I know I am. I personally think that people should always vote for the candidate of their choice.

Vote with your heart.

This wonderful article was in the Winnipeg Free Press. Well worth repeating.

I hadn't realised that the NDP had the chance to support a push for proportional representation in 1988.

What do they say about hindsight?

A Harper Majority Would Have Minority Support
By: Frances Russell
Winnipeg Free Press, October 1, 2008

Five political parties and an archaic and politically toxic first-past-the-post electoral system have long turned Canadian federal elections into a crapshoot. The Oct. 14 election promises to be the wildest crapshoot of them all.

The Harper Conservatives, with little more than the same 36-per cent support (124 seats) they obtained in 2006, could win a near or absolute majority government. Imagine, 31 more seats with no increase in votes.

Pollster Nik Nanos of Nanos Research says a majority is mathematically possible. There are close four-way races in B.C. and Montreal where seats can be won with as little as 32 per cent of the vote. "We could have more strategic voting in this election than before."

The Greens have taken five points from the Liberals, leaving the 64 per cent of centre/left Canadians split more evenly than ever before among the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Bloc Québecois and the Greens.

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

So here we are. On almost every major issue of this campaign, from funding for culture and the arts to crime and punishment to the role of government, the four parties of the centre and the left are all closer to each other than they are to Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Yet they and the two-thirds of Canadians they represent could be shut out for four years.

Sick and tired of waiting for their politicians, Canadians are taking matters into their own hands and resorting to strategic voting. Two websites, www.voteforenvironment.ca and www.democraticspace.com/canada2008, offer updated riding-by-riding information on which candidate can defeat the Conservative.

Kevin Grandia, founder of voteforenvironment.ca, reports nearly 39,000 unique visitors to his website in its first three days and 234,335 pageviews. "We have a massive split of the progressive left vote," he says. "There's 17 days left in this election and if we keep pushing hard we could realistically spread the...message to more than one million Canadians..." Democraticspace.com urges visitors to ask themselves "what Harper would do with a majority."

A historian and an English professor who specializes in the use of language for cultural purposes say a Harper majority government or even a strengthened Harper minority would remake the face of Canada.

Trent University historian Dimitry Anastakis says Canada "will be a smaller country. (Harper's) modus operandi is to grind government to a halt through tax cuts or spending cuts and gridlock created by a pseudo-elected Senate, more powers to the provinces and the end of the federal spending power."

Ottawa will do little more than manage national defence.

"(Harper) doesn't like government. He's quite happy to see the provinces usurp the federal government to be the key drivers in how the Canadian economy and key social policies work. So you will see a Canada that can't control greenhouse gas emissions, create social policies, achieve educational goals. The collective approach for dealing with social and economic problems will be out the window."

McMaster University English and cultural studies professor Marc Ouellette says the Harper Conservatives aren't interested in building a Big Tent party. Secure in their 35 per cent ideological base, they are using wedge issues and U.S. Republican-style "culture wars" to smash the coalitions of the other parties. Again, like the Republicans, they hope to win and govern by pitting all against all outside their own Small Tent.

"By playing on peoples' fear of difference, you can get allies from groups who would otherwise be against one another," Ouellette says. "(Ontario Premier Mike) Harris got the doctors' support with tax cuts and the working poor to back him by slashing 'handouts' to people on social assistance.

"It will be: If you get sick, it's your fault; If you're out of work, it's your fault. People will be on their own."

Canadians could face a real revolution after Oct. 14, a revolution desired by little more than a third of us, a revolution courtesy of a broken electoral system.

Martin notes, "The former finance minister's seat is a red island in a Tory blue province, but the last Liberal standing in Saskatchewan is under major attack from credible Conservative and New Democrat hopefuls. It would take a heck of a punch to knock him off the perch he's held since 1993, but the lethal combination of an unpopular Green Shift carbon tax and weak national campaign could finally be enough bad news to silence a politician whose voice is always heard, at times rather loudly, in the House of Commons."

Is this just a scribe throwing a dart at the board or is there anything to it?  The Conservatives, in particular, have targeted this riding with a flood of printed propaganda over the past year or two. We'll know whether the strategy has had any impact by this Friday.  That's when the Leader-Post will publish the results of a poll in the Wascana riding.  The polling firm, Sigma Analytics, has been surveying voters in the seat for the past four days and completes its work tonight.

