Canada Post Cancels Home Delivery? Maybe Not...

Last month, Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt announced that Canada Post will be ceasing all door to door deliveries of mail.  The operations are to be suspended over a 5 year span, as community mailboxes are erected throughout the country.

Conveniently, Ms. Raitt made said announcement days after Parliament ended for the Christmas session, effectively ending any form of debate on the issue.  I suspect, the announcement was also made as close to Christmas as possible, to minimize media coverage as well.  However, it seems as though the Conservative Government under estimated the passion of Canadians for the service.

Deepak Chopra: Mail Scrooge?

Numerous MP's returned to the Parliament for an emergency session, and simultaneously hauled in Deepak Chopra, the CEO of Canada Post to explain his rational for why ending home delivery was necessary.

Chopra came up with a series of fantastic answers to the MP's grilling session.  At one point, he suggested that the feedback he had been receiving from Canadians was positive, and that Canadian seniors have told him they welcome the opportunity for more fresh air and exercise by walking a few blocks each day to retrieve their mail. 

Chopra and Raitt indicated that the end of mail delivery to our doors was necessary, as Canada Post is facing a $100 million deficit for the year, and the projections for the next five years look even worse.  Not surprisingly, Chopra dodged a series of questions in which he was asked point blank if he received a bonus in the last year, and exactly how much his bonus was.  The closest he would get to providing an answer, was to say that his salary is "a matter of public record".

Well I agree!  His salary SHOULD be a matter of public record.  However, it is not.  Most Canadians would never have known that Chopra's salary is nearly $500,000 a year, or that his bonus was paid out at 33% for an additional sum of close to $200,000 unless NDP MP Paul Dewar hadn't stated so during this parliamentary committee meeting.  In fact, in 2012, the Toronto Sun filed an access to information request for a number of bonus payouts to Canada post employees over the previous four years.  They also asked for a breakdown of how much was paid out to 23 members of the executive committee.  All of the individual payment numbers were refused based on "issues of privacy".  What they DID find out was that 7,402 Canada Post employees were paid some sort of bonus during the time period, including all 23 members of the executive board.  Clearly his salary and bonus is not a matter of public record.  It should be noted that Canada Post posted a net loss before taxes of $327 million in 2012.  A significant portion of which came because of a 25 day strike by postal workers.

I find it rather objectionable that anyone received a bonus when the company is bleeding money.  While good personal performance should be rewarded, it should not be done so when the company is hemorrhaging money.

A number of ways Canada Post could increase revenues was suggested by the parliamentary committee, including offering banking services at its branches in remote locations, or small towns where regular bank branches do not exist.  A wise suggestion.  The Swiss Postal service implemented this service several years ago to great success.

While the Conservative Government seems intent on ramming through the end of mail delivery as we know it (the first communities to lose this service are scheduled to be announced this summer), there may be some hope after all.

Thomas Mulcair: Defender of the Post

Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP, and Olivia Chow, Transportation Critic are set to introduce a motion in the house tomorrow declaring home mail delivery an invaluable service to Canadians.  They will force a vote on the matter, which should be an interesting political stone to throw.  An election will be held next year.  Forcing MPs to effectively vote for or against mail delivery will no doubt come to haunt some MPs who find themselves in tight electoral races in their own districts.  And you can bet, the NDP will make it very public come campaigning time which Conservatives voted to kill off their constituents delivery.  

It will all play out in the Commons tomorrow, and it should be interesting to see if Stephen Harper cracks the party whip, or if he lets MPs vote on their own.  I would suspect that independent voting will mean that the NDP motion will pass, which will likely see the plan of killing mail delivery dead on the floor.  If the whip is cracked... well... I guess we will see who will survive re-election.

Food Allergy Accommodation: When Is It Enough?

Food allergies are a considerably more talked about ailment these days.  There are a number of reasons why; people are more aware of their own dietary restrictions, specialized menus like gluten and lactose free are frequently advertised at restaurants, numerous high profile law suits have been settled in the last few years due to accidental cross contamination, and schools, airlines and other institution have adopted allergen-free policies.

Certainly it is wise to be educated about food allergens, especially if you suffer from them, and it's a must for anyone in the food service industry.  Everyone deserves a safe place to eat.  But when does accommodation become excessive?  Is it reasonable to expect a school or airline to prohibit any and all foods that are known allergens?

The answer might be simple at first, but lets consider all of the items that are common food allergens.

The most widely known one is peanuts of course (And further on, tree nuts in general).  This includes peanut butter, raw nuts such as almonds, many types of candy bars, pesto or thai sauce, etc.  You will find most companies and schools have policies prohibiting these types of foods, as it is probably the most common allergen, and a potentially fatal one for people that have anaphylactic reactions.

The other most common food allergens include dairy, gluten, eggs, and shellfish.  

It is rare that you will find anywhere in Canada that bans all of these foods, as it covers almost everything in the basic Canadian diet.  No bread for sandwiches, no yogurt or cheese, no omelettes or breakfast items, no shrimp for salads... the list goes on and on.

So when do we draw the line at accommodation?

Recently, a Hamilton, Ontario woman decided to find out where that line was.  Or perhaps to move the line in the sand a little further in her preferred direction.

Lynne Glover is the mother of 6 year old Elodie Glover, a cute blonde haired little girl who attends Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Elementary School.  Elodie is severely allergic to both egg and dairy.  So much so that she has gone into anaphylactic attacks numerous times in the last year.

Lynne was proactive, and spoke with the school board about their food policies, and the school board attempted to be accommodating.  They sent home letters to the parents of the other school children letting them know of Elodie's severe condition.  They replaced pizza day in the cafeteria with Roma Pizza (a non dairy pizza).  They even went so far as to suspend the school's milk program for all of the students to accommodate Elodie.

