding heart liberals and the hard nosed conservatives actually have an ability to contribute to a more optimal solution.

Sadly, we don't get this. Our politics are broken.