Last week, the Leader-Post published the results of a Sigma poll in the Palliser riding which showed the Conservative candidate with 43 per cent of decided voters compared to 36 per cent for the NDP candidate.  Sigma's Cam Cooper reiterated today in my media class that it's unlikely the NDP can overtake the Tory lead in the seat.

The pressure builds up on campaign workers, doing 12 hour days seven days a week, and on the way home after debate night things just exploded into an argument about which way to get to Dairy Queen!

Below: Oh oh! I think the Campaign Manager's about to blow!

But happily it cleared the air after what had been a few hours stuck in the fetid environment of the campaign office with dozens of other people, as the temperature and noise level was rising.

So if global warming will feel anything like that, then it's something well worth avoiding.

Which brings me to my topic: the environment.

Carbon Tax Pt 2
Like (I suspect) most people, I've been subject to pollsters calling and asking my opinion on everything from public transit to the arts. But the most memorable question was during a poll about the environment. The question was:

"Which of these effects of global warming are you most concerned about?"

That sort of took me aback, because although we're all so concerned about carbon emissions and global warming, I don't know if anyone really knows what the effects would be.

The answer I plumped for (it was a multiple-choice question) was the effect on animal species and plant life. After all, if mankind is affected (health problems was another option) then it's largely our own fault, and there are enough of us to carry on the species regardless. But if an endangered species becomes even more endangered then I call that a tragedy.

So how do we prevent this from happening? Well there's Carbon Taxes, and there's a David Suzuki article on CBC.ca about that very subject. The problem is, I don't see it working.

As Suzuki says, "We don't hesitate to pay $90 a tonne to put garbage into landfills yet we seem to think putting pollution in the air should be free."

My response is, well that's true, but if we don't hesitate to pay $90 a tonne for garbage, why will we hesitate to pay $90 a tonne for air pollution? It certainly isn't likely to affect industry and business, who will just pass on the costs to us (the consumers).

And if prices do rise, and we do buy less, then the response from corporate Canada will no doubt be to ship jobs off to countries with less stringent labour codes, in order to keep their profits up.

So, in my opinion, the NDP are on the right track with their Cap and Trade policy. Here from their platform document:

• We will put a price on carbon through a “cap-and-trade” carbon pricing system which establishes hard limits on pollution.

Get it? "Hard limits on pollution". As I've noted before, a simple carbon tax is a license to pollute if you have the money: if an industry pays $90 per tonne for landfill, why wouldn't it pay $90 per tonne for carbon emissions?

• All revenue will be applied to environmental solutions.

What? You mean you won't create a new level of government so you can just give it straight back as a rebate?

Greens and the Green Siksay Endorsements
Actually the Greens are disappointing me on this front. Jane's told me a number of times that the Green Party is more right-wing than you'd think, but I was never that sure if I believed it. Turns out she was right.

Not only is the Green Carbon Tax policy apparently the same method as the Conservative and Liberals are advocating, but they are very much Tory in returning that money to the country through an income tax cutting policy, as May revealed during the recent debates.

Speaking of the Greens, it turns out the Burnaby-Douglas Green candidate from the previous election, Ray Power, has now endorsed our own Bill Siksay for the seat! Apparently he was convinced by Bill's performance in the last election's all-candidate debates (no wonder Leung is skipping so many debates this time).

Anyway, Power's endorsement includes the quote:

"I've given much consideration before I decided where I would place my vote... I believe he [Bill] represents the basics of the community. Having run for office myself I realize how difficult it is to stick to your beliefs and still be successful. Last time as the Green Party candidate I found Bill to be courteous at all times. He earned my respect and has earned my vote."

And, if that's not enough, Bill also gets the endorsement from voteforenvironment.ca (not bad for a site run by a confirmed Liberal) and from voteforclimate.ca (I wouldn't call the latter a ringing endorsement, but it's still more than the other candidates got).

Did You Vote Already?
1.5 million voters already did, which means they won't be getting phone calls from political parties this weekend reminding them. But I hope the weather's going to be good for Thanksgiving, because apparently Dion said the Liberals are having a big party in a tent somewhere.

Cheers

Yes: I voted NDP in the advanced poll, because I'll be busy on e-day campaigning with my wife, she being Bill Siksay’s campaign manager. But even though my politics are on the left, and my writing obviously thus biased, I do hope I have an open mind and am un-biased in listening to what others have to say.

We will address the non-standard employment relationships like part-time, contract, and temporary work and variable schedules. All of these are especially important to women, who often must shoulder the additional burdens of caring for elderly parents and for children.