Unfortunately for Lynne Glover, this was not enough.  The other children were allowed to bring their regular lunches to school, with the exception of peanuts. Holy Name of Jesus already had a peanut ban in place, as many other children were affected by nut allergies.  The children are permitted to eat their lunches at their own desks.  Lynne was terrified of Elodie coming into contact with another child's lunch, so again she went back to the school board asking for something to be done.

The school board reiterated all of the changes they had already made on Elodie's behalf.  Additionally, the school's allergen policy states that schools "cannot guarantee an allergen-free environment", but will make "every reasonable effort" to reduce the risk of exposure for affected children.  The school offered to allow Elodie to eat her lunch in a different room.  Lynne refused, claiming they were segregating her daughter.  

Eventually the school board finally resigned from the conversation, at a loss for what else to do.  They could not tell all the other parents of the school that their children were not allowed to bring any milk products to school, as it is a Canadian staple.  Additionally, the Canada Food Guide and Health Canada already state that children do not get enough dairy in their daily diets.  How do you tell Mr. & Mrs. Smith that Johnny is not allowed to have a cheese sandwich, or yogurt, or a carton of milk in his lunch?  And what do you replace it with?

Lynne was less than pleased.  In addition to removing Elodie from the school, she also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, claiming the school was being discriminatory against Elodie for not accommodating her further.  The school board won't comment on cases before judgement, so they have not released a public statement.

So when is enough enough?  Is Lynne correct and the school board should have done more to protect her daughter?  Or is Lynne being unreasonable expecting an entire school to sacrifice their dietary programs for the sake of one student?

Rainn's Christmas Message

So you may have noticed that I took some time off from blogging the last three months.

I decided that I needed a bit of rest from the blogging, and felt especially after the death of Jack Layton that some introspection was in order.

I spent most of my time focusing on photography, and meeting new people. It is easy for us to lose sight of some things that are very important when we spend so much time on the web. Granted we communicate with others through email or social networking, but none of it can replace good old fashioned human interaction.

I did some small projects through my real life work to help fund raise for Habitat for Humanity, I also took a short time off in September to go to Las Vegas, and will hopefully be there again in January or early February to finish off my long awaited project; The Ultimate Guide to The Las Vegas Strip.

As Christmas approaches, I am reminded of the things that I am thankful for in my life, such as my friends, the roof over my head, the fact that I have gainful employment, and my personal freedom and liberties.

These same things that I am so thankful for also remind me that I have an obligation. I am obligated to ensure that I am a good friend. I am obligated to do my best at work. I am obligated to look after my health, so that I can be an effective friend and worker. I am obligated to help others less fortunate than I.

I am also obligated to do my part to steer (or in some cases fight) the government when it is not acting in the best interests of Canadians.

The last item is key. Our government shapes our lives and our futures. It impacts people not only in Canada, but in any number of nations that we do business with, give aid to, have war or peacekeeping efforts in.

Unfortunately, our government has been a bit like a masquerade ball lately. Everyone is in disguise, motives are not clear, and you never know if the person you are speaking with is true or false.

I also recognize that I am one person. There will be no Federal election on the immediate horizon, so I can not change things simply with my vote. So I will continue to discuss the hot button issues here on my blog. I promise to look at things as unbiased as possible (I am human after all). I promise to tell only the truth, and to report only accurate facts as I can find them out.

This Christmas, I encourage you to think about this great country we live in (or whatever country you may hail from, if not Canada). Take the facts in, and decide for yourself what Canada should be and where we should be headed. I encourage you to act! Find a way to effect change! Write letters to your Members of Parliament. Write letters to the editor of your local news paper. Start a blog! All of these things make a difference. Especially if enough of us do them.

The time for Canadians to be passive is gone. It is time to take the reins of our Nation and move forward!

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

Jack Layton Dead At 61

The Honourable Jack Layton:

July 18, 1950 - August 22, 2011

It's a sad day for Canada today, as the nation mourns the passing of NDP leader Jack Layton.

Layton passed away early Sunday morning of cancer, though details about his latest fight with cancer have been kept quiet by his family.

Although Layton announced less than a month ago that he would be taking a leave of absence from his post as leader of the official opposition to focus on his battle with cancer, Layton's death came as a shock to many.

Mainly because over the last year in his public appearances, Layton appeared to be The Unstoppable Man.

Early in 2010, Layton announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He publicly vowed to beat the cancer and be back on track to resume his political duties when Parliament was back in session in the fall. And he was. Layton was very optimistic about his fight with prostate cancer, as he had beaten the same condition 17 years earlier.

When the 2011 election had been called for this past May, Layton was recovering from a broken hip he had suffered earlier in the year, and still relied heavily on his cane. When questioned by the media if he had the energy to lead his party through another election campaign, he all but laughed in their faces. Indeed, Layton arguably finished the election scrappier than ever, and propelled his party to Official opposition status for the first time in NDP history.

Through all of the health issues Layton struggled with in the last year, he never seemed to lose composure or confidence that they were minor roadblocks, and indeed, Layton seemed invincible.

Last month when Layton announced publicly that he would be taking the rest of the summer off to fight a bout of newly diagnosed (and unspecified to the public) cancer, Canadians across the country were shocked at his gaunt and frail appearance. But in true Jack fashion, he vowed he would be back for the fall sitting of Parliament. Truly, Canadians had no reason to believe otherwise, as nothing seemed to get in the way of Jack's interminable will.

But sadly, Jack's fight came to an end this weekend. He passed away peacefully at 4:45 am Sunday morning.

Whether or not you agreed with Jacks politics, no one can deny his tenacity and overwhelming desire to make Canada a better place. Jack believed in the power of the people, and that ordinary working citizens like you and me were the driving factor to make Canada a world force and a nation that could be home to anyone despite race, gender or wealth.

Jack's level of conviction set a gold standard for everyone to live up to, especially politicians. I hope others follow in his footsteps.