Why do women always have to shoulder the additional burdens of caring for elderly parents and for children?

Why don't men help the women out a bit, if this is the case?

Thanks for the inclusion in this candidate questionnaire.

Answers are at the bottom of the questions.

Thanks,
Steve

Council of Canadians – London Chapter

Candidate Questionnaire

The Council of Canadians is a strictly non-partisan, not for profit organization with over 100,000 members and 70 chapters across Canada. The well-known author and activist Maude Barlow is our voluntary chairperson. Some of our major campaigns include the fight for non-profit health care, the protection of our water, fair trade, sustainable energy and environmental policies, and socially just initiatives at home and abroad.

Each election, we find ourselves inundated with sound bites from candidates and parties that give us a sense of their positions on various issues, but leave us wanting more details on the specifics of their policies. We do look through the various web sites to view each party’s platform, however, in addition, the Council of Canadians – London Chapter has determined that asking each candidate who has registered in the 2008 London election to provide answers to a series of questions that reflect our core concerns as a chapter would be beneficial to our members and your potential electorate. The questions we have determined have the most relevant connection to our specific interests areas follows…

1. Are you aware of the status of the Canadian government's national policy on water? What is your position on the commodification of water and Canada's stance on the human right to water?

2. Would you support renegotiating NAFTA? If so, what parts of the agreement would you like to see renegotiated and why?

3. Would you support changes in our health care system to allow more private-sector participation, or do you believe that our health care system should be run on a not-for-profit basis? Why? Can you outline what you would do to keep the private sector out of our national health care system?

4. What do you feel is the best role for Canada in the Afghanistan conflict? Or should Canada withdraw it’s troops?

5. What concrete steps would your federal party government take to reduce poverty in London, and across the country? How actively would you participate in this effort?

6. What would you commit to do to, at the federal government level that would help in the goal to assist the City of London to achieve status as a sustainable city?

7. Are you in favour of a National Energy Strategy? Could you outline your thoughts on this in summary?

8. Would you be prepared to support some form of electoral reform, such as the system suggested for the province of Ontario during the last election, at the federal government level? Would you support the establishment of a citizens committee to look into what system would be the most appropriate national proportional representation system?

9. Given the very serious negative effects on our environment flowing out of the intensive agriculture industry (factory farming), would you be prepared to support a moratorium on any further permits or expansions?

10. And last but most importantly. We have seen many accounts, before and during this election campaign, in print, on the web and expressesed verbally from your party representatives with respect to how your party has elected to deal with the real and urgent problem of climate change and global warming. Will you, in the most clear and succinct way possible, let us know – how confident

There are fourteen registered candidates in the 2008 London election. We sent our questionnaire to all of these candidates. Our intention is to review the answers provided from the candidates with the members of our Political Action Committee. We also expect that we will make your responses on these important questions available to our members.

If you should choose to not respond, this will also be noted.

Please let us know through email that you have received this communication and your intentions with respect to participating. If we don’t hear from you very soon we will try to contact you by phone, and if this fails we will have to assume you have declined to participate.

Thanks for your cooperation, and we wish you the best of luck in your campaign.

Council of Canadians

London Chapter

Political Action Committee

1. The Progressive Canadian Party is aware that there is not a comprehensive water policy for Canada in place. We believe a national water policy is urgently needed to provide access to safe, drinkable water to all Canadians and native peoples of Canada. A water inventory is urgently needed to get a very accurate report of the amount of available water. We also need to more to protect water that has not yet been affected by human intervention. We as a party do not believe in the commodification of water and we believe that the water in Canada is ours and we need to become better stewards of this precious resource.
2. Our predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party was the party that brought in both the FTA and paved the way for NAFTA. While the FTA was flawed, we did at the time, believe that it did aid in making Canada more productive in the eighties and early nineties. Now however, seeing that the U.S. has time and time again not lived up to their side of the agreement on many different issues and our concern now for the sovereignty of Canada has led our party, The Progressive Canadian Party, to now believe that the NAFTA agreement needs to be at least renegotiated and perhaps abrogated.
3. The Progressive Canadian Party does not support changes to our health care system to allow private sector participation. We believe in a single tier system and we believe we have ideas to improve the system. We believe in providing predictable, stable levels of funding each year to the provinces. Our education policy will influence doctors and nurses trained in this country to stay and practice in this country and we have started to work out a preliminary plan to see if we can export our system to the United States.
4. Our party feels the only role for our troops in Afghanistan is to have a nation building role in the country. We would push to move our troops out of the combat role as soon as possible and also drastically reduce troop levels. We would support a military influence to train the Afghani army and police forces and aid in building their infrastructure at a governmental level. We could still operate in a peace keeping role but we would still allow Canadian soldiers to defend themselves.
5. The Progressive Canadian Party believes that Federal government should provide a leadership role in reducing the level of poverty across Canada. Our steps to reduce levels are as follows. We believe that all chills benefit programmes should be indexed to inflation and as resources permit, all child benefit programmes should be reviewed and increased. GST would be removed from reading materials. We would also develop a National Homeless Strategy which would provide the tools to prevent and alleviate homelessness. We would also make available in each community all available federally owned facilities that are not being used to create temporary shelters. We would also create a social auditing agency to review on a yearly basis, all social programs in Canada and find where improvements could be made.
6. Our Party is still in the process of developing our full environmental policy. To this point what we would offer London in becoming a sustainable city would be the minimum of the one cent tax on gas to be provided to municipalities for infrastructure renewal. We are looking to add an additional cent for municipalities. Part of our National Energy Efficiency Program allows for homeowners to take out low interest loans on home equity or from RSPs in order to finance the retrofitting of homes for energy saving projects or for the changing over to alternative sources of power for their homes.
7. Taking into account the sensitivities of Alberta, we do advocate a National Energy Strategy. Some of ideas include eliminating all tax breaks to the oil sector for oil exploration but to provide incentives for those same companies by providing them with the first opportunity for tax breaks in developing alternative sources of energy. We would recommend developing a task force of many members such as Peter Lougheed and others in order to develop a plan that all provinces could agree to implement.
8. We in the PC Party realize that some type of reform is needed in order to engage the Canadian voting public. We at this time do not know what that system would like so we could support the establishment of a citizens committee to study the issue and we would recommend that any changes to the system would be heavily advertised years before an election in order to allow the changes to become accepted and successful.
9. Our Party has not discussed this issue in any depth up to this point. We know many of our members would probably support this proposal but we do not have a policy statement on this issue.
10. The PC Party that Canada is not living up to its world environmental commitments at this time. We believe that we need to honour the Kyoto Accord commitments we agreed to as a starting point. We also believe that a made in Canada approach to climate change will provide us with not only a cleaner environment but also a vibrant, sustainable, clean economy. We are not afraid of tackling the issue. We consider it an opportunity to show to the world what Canadians can do to solve the problem not something to hide from and continue with the status quo.

The Liberal plan at $10/tonne is a babystep compared to that of the Green Party at $50/tonne.

Needless to say the Harper Conservatives would prefer to do nothing about climate change...

Their policies have favoured the rapid expansion of the environmentally destructive Alberta Tar Sands.

And the NDP?

Well they currently oppose a carbon tax favouring a cap and trade system that David Suzuki and other environmentalists have questioned.

Back Carbon Tax, Leading Economists Tell Politicians
The Ottawa Citizen, October 7 2008
Joanna Laucius

More than 230 academic economists have signed an open letter to the leaders of the federal political parties, urging them to acknowledge that putting a price on carbon is "the best approach" to combatting climate change.

In a rare show of agreement, the economists say public policy needs to protect the environment "because in the absence of policy, individuals generally don't take the environmental consequences of their actions into account, and the result is 'market failure' and excessive levels of pollution for all of us."

The signatories include the godfather of Canadian economics, Richard Lipsey, whose name is familiar to generations of university economics students as lead author of the classic text Economics, now in its 13th edition.

The economists say their purpose is not to support any political platform, but to ground discussion on accepted economic principles.

Prices have to increase to provide incentives to change behaviour, said Nancy Olewiler, an environmental economist at Simon Fraser University who was one of the originators of the letter, along with Ross Finnie of the University of Ottawa and David Green of the University of British Columbia.

"We just wanted to clear the air about these issues," said Ms. Olewiler, who has been analysing various carbon-pricing scenarios for more than a decade. "It's supply and demand. We have been teaching this since Adam Smith."

The three originators of the letter came up with the idea about three weeks ago, then e-mailed a draft to other economics professors last Wednesday.

By Friday, they had about 200 signatures, with more trickling in over the weekend. That's an astonishing number for academics not typically inclined to act collectively and quickly on policy issues, Mr. Finnie said.