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

USA Debt Drama

Obama Swims in a Sea of Debt

We have all heard a lot about the current debt crisis facing the USA right now. It has become a daily headline. So has all the bickering between the democrats and republicans about how to handle the situation.

A little background information might be in order for some readers. The US is nearing a debt collapse. The amount of debt the US is allowed to hold at any given time is set in law. Currently, by law, the US is allowed to hold $14.3 trillion of debt. With it's current financial situation, the US will reach this debt ceiling by August 2, 2011.

This allows for 3 possible options.

1) The government passes a resolution to allow for an increase to the debt ceiling, allowing the government to borrow more money to keep things status quo,

2) The government drastically cuts spending, and reassigns existing money from other areas of the budget to pay creditors to avoid a default on debt payments

3) The government does neither of the above and defaults on debt payments, (and likely doesn't have enough liquid capital to continue running as is)

Let's examine each of the following options.

In the past, option 1 has always been the most likely course of action. This is by no means the first time that the government has faced the prospect of increasing it's debt ceiling. In fact, in the last few decades, they have actually allowed a debt ceiling increase nearly every year or two. If you look at George W. Bush's administration, the debt ceiling was increased EVERY year he was in office except for 2, going from $5.9 trillion to more than $11 trillion. Bill Clinton actually did a bit better, only raising the ceiling twice in his 8 years in office from $4.9 to $5.9 trillion.

The only difference as to why we have not heard much about this situation in the past, is that the ruling president's political party controlled the house and the senate, practically ensuring the motion for increase passed. Clearly this is not the case this year, as there is a democrat president, and a republican majority in the house. While it is likely both parties will come to an agreement to increase the ceiling prior to the August 2nd deadline, this year there is an added caveat: an increase to the debt ceiling will likely push the American debt ratio to MORE than 100% of GDP. This would be the first time in history where America will essentially owe more than the nation is worth in fiscal terms.

Option 2 would mean that the acting government puts its foot down and does not allow an increase to the allowable amount of debt, essentially forcing it to drastically slash spending on social programs, likely increasing taxes and reassigning funds that have been allocated to future capital projects (ie, roads, libraries etc) to pay off some of the existing debt in the hopes of not hitting the debt ceiling. This is not a pleasant option, as it means the state of the nation will drastically change, most notably on low income and middle class citizens. Social programs will be massively scaled back if not axed all together, and any tax credits or deductions citizens receive will likely be axed.

Option 3 is the most disastrous. This is where the government runs with the status quo until the debt ceiling is reached on August 2nd. At that point, there is no money left to borrow, and all other income is already allocated. This means the government will default on their debts because there is simply no funds to make debt payments left. This has never actually occurred in US history, and what exactly would happen is open to mass speculation. However, over the last year, we have a better indication as this is the scenario that Greece faced last year. The ramifications will be discussed in detail below.

So, the question is which option will the government choose?

I believe the final outcome will be a combination of options 1 and 2. Government representatives WILL increase the debt ceiling prior to the August 2nd date. But, they will also drastically reduce spending (mostly on social programs) and it is likely that there will be some modest tax increases.

Over the past several months, both republicans and democrats have been fighting over what will be cut, by how much and what the tax increases will be and whom will pay them.

The republican position is that only spending cuts will be considered, and tax increases are simply not an option. Democrats maintain that spending cut are needed, but tax increases to the wealthy and large corporations are necessary to add additional funds to replace some of the spending cuts, lest social programs be decimated and devastate the lower class.

John Boehner: Tough Guy

While there has been significant political posturing from Obama, and more so from republican House Speaker John Boehner, eventually they will have to agree to both cuts and taxes. Cuts will probably be more drastic than the democrats want, and small increases to taxes will occur.

The increase to the debt ceiling will calm international markets for the time being, and the spending cuts will reinforce the nation's current credit rating with international agencies like Moody's. However, there will likely be a small slow down in the American economy until a long term fiscal plan can be set out. We have to remember that spending cuts also means that infrastructure projects like road and highway repair will be scrapped, and this will cause layoffs and less disposable income in the economy.

There is, however, always a small chance that democrats and republicans do not come to and agreement, and option 3 occurs - default. It is likely that international markets would take a beating, and every industrialized nation will suffer the fallout. The US is the world's largest economy. The consumerism of 300 million people creates jobs and investment worldwide. China would suffer dramatically since such a large portion of their economy is manufacturing goods exported to North America. Canada, naturally, would suffer considerably since the US is it's largest trading partner. The vast majority of exports from Canada go directly south of the boarder. Additionally, most large European economies would be otherwise affected by harsher scrutiny from ratings agencies like Moody's. After all, if the economic giant the USA is at risk for defaulting on loans, what chance does Germany, France and Britain have when they are also responsible for continuous bailouts to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and possibly Spain and Italy?

Speculation is just that however. But one thing is certain - the current economic situation of the US is not sustainable. US debt has drastically spiked since the Bush administration - presumably largely due to US military operations in the Middle East. I recommend drastic reduction in the operations of the military abroad. Also, closing many of the tax loopholes for large corporations would be a vast source of additional income. US corporate tax law is some of the laxest in the modern world. These corporations would not likely go somewhere else, as the low tax rates are still favourable, but would also force corporations to pay their fair share.

The world can do nothing but wait and see as the clock ticks down to August 2nd.

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

Jack-Attack: Will Jack Layton Change Canada On May 2?

Fierce: Gearing Up For The Jack-Attack!

Jack-Attack comin atcha! Or so say the latest political polls.

Jack Layton & his NDP are rising meteorically across Canada. Late last week, a number of political polls from reputed pollsters such as Nanos, Ipsos-Reid and Ekos showed a shocking trend, suggesting that Jack and his party are gearing up to make a major derailment in the train that is the Liberal campaign.