Pricing carbon allows every business and family to decide for itself how it values the things that generate carbon, the letter says. Each can consider the options and everyone has the incentive to change, but does it in a way that's best for them.

"This is how to get the most bang for the buck," said Mr. Lipsey, who calls global warming the most important problem of the century. "I think the whole thing should be revenue neutral. You cut other taxes. Low carbon users end up paying less."

The economists argue that pricing encourages innovation because users of carbon-intensive goods will demand alternatives. Regulation is the most expensive way to meet the goal because users don't have a choice, the letter says.

In a well-designed carbon-tax strategy, increases would be introduced gradually and announced ahead of time, providing consumers with some certainty and allowing them to make decisions based on what they know is coming.

A "cap and trade system" is another price alternative, although a more complicated one. It works like a quota system, allowing carbon users to buy and sell carbon allowances.

Mr. Finnie said the signatories don't support one party over another.

"You can say that the Liberals have a carbon tax. Is it a good carbon tax? That's a whole other question," he said. "This is not about influencing the election, it's about clarifying debate."

Things are hoting up both locally and nationally...

NDP leader Jack Layton will be in Guelph on October 12th 2008 for a campaign event at the Woolwich Arms at 9. 00 p.m.

For those of you who would like to see Slacker Uprising, Michael Moore's new movie the NDP Youth are having a screening at 8.00 p.m. on October 8th in Room 442 University Centre. The event is free and open to all.

You can also download your own copy. Cool!

DOSOMEGREEN.com provides this information in a strictly educational capacity. The views of these parties aren’t necessarily our own. We aim to provide information on Canada’s political parties so that voters can make an informed decision. In the name of objectivity, all information on this page is quoted directly from the web-sites of the parties—some have been adapted for length. Any additional information can be found at the web-sites provided. We attempted to give equal coverage to all parties, but some had more information than others, which is why our coverage may seem uneven. Please email us your questions or comments about the parties/issues below, or leave a comment on our blog.

Party Information

…we want the government to.

For example, opposition leaders are taking easy aim at the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta for two reasons:

1) Let’s face it, the tar sands are not an organic broccoli farm.

2) The East has always been jealous of the perceived wealth of the West, and that instinct is being used against Ontario and Quebec voters.

The problem with Canada’s pollution “problem” is not Shell, PetroCan, or SynCrude. It is you and me.

As I look out my office window, the parking lot must be 75% SUV’s, the rest midsize sedan’s and one scooter. To that person, I salute you! Yet if polls are any indication, about that same number who own guzzling vehicles also want the government to do “something” about the environment.

What a typical load of Canadian moose pass-the-buck crap. Same goes for you Americans as well.

I’m not saying government has no role…because it does. But do not wipe your hands like Pontius Pilate thinking it will make you innocent…because it doesn’t. We’re killing our planet and our bodies every day just by going to the McDonald’s drive-thru and not for one second considering the consequences of our “freedom of choice”.

And Liberal environmental policy is simply a convenient load of bull the public wants to believe in order to be absolved of guilt. People, people…CARBON is not the problem…METHANE is. You know, the air that comes out of your fat liberal ass after you’ve had your third Quarter Pounder with extra Cheese in a row, all the while complaining about why the government doesn’t save the world…that gas. Methane is 20 times more powerful, and a far bigger problem.

So the big talk amongst the Liberals, NDP and Green’s isn’t so much a smokescreen as much as it is a blatant 5-bean chili beer fart in your face.

But know this…if by some sick joke from God the Green Party ever won a majority government, things would not change. The gas for your car, power for your home, and the oil required to make the endless plastic garbage for little Jimmie’s Christmas toys has to come from somewhere.

Governments make policy, but reality always wins…no matter what the politicians tell you. The government simply follows your lead.

Andrew McKeever stepped down - though his name will still be on the ballot in Durham - for making inappropriate comments on Facebook. It's not just blogs and photos that come back to haunt policitians ... now it's a social networking site.

Now I can understand why a site like votefortheenvironment.ca would choose May, although the NDP has a good track record on the issue as well. However, the credibility of these sites is questionable when they don't give any statistical justification for such endorsements.

The bigger question, I guess, is do I agree with strategic voting? The short answer would have to be in some cases. However, ultimately our political system is made stronger by voters being able to and/or excerising their right to vote for whatever party best addresses their concerns. Aside from the financial benefit voting for your party of choice has, it also increases the national strength of that party by the increased vote total.

Now say you typically vote Liberal but you live in a Western riding where they have finished a distant 3rd in the past 3 elections. In the last election the NDP candidate came very close to beating out the Conservative incumbent, but fell short by a thousand votes. What should you do?

In my humble opinion you should first ask yourself:

1. Can I accept having a Conservative MP in my riding?

2. Am I willing to vote for a party that doesn't best represent me to possibly avoid having a Conservative MP?

If you can definitively answer yes to the second question than strategic voting is for you; however, if you have any mis-givings than you should vote for your party of choice.

However, strategic voting won't work in every riding. For example Saskatoon-Wanuskewin (my old stomping grounds) for the past 3 elections has seen the Conservative incumbent gain at least 45% of the popular vote, while the NDP and Liberals split (nearly down the middle) 50%. Given these voting patterns it would be virtually impossible to convince enough Liberal or NDP supporters to vote for the other party en masse. Additionally, any strategic voting suggestion made purely on the basis of the last 2 elections would be skewed given the inability to account for on-the-ground realities within the riding. These include:

- general decrease in Liberal support across the province

- inactive Liberal riding association inbetween elections

- the loss of the Liberal star candidate who ran in the past 2 elections

- differences in campaign budgets for all parties between 2006 and 2008

That's what make predictions such as this one completely irrelavent.

Q) What’s the difference between the Tory party and a deep sea oil rig?

A) One’s a commercial venture that involves steering an unstable platform through stormy waters in order to loot and pillage the environment. The other’s a deep sea oil rig!

It's strange, but with a week to go before e-day there's a temporary downturn in volunteer activity; the signs have been placed and the phoning mostly been done. So now although Campaign Manager Jane is busy, I (the Campaign Widow) have had more time on my hands than I would like. You see, the problem is that the pressure is still mounting and there's no outlet for that pressure.

Since it was raining too yesterday (Saturday), the only thing to work hard at was cleaning the house. Perhaps Jane will reconsider her view on the frequency of elections, if it means I get the urge to do a bit more housework. It does help that we just bought a new vacuum cleaner with one of those whirly vortex things, as I'm a sucker for technology.

However, Jane did make the fatal mistake of telling me not to worry, that there would be plenty to do next weekend. So I kicked back and let the housework go on Sunday, with the result that there's a big pile of dishes and no-one inclined to do them!

On the plus side, Tris and I built a wonderful fire-house to store his fire engines in.

Above: Look closely and you'll see the rooftop helipad and built-in fire pole:

Back to the politics... I'll admit the opening joke is not funny in lots of ways. Aside from being totally lame, the worst unfunny-ness is that if it was even fractionally true it would go against what most people appear to want from their government at this time. But how could the Conservatives not be what the people want, if they are voted back into government?

Well, one problem is that no-one really knows what's in the Conservative platform because it hasn't been released yet. They are being VERY coy about their plans this time around and a rumour I've heard is that they won't have one at all! To me it's absolutely bizarre that we can have already had the leaders debates and the advanced voting polls without even knowing what it is we are voting for (or in my case, against).

Show us the money Steve! We want to know what's going on behind that smug little smile of yours.

But more than that, it's just frightening the lack of involvement many Tory candidates have in their own campaign. It's like they are just relying on the central campaign to provide the momentum to get them elected.

For example, I've only had one piece of Tory literature delivered, and it was obscure to the point where it might as well have been written in Latin. Jane has been worrying that her leaflets have been too wordy, but at least they have something to say and actually say it. The only thing the Tory pamphlet did was promise a "stronger, safer" Canada. Compare that to the amount of outrageous crap being delivered before the election - at the taxpayer's expense I might add - and that tells you something else too: they just don't want to make waves while under the spotlight because they think they are still far enough ahead for a majority.

Many candidates have ducked debates too, or refused to answer questions. When Dona Cadman refuses to answer questions it's almost understandable (I mean there's only one question we all have, and what sort of answer could she give?) but when a well-known local MP such as James Moore virtually disappears off the radar you have to suspect that it's a deliberate tactic.

Below: The NDP Sweater. Nothing to hide!

In the case of Leung (the Conservative candidate for Burnaby-Douglas) he too has ducked a number of all-candidate debates, but did show up to the one last weekend, where he insisted on translating Bill Siksay's answers (anyone see the slight conflict of interest that might pose?) The funniest part to me was the last question which was apparently placed by Mrs. Leung. What a joke! I'm sure that must have been an off-the-cuff insightful question and not in any way previously rehearsed!