The polls show NDP support higher than the Liberals in several areas of the country. Especially in dire straights is Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois. For the first time in years, the Bloc is trailing in popularity in it's own province to a rival. And who would have guessed that rival would be the NDP?

Currently, the NDP holds a single seat in the 75 seat province of Quebec, and naturally that seat is in a multi-lingual section of Montreal.

These revelations have prompted mass panic from The Liberal, Conservative and Bloc camps, with all parties launching all out attacks on Jack Layton and his party over the Easter weekend (not very love-thy-neighbor, is it?).

All of the pollsters cautioned on Friday, however, that while the NDP has slowly made gains in popular vote since the beginning of the election campaign, things may not be as they seem. Political polls tend to have fickle outcomes in general, but can be even more so prior to a weekend. The pollsters urged Canadians to wait until after the Easter break to draw conclusions as to the reality of the numbers.

Well, the Easter break is over, and the numbers are in again. And they are higher than they were last week. This is shocking news. Ekos predicts, that if the election were held today, the NDP would take 100 seats in the house of commons, second only to Stephen Harper's conservatives with 131. The Liberals have been projected to scavenge off the remnants with 69 seats.

And that's not all. If these numbers hold true, the entire landscape of Canada would surely change. With the NDP taking so many ridings in Quebec, the Bloc would be reduced to fringe party status. Additionally, this would reduce the Conservatives stronghold to only the prairies and Ontario, forcing the two to unite. No more of that "Western Canada - Vs. Ontario" argument. But it doesn't stop there either.

With this Jack-Attack, it would be difficult to imagine a Conservative minority government surviving for long. All opposition parties stated prior to the election that they would not support the budget put forth by Stephen Harper. And Harper himself has stated that after the election, they would present the exact same budget to parliament. This does not bode well for Harper's continued residence at 24 Sussex. It is unlikely that the same budget would pass, which would either trigger another election, which is not likely to occur. The other most likely option would be for the Governor General to ask the leader of the Official Opposition (Jack Layton) to form a government. Of course, Layton would require the support of the Liberals to make such an option work.

Of course, Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader could choose not to support the NDP, and throw his support to Stephen Harper instead. However doing so would likely drive even more of his supporters to the NDP.

The ironic part is, after two elections of Layton proclaiming that he was "running for Prime Minister", it seems he proved he was telling the truth!

There is still 1 week left in the campaign, and as the Jack-Attack proves, anything can truly happen in a week. But for the mean time, we will have to wait until tomorrow, as the pollsters are furiously working through the night to determine if Canadians are suffering with a bout of mass-hysteria, or if the love of Jack is strong and true.

Elizabeth May Is Dismayed

Elizabeth May

Elizabeth May and her Green Party were dealt a severe blow by Federal Court judge Marc Nadon yesterday, as he refused to make an emergency ruling on May's complaint of being shut out of the televised electoral debates next week.

Nadon agreed with the Television Consortium's argument that due to the short amount of time to the scheduled debates that a decision could not be made so quickly while still providing due diligence in examining both parties arguments.

This could be a death strike to May's attempt at getting elected this year, as her inclusion in the debates in 2008 gave her party a significant boost in recognition and popularity, but thus far this year has struggled to maintain as much media attention.

May says she is still not counting herself out, as she and her lawyer Peter Rosenthal are currently examining any other potential legal avenues to force the courts to hear the case immediately.

Although the courts will likely not make a decision until it is too late for this election, it is likely that they will side with at least some of the Green Party's arguments, and perhaps force the Media Consortium to establish firm and set criteria for who should be included in the debates in the future.

In the mean time, May continues to campaign hard in her riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, rather than focusing on a cross country tour as the party leader like she did in the last election. She hopes to unseat Conservative Incumbent Gary Lunn.

Patriot Games: Election 2011

Not even a week has passed since Canada's ruling government was toppled, and already political posturing and scandals abound.

Last Friday, in an historic move, the Conservative Government was found in contempt of parliament on scandals of hidden costs of military jets and corporate tax cuts, to lying cabinet ministers and document doctoring.

Not 10 minutes after the final session of Parliament wrapped up did Stephen Harper's attack dog, John Baird, begin his annual fear mongering session on national news magazine's cameras declaring a conspiracy by opposition parties to form a coalition government that would throw our country into economic and political fires of Hell.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff did his best to answer reporters questions about the possibility of a coalition government with the NDP without actually giving a yes or no answer. He did this for a couple of days then finally broke down and gave a resounding "NO!" to the question.

Michael Ignatieff Plays Dumb: "What's a Coalition?"

This likely indicates that the Liberals will be running an all-or-nothing campaign on the election trail, as I believe a coalition had being enthusiastically discussed prior to the government falling. Now that Ignatieff publicly stated that no such agreement would occur after the election regardless of the results, it seems likely that his career would be quickly eviscerated should he go back on his word.

Since coalition is out of the question now, this puts the Liberals in a pressure cooker to perform drastically better than the last election, if not actually form a government. It is unlikely that Ignatieff would be allowed to keep his job as Liberal leader if the party fails to gain a significant amount of seats in the House.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper seemed to be sitting pretty for the first few days of the campaign while the heat was on his arch-rival. Until Sebastian Togneri turned up like a bad penny again.

You may remember Togneri's name. He was a high ranking government aide for many years until he was forced to resign over allegations of interfering in several requests for government information made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Very recently, even Conservative Minister Rona Ambrose had no choice but to call for an RCMP investigation into Togneri's interference with the requests for information. (Though, I find it odd that the RCMP were called in a year after Togneri's resignation). Unfortunately for Stephen Harper, the request for an RCMP investigation coincided with a Parliamentary inquiry into Minister Bev Oda's alleged altering of government documents.

Well, now Togneri's name was in the media again, as some lucky reporter discovered that he was working on the campaign for Conservative hopeful Ryan Hastman in the Edmonton Strathcona riding.