So given all the above, you have to wonder whether people are even aware of what the Tory party represents. There have been enough hints over the past couple of years, but I worry that this quiet is the calm before a storm of unpleasant and unjust legislation during the next parliament.

If there is an innocent explanation, perhaps it's simply that the platform is taking so long because Harper can only type with one finger?!

Thinking about all that made me wonder: if I were given the choice of either a Tory minority government, or a Tory majority government but with the NDP as the official opposition, which would I pick?

I'm very thankful it's only a hypothetical question, since I really wouldn't want to make a decision of that magnitude. It's like deciding whether you want your left or right foot cut off (when obviously you'd sooner not lose either!) Anyone out there reading this got an opinion (anyone out there reading this at all?)

Back later,

I guess that at this point, you'll have figured out where my political allegiances lie. Yes, I'm an NDP'er and as my wife is Bill Siksay’s constituency assistant I am totally biased in favour of her keeping her job. But since she was voted one of the top constituency assistants in Canada and since Bill was voted "Smartest Politician" by readers of Burnaby News Leader, they make a great team and him winning would be the best thing for both the city of Burnaby and me!

Really this isn't an active choice, more of a process of elimination.  So here we go:

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party - first of all, misnomer.   Try Alliance Reform we like Ross Perot party.  I kid, no name calling necessary.  They simply don't align with my values, straight up.  Proponents of private health care, irresponsibly accelerated rates of oil extraction in the Tar Sands, cuts to the arts, and have less foresight than Sarah Palin's pitbull/lipstick joke.  Not to mention his Bush-like refusals to have meaningful conversations with the media for the past few years.  And oh yeah, where's your bloody platform?  Don't worry, I know it's not under your sweater.

Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party - Stephane, I like you enough, really I do.  But it's because I really want to like you and I'm trying my damndest to like you.  You're making it bloody difficult.  I want you to show us the fierce strong guy that brought us the Clarity Act.  But now you rely on your "team" of Bob fucking Rae and all the guys that couldn't beat you in the leadership convention?!?  Come on.  This team now fully means that you and everyone else believe that you can't lead on your own.  You seem like a great guy, and I even don't mind your Green Shift plan, but you're just not the right person to take on Mr. Harper and take back the country to the Canadian Redbook middle.  I want Ignatieff, and quick.

Jack Layton and the NDP - JACK.  You were my guy!  We were all tight, I talked to you on the Danforth about water quality and your trip to Gros Morne and your trip with Olivia to the caves!  Your numbers are increasing in the polls, and I am happy for you.  Overall, you're fighting a good fight, you're just not going to get my vote while I live here in Montreal, QC.  You want to know why?  Because I'm getting worried that this "integrity" you preach is bullshit.  You are selling out Anglophone Quebecers by supporting Bill 101 in order to gain more Francophone votes.  Among many other things, Bill 101 helps strengthen the use of the French language in Quebec, implicity discouraging anglophones from moving and residing in Quebec.  Although I can see where this bill is coming from (in a separatist kind of way), as an English speaker in Montreal (and trying my damndest to learn your impossible dialect), my life here would be much more difficult if 101 was fully implemented.  Thus I can't support you this time.  And after witnessing you dodging too many questions, spinning answers like a typical untrustworthy politician, your cap and trade climate change solution, and being vehemently pro-union, I'm wondering about my future support.

Elizabeth May and the Greens - Well missy May.  Sorry, Mz. May.  You got my vote, I want to ride your bandwagon.  Or should I say Via trainwagon.  I secretly want to think your cross Canada tour on the train was exactly like Festival Express.  Please tell me you're Janis.  Anyway, this is a woman that not only impressed me but many other Canadians in the televised national debate.  She supports the OECD recommended income tax cut/carbon tax plan, even supported by neo-con idols (read: head economists).  For me, she offers answers with honesty, integrity, and foresight.  This is what I see lacking in virtually all parties.  Stephen Harper's eyes cannot see past 4 years into the future, as do most politicians.  The economy will always take some sort of hit when shifting to more environmental policies, but this impact won't be far reaching, especially if the country invests intelligently in developing green energy and related industries. Quick tip boys and girls - do you know where oil comes from?  how about those precious automobiles and the rest of the manufacturing sector?  Even the computers you're typing on?  Yes, it all comes from the EARTH.  Having weak environmental policy is having weak long term economic policy, plain and simple.  Do we want to be a short term thinking kind of society?  We are way smarter than that.  We can only go on ignoring weak environmental policy for so long.  Let's actually be proactive here.  You know what reactive politics gets you?  THIS.  I could rant forever, but Elizabeth May believes in fostering local food production (a huge issue for me), punishing polluters, investing in national rail, and getting troops out of Afghanistan in a respectable period of time.  Sign me up.