Linda Duncan: A Little Orange Fish In A Big Blue Sea

Hastman has a somewhat uphill battle in front of him to begin with. In the 2008 election, NDP candidate Linda Duncan wrestled the riding away from Conservative incumbent Rahim Jaffer (after Jaffer himself suffered several political scandals). From all accounts, Linda Duncan, a long time Edmonton Lawyer is well liked, and has been made high-profile by the NDP since it was the first time an Alberta riding has been anything but Tory blue since the Anne McLellen days.

Unfortunately for Hastman and Stephen Harper, it doesn't look good having a disgraced government aide currently under police investigation helping out with a new Conservative candidate's campaign.

Things turned from bad to worse for both Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff the last two days as Green Party leader Elizabeth May burst on to the scene in a blaze of controversy, fighting for her political rights.

Elizabeth May Is Going To Debate Your Ass Off. Deal With It.

You may remember from the 2008 election, when the Green Party was just starting to gain credibility and a lot of media attention, that the Canadian Broadcast Consortium (basically a handful of executives from Canada's 4 main TV networks) decided that May would not be entitled to participate in the electoral debates. This prompted a huge public outcry, and a chance for all party leaders to look like the good guy on national television by stating that they believed May should be included in the debate. Finally the consortium relented, and May had her day in the spotlight. (She actually did quite well- check out my review of her performance here.)

This week, for some bizarre reason, the consortium again decided that May, despite being the leader of a national party that received 6% of all votes in the last election (that's 1 million votes - more than the Bloc Quebecois received) and that runs a candidate in every riding across Canada, was not worthy of participating in the debates because her party does not have a current, elected MP.

Let's not bother taking into account that the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance Party, which are now both known as the Conservative Party, did not have elected MPs either during their first elections, but were still allowed to participate in the debates.

May has since launched a very public battle against the Consortium, and has retained a high profile lawyer to argue her case to the courts to sneak her way in to the debates.

This is particularly bad news for both Ignatieff and Harper. Partly because May seems to be very good a debating, and neither man likely wants her there. That being said, since Harper endorsed her presence in the last election, he can hardly say that she isn't entitled to be there for this election. He has since said he is open to her being there, but that all parties should submit to the rules put forth by the Consortium. Ignatieff on the other hand, has his barrels firmly aimed at Harper, and the more people included in the debate may lead the public to decide that there are other voting options rather than just the Liberals or the Conservatives, as he has been trying to prove in the media all week.

Foolishly, after May made her public tirade about not being included in the election debate, Ignatieff stated he was most keen on having a second debate televised solely between himself and Stephen Harper. Harper seemed keen on the idea as well, and all but issued a public challenge to his rival. Ignatieff then ran in front of the nearest camera and said it was on. However, as media attention intensified around May and her rhetoric of the debates being anti-democratic for shutting her out, Harper quietly back-peddled on his two-man debate idea. This gave Ignatieff an opportunity to call Harper "chicken", but also gave the impression of him being an elitist.

So to recap, in the last two weeks or so, we have had the government charged with contempt, allegations of creative bookkeeping, Ministers engaged in doctoring documents, police investigations, candidates receiving help from disgraced government aides, finger pointing at undemocratic television execs, threatened legal action, political threats and challenges, and a good deal of back-peddling from most of the party leaders. And we've just gotten started. Imagine where we will be in another 4 weeks!

Patriot Games: A Canadian Election For A New Generation

Oh, it's on, baby.

So last Friday, (March 25th) the Conservative's minority government was toppled when a confidence motion tabled by the opposition parties found the ruling conservatives in contempt of parliament.

The Look Of Contempt: Stephen Harper

This is intriguing for two reasons.

First, since the beginning of March, it was widely assumed that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be forced to dissolve the parliament, but it was assumed that the motion of confidence that would be the downfall of the ruling government would be the Conservative's proposed budget. Not a decision that the government was in contempt of parliament.

Secondly, it's important because never through all of the political scandals or outrageous diatribes of the 144 years of parliament in Canada, has a ruling party found to be in contempt.

There were several reasons why the Conservative Government had been found in contempt. Firstly, there was the matter of 65 new F35 fighter jets that the government announced it would purchase for a reported $9 billion ($18 billion once a maintenance agreement was signed). The purchase announcement was made in July of 2010, but recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer went public with his estimation of nearly double the cost to a whopping $30 billion.

Needless to say, this caused a frenzy on Parliament Hill, with the opposition parties attacking the Conservatives like rabid dogs on a lame rabbit. The opposition demanded to see numbers on paper, and their requests were repeatedly rebuffed. At the same time, it had been implied that the government was similarly down playing the expected costs of tax cuts being proposed for big corporations.

The second and more bizarre catalyst was the inquiry into International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda's document tampering scandal.

Bev Oda: Document Doctor

In 2009, a church based aid group known as Karios applied for renewal of it's international development grant. Oda stated publicly that the decision was actually made by the Canadian International Development Agency. However, upon digging up documents on the matter, it was discovered that the CIDA actually signed a note recommending the approval of the grant. And, that the note in question had actually been altered when the word "not" had been manually written before the word "approved".

Bev Oda later admitted in front of a committee that she had been the one who ordered the alteration of the document (if not altered it herself). And of course, no sooner had the admission left Oda's lips, were opposition MP's calling for her head to roll down the aisle of the House of Commons.

Predictably, after the committee wrapped up on Oda's case, the information that had been gathered on the F-35 fighter jets and the corporate tax cuts were all wrapped into one bundle of government-toppling joy. The final bow that had been attached to the bundle was the fact that the Liberal party intentionally stalled on voting on the Conservatives proposed budget, so they could bask in the glory of toppling the government on charges of contempt, rather than the budget.

And so, on March 26th, 2011, Stephen Harper was forced to seek the Governor General's approval to dissolve parliament, and presto! Election in May. So far from what we have seen, all of this political manoeuvring and scandal will just be the tip of the iceberg.

London Bridge is Falling Down

Well, not yet anyway.

Thousands of students took to the streets of London today to protest austerity measures enacted by the British Parliament, which will see tuition caps raised from approximately 4,700 pounds a year to nearly 14,000. In other words, tuition will be tripled.

The increase alone would be enough to incite riots, but one particular sore spot is the Coalition Government is currently made up of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. In fact, the deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat, actually signed a pre-election pledge to oppose any tuition hikes.

The Liberal Democrats are typically a popular political party with students, as they have more progressive societal views and tend to lean more heavily for social programs and more universal education.

Today, students made public their thoughts on the government's decision. Sit ins and demonstrations were held across the nation, and central London was flooded with students waving banners, beating on drums and chanting.

The protests turned into riots in some part of the city. Small groups of protesters began throwing flares and paint bombs, tearing down police barricades and scuffling with officers. At one point Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles car was being punched and kicked as they tried to get to a social engagement.

But lets look at the logistics of the British Government's plan. I'm not sure I quite understand it myself.

To be fair, Britain is actually the second UK country to massively increase tuition this year. A few weeks back, Ireland also tripled the cost of post secondary education, as part of their mandated requirements to receive their bailout package from the EU. Harsh to be sure, but when the country is on the verge of veritable insolvency, harsh measures are required.

As for the UK, one of two things has occurred. Either the nation is also on the verge of bankruptcy, and has just done a much better job of keeping it quiet, or the Coalition government has just suffered a moment of colossal stupidity.

If the former is true, then the UK obviously has no intentions on asking the EU for a bailout, or we would have heard about it long before now. I don't think this is a very likely scenario. Which leaves us with, drum roll please, the latter.

Granted I am not an economist. But from what I remember from my business studies, if the economy is in retreat, the best way to correct the problem is to increase the median salary of the nation. Increasing the median salary means people are making more money and also spending more. It also encourages investment and increases the size of income tax contributions directly to federal coffers.

Sounds simple, right?

So what is the best way to increase median salary? Typically this is done by creating more highly trained specialists (who automatically command large salaries) and by increasing the number of entrepreneurs (who in turn pay more taxes and hire lower skilled labor).

And what is the best and easiest way of creating more highly trained specialists and entrepreneurs? Well, by making post secondary education more accessible of course!

So, since the government has chosen the opposite of the above example, what is likely the long term outcome?

Every 10% increase in tuition means less and less people can afford to access education. Since the tuition will go up nearly 300%, this means vastly less people will get the education they need. This provides the government a very small window of time to find other ways to save money and reverse the tuition rates. If the government fails to reverse the tuition costs, within 5 - 10 years, Britain will have a much higher unskilled workforce (who naturally make less money) and a much smaller skilled workforce. Thus creating a downward spiral in their economy for decades to come.

And of course, there is the potential long term damage done by continuing rioting.

The eyes of the world are on the British government now. I urge them to use this as only a temporary measure and come to their senses soon.

WikiLeaks Ally Takes Down Visa, Mastercard

An organization calling itself "Anonymous" has publicly sided with WikiLeaks, and claimed responsibility for a cyberattack on both Visa and Mastercard today.

Both sites in Canada and the US were inaccessible for most of the day.

The attack is supposed to be a form of retribution for both Visa and Mastercard cutting off service with WikiLeaks, which effectively cut off donations to the controversial website.

Mastercard Canada spokesmen have said that the attack has not affected any credit card transactions.

Anonymous has called the attacks "Operation Payback". Early wednesday, Anonymous led media outlets to a video posted on YouTube which explained the objectives of the attacks.

Anonymous released a statement in which they said: "While we don't have much of an affiliation with WikiLeaks, we fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship... This is why we intend to utilize our resources to raise awareness, attack those against, and support those who are helping lead our world to freedom and democracy."

The US government has put intense pressure on both the business community and political world to condemn and cut ties with WikiLeaks. Earlier this week, Amazon.com cut ties with WikiLeaks, which was using Amazon.com's servers, due to political pressure from Washington to do so.

Washington has also put pressure on France to shut down mirror websites that are hosting WikiLeaks information in the stead of WikiLeaks own webpages being shut down. Currently the French government has been stalled by their court system while trying to comply.

WikiLeaks first garnered attention in the spring when it posted a US military video which showed US troops in Iraq shooting down two unarmed Reuters journalists. The video was apparently taken by US army helicopters.

Since that video, WikiLeaks has published nearly half a million classified US documents from Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks feels the public has a basic right to know what their Military and Governments are doing.

I understand that governments have a right to secrecy when it comes to armed forces potentially being in danger, and can understand why the US has reservations to seeing these documents in the public. However, I do feel the public has the right to know if their governments or military forces are doing unsavory things, intentional or not. This includes incidents of Friendly Fire, such as the Reuters journalists or other hidden agendas that may infringe on anyone's basic human rights or freedoms.

Censorship is a dangerous concept, and governments would do well to remember that one way or another in some point in time, the truth ALWAYS comes out.

Forbes Magazine: Gary Holden is The 5th Biggest Screwup!

According to Forbes Magazine, Gary Holden, CEO of public-owned energy utility Enmax, is one of the biggest CEO screw ups of the year.

As I recently reported, Holden made national headlines when he sent a ranting email to all Enmax employees chastising a former employee for leaking information to the media about lavish parties that had been held at his home on the company's dime. Holden went so far as to threaten legal recourse against the former employee in what seemed to be a warning to everyone else to keep quiet.

Helen Coster, the author of the article which was published on Forbes.com, said she found it surprising how Holden dealt with the accusations of wild company-fueled parties. She said most CEOs would have used a public relations firm, rather than attempting to control the situations themselves.

That should be sound advice for Mr. Holden during his future business dealings. Not only did he make the situation worse, but according to Forbes, Holden sounded "paranoid" when he warned employees not to speak to the press.

Also under the public microscope at Enmax is the executive pay scale. Salaries for executives have skyrocketed in the last few years.

Company documents show the chairman of the board, a part-time position, is currently banking $180,000 a year. Astounding, considering that only 8 years ago in 2002, the same position paid $18,000. For you statistic folks out there, that is a 1000% pay increase in 8 years. Talk about a cost of living increase.

Gary Holden himself seems to be enjoying regular pay increases. In 2002, his position paid a paltry $700,000 including salary and bonuses. In 2009, Holden took home nearly $2.7 million. That's a pretty good paycheque considering it's funded by City of Calgary taxpayers.

Newly elected Mayor Naheed Nenshi says he is awaiting a full report that will detail how Enmax chooses it's compensation packages. The Mayor also stated that past increases to board of directors salaries had been approved by previous city councils.

Nenshi stated he was most interested in having a long conversation with Holden regarding how current salaries are justified.

For the time being, we will have to wait until next week to find out more.

John Baird Returned To Environment Minister

John Baird: Angry Finger-Pointer or Environment Minister?

Upon the recent proverbial happy pill that Canadians received when MP Jim Prentice announced he was leaving politics to sell snake oil to, uh, sorry, promote CIBC and its services to corporate clients, we have all just been handed our inevitable downer pill.

John Baird, currently Canada's equivalent of Minister of State as been again handed the Environment portfolio. This comes almost two years to the day when he had been removed from the same post after his very public media Crucifixion resulting from his performance (or lack thereof) during the Bali Summit on Climate Change.

John Baird, arguably the loudest and often most obnoxious of MPs, has an environmental batting average that makes Rob Deer look like a superstar.

While it should not be a surprise to anyone that Stephen Harper's Conservative Government cares not about environmental issues, Canada is one of the world's most influential governments, and the Conservatives should at least try to look as though they are moving forward.

Handing this portfolio back to Baird, even if temporary, displays the arrogance of our current government, in the fact that they clearly don't care about public appearance. Obviously they are willing to continue to bully themselves around simply because they currently have the slight edge in the number of sitting MPs to do so.

Much like Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's opinion on numbers, maybe it's time to change them.

BC Premier Gordon Campbell Resigns

Gordon Campbell (photo by Mary McNeil)

In a surprise press conference this morning, BC Premier Gordon Campbell resigned from his post.

This comes after months of heated controversy in British Columbia where Campbell's Liberal government signed an agreement with the Conservative Federal Government to bring in a Harmonized Sales Tax which took effect in July of this year. (A topic on which they campaigned against in the last election)

The tax was openly despised by BC citizens, and dominated the headlines for much of the year as a grassroots movement came to life, forcing the government to agree to hold a referendum on the issue. Due to Campbell's lack of expediting the process (he could have chosen to table a motion in the BC legislature rather than a referendum, AND the fact that he scheduled the referendum for a year down the road), unsatisfied voters began a very public attempt at recalling Liberal MLAs.

It should be no surprise that members of the Liberal caucus did not appreciate the negative public opinion, and began criticizing Campbell's job performance.

It's likely that Campbell is attempting to curb what would have been a very public embarrassment, as it has been rumored that a number of Liberal MLAs were about to call on Campbell to resign during the next Liberal Caucus meeting.

Campbell's party has already suffered damage due to some high profile and well liked cabinet ministers who resigned this summer due to their dislike of the party's direction.

The next step will be for the Liberal Party to hold a leadership convention sooner, rather than later, to choose the next premier of BC. Unfortunately for the Liberals, history shows us that when a leader steps down, the replacement leader ultimately commits political suicide by taking the reins of a sinking party. See Kim Campbell and Paul Martin for examples of this.

Naheed Neshi: New Mayor of Calgary

So I have been terribly busy these last few weeks. It seems like I have a million things to do each day, and I never get them all done.

That being said, never fear, as I always keep track of topics I want to write about on the blog.

One hot topic this week was the municipal election here in Calgary. This is the first election that I have not voted in. With recently relocating here, I felt that I did not know enough about the history of the candidates to make an informed choice on who to vote for. Sure, you can always find the candidates online and read their platform, but I like to know some history about the candidates: were they in politics before? Did they live up to previous promises they made? Are they reputable business people? Personally, I believe idiots that make an uninformed decision on who they are voting for are far more dangerous than those who abstain.

But I digress.

Much to many people's surprise, Naheed Nenshi, who was considered a distant third runner up during the entire campaign won by a reasonable margin.

Naheed Nenshi Celebrating (photo from www.nenshi.ca)

Naheed Nenshi ran against Barb Higgins, a well know former news anchor on CTV news, and Ric McIver, an older white businessman and former city alderman, who people seem to either somewhat like or openly despise.

Barb Higgins, a well known television personality and attractive white female, was considered the front runner in the race the week prior to the election, though she jumped on the political band wagon relatively late in race.

But, in a rare turn of political progression, Naheed Nenshi pulled ahead when it really counted. Naheed is a Harvard Graduate with a Masters in Public Policy, and has a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Calgary. He currently is a professor at Mount Royal University here in Calgary.

So he has solid credentials. Why would this be considered a progressive political choice? Because not only is Naheed a visible minority, (a first for Calgary mayors) but he is now the first Mayor in Canada who is Muslim.

Yes, I said Muslim.

Lets be honest. Muslim is an attention getting word these days. I think draws more attention in the US, certainly, but even still it is capable of causing heated debate here in Canada.

Now the funny thing about it all is I have heard a few people talking about the record voter turn out for the recent election. There were more than 300,000 votes cast which means an estimated eligible voter turn out of approximately 46%. I have heard several people mention that they felt Nenshi won because many of Calgary's visible minorities made sure they got to the polls this year.

While that may be true, I am not sure that the motives were race or religion oriented. Calgarians en masse were definitely ready for a change. Over the course of the last year, most of the local media ran editorials about how the city needed a political change. Additionally, many opinion based publications called for an all out recall of city council. And, if that wasn't convincing enough, there were a record amount of candidates for the mayors chair. At one point during the election, there were 15 declared candidates.

As an added analysis, here are some brief statistics about Calgary:

Population: 1,079,000 (2006 census)

Visible Minorities 23.7% (2006 census)

Number of declared Muslims 26,000 (2001 census)

So looking at all of the numbers, even if every declared Muslim in the city of Calgary was eligible to vote, and casted a ballot for Nenshi, it still would be less than 25% of the votes received. Add that to the amount of eligible minority voters, and it still would not have put him over the top.

After all of that, I think the only fair way to sum up this election, is that the best man won. Simple as that. Nenshi is a well educated, succinct speaker who ran a clean campaign and had a solid platform.

I don't believe the media will let the minority issue or religious affiliation drop anytime soon. But, I hope that Nenshi is clever enough and tactful enough to use it to his advantage. If he spins the media attention correctly, he can bring more positive attention to the city of Calgary and attract a lot of important investment and cultural opportunities to the city.

Good Job Naheed, and good luck with the political career.

BC Voters Move to Recall Defiant MLAs

Most people have probably heard at least something about the ongoing fight to repeal the Harmonized Sales Tax in BC, which added an additional 5% tax onto many products and services that had previously been exempt.

The fight has been ongoing for nearly a year now, ever since BC's Liberal controlled provincial government signed onto a Federal agreement to meld the provincial sales tax with the Federal Goods and Services tax.

The new "Harmonized" tax has been hotly contested, mainly since the Liberal government had partly been elected by standing on a political platform of rejecting the idea of a harmonized sales tax.

Having our elected officials renege on election promises is not a new development in Canada. However, in a rare form of democracy being exercised, more than 10% of eligible voters in EVERY BC riding signed a petition which forced the BC government to make a choice: Either table new legislation to repeal the tax all together, or hold a province wide referendum allowing the voters to decide whether to scrap the tax.

Now a few things should be noted here. First of all, tabling new legislation does not mean the tax would actually be repealed. Since the Liberal government still hold a majority in the BC legislator, they could in effect, vote the bill down. The tax would carry on and nothing would change. Aside from the problem of mass voter revolt in the next election which would probably decimate their political party for the next 10 years.

The other option of choosing the referendum has its flaws too. A referendum is a lengthy and expensive process, not unlike a general election. It requires polling stations stacked with election officials, and vote counters. It is also NOT legally binding. This means that even if an overwhelming amount of voters choose to scrap the tax, the government is not obligated to do so. Though again, failure to listen to the voters most likely means political death.

In recognizing that the non-binding and expensive referendum is not a favorable option, the organizer of the anti-HST movement, Bill Vander Zalm publicly called for the government to call the legislature into session early and to table a bill to repeal the tax.

Vander Zalm, who spent a great deal of effort to rally BC voters to have their voice heard, was also very up front in stating that failure of government MLAs to table the legislation and to listen to voters and repeal the tax would face the unpleasant consequences of a recall.

In true politicking fashion, the Liberal government chose the route of holding a referendum. Next year. This would allow the tax to be integrated into the province for a considerable amount of time (ie, the citizens would be used to paying it), the heat of the topic would die down, and it would buy the government time to buy votes. Pardon me. Regain voter confidence.

Bill Vander Zalm is now on a mission to show the government his bite is as harsh as his bark. He has already set a date for recalling Liberal MLAs. And, he's published his hit list of MLAs that will be recalled first.

While recalling an elected MLA is exceedingly difficult, (it requires 40% of eligible voters in the MLA's riding to sign a petition in 60 days) the MLAs on the hit list should be legitimately worried.

Vander Zalm's campaign has specifically targeted MLAs that are already weak prey. They are the elected officials who won their ridings by slim margins, or have been embroiled in public controversy since the election. In addition, Vander Zalm is going to start with attempting to recall 3 MLAs, with another one being added every month starting in February. To determine who the first 3 targets for recall will be, Vander Zalm is hosting a Survivor-like contest asking for extremely competitive volunteers to help with recall efforts. Whichever 3 ridings have the most volunteers signed up will end up being the targets. Holding this contest should keep the recall efforts on the list of top stories for every BC news outlet for the next 3 months.

Ultimately, Vander Zalm's goal, aside from showing his displeasure with the government, is to recall enough Liberal MLA so that they will lose their majority in the Legislature.

I for one, hope his efforts succeed. This is a rare glimpse of the Canadian public doing something to hold their elected representatives accountable. It happens so rarely in Canadian politics. Other provinces should be paying close attention to these developments. If the recall campaign is successful, voters across the country may decide that there are viable courses of action to punish their representatives for failing to listen to them.

And after all, isn't that what democracy is all about?

For those of you that live in BC, here is Vander Zalm's complete hit list of MLAs. Yours may be on it:

John Slater - Boundary-Simikameen

Donna Barnett - Cariboo Chilcotin

Terry Lake - Kamloops North

Bill Bennett - Kootenay east

Ida Chong - Oak Bay - Gordon Head

Ron Cantelon - Parksville - Quallicum

Bill Barisoff - Penticton

Norm Letnik - Kelowna - Lake Country

Ben Stewart - Kelowna Westside

Steve Thomson - Kelowna - Mission

Eric Foster - Vernon Monashee

John Les - Chilliwack

Don McRae - Comox Valley

John Rustad - Nechako Lakes

Colin Hansen - Vancouver Quilchena

Jane Thornethwaite - North Vancouver - Seymour

Joan McIntyre - West Vancouver - Sea to Sky

Marc Dalton - Maple Ridge - Mission