The awesome and hilarious irony of this overly long post is that yours truly, a left wing anglophone living in Montreal resides in a little riding called Laurier-Sainte Marie.  Do you know who has been running in this riding the past decade or so?

Isn't irony a bitch?  Gilles, you're a good guy, and I hear this is your last campaign.  I'm glad this is the last time an anglophone's vote won't count in your lovely riding. :)  Allez Vert!

The news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca is offering candidates a free, one-minute video spot on our election website where they can raise issues, talk campaign plans and get their message out to voters.

Videos will be posted within their corresponding riding page (see tab at top of this page) and posted on our main news page as they are filmed and produced. So check back often as more roll in!

Please note: The views expressed in these videos are those of the candidate and are not necessarily those of the news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca or Toronto Community News.

Ironically, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has emerged as a formidable leadership presence on the Canadian political scene, while Liberal leader Stephane Dion continues to face criticism for his perceived lack of leadership ability - a perception I believe firmly rooted in his English language proficiency and not any deficiency as a potential Prime Minister. Dion has impressed me increasingly over the election as an exceedingly honest man in a world seemingly devoid of honesty; he is compassionate, sensitive, - God forbid we have a leader who is compassionate and sensitive, he won't be "tough" enough to make the hard calls - educated, intelligent and earnest. Prior to this election, I think the only time I heard him speak was when he accepted his party's leadership nomination last year. Like most Western Canadians, I barely know the guy, but I'd trust him over Harper any day.

The NDP's Jack Layton is slick, approachable and quite likely prepared to be PM, but despite promises of all sorts of money for children under 18 and social programs, I have yet to get a real sense of what the NDP gives me that the other parties - Green or Liberal - can't. Either the person seems acceptable but the party isn't or the party isn't moving Canadians, but the person is. What to do?

So, without further delay, I present the five people who would make better Prime Ministers than Stephen Harper. Yes, several have strong American connections, but so does our PM and desperate times require desperate measures.

Here they are:

5. Ben Mulroney
Hey, he manages to keep that self-absorbed, self-inflated Canadian Idol judge Zack Werner from pushing everyone into his vat of acrid-smelling hyperbole, all the while looking every bit the shiny metrosexual we'd all like to hang with - he could probably coax a conciliatory word out of Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad. He's positive and supportive of losers and winners alike and has a hot girlfriend, proving people aside from his own parents like him.

4. Senator Larry Campbell
The real maverick, Campbell shoots from the hip and calls 'em like he sees 'em. No need for a large communications staff, he would do all his own talking and let the rest of his party talk, too. If he didn't like what they said, he'd tell them. His track record for listening to constituents and bringing widely dissenting opinions together at the table would be a stark contrast to Steve's House of Mirrors. He also knows Arctic Sovereignty is not important to Canadians.

3. Margaret Atwood & Anne-Marie MacDonald (co-PMs)
Both because they're really busy and need time to write. Both because they are incredibly smart and have wicked senses of humour (have you read The Edible Woman?) We need some of that. MacDonald has been on Oprah, so we're talking the Six Degrees of Barack Obama here.

2. Matthew Perry
This Canadian looks great in a sweater vest, talks fast AND has worked in the White House. Okay, so he was acting on The West Wing, but he had to meet with technical consultants (who've worked in the REAL White House), learn his lines, recite them back believably and look good doing it. Hey, wait a minute, that kinda sounds like - another day for her.

1. Janeane Garofalo
Although an American, the radio host, actor and comedian demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics and the issues heading into this election that would shame most Canadians during her CBC interviews with Stephen Quinn and Jian Ghomeshi last month. Also a West Wing alum, she's preparing for a new role on 24 and we're betting she'll get to do more than keep an eye on Russia. Now, if we could just dispel those nasty Scientology rumours I'd email her a marriage - limited domestic partnership? - proposal....

On one side…the side we see…we have the leaders saying things about each other which often amount to little more than complete and utter BS, scare tactics, and out and out lies. They give half-truths about themselves and each other in the hope that you, the more often than not uninformed voter, will take the bait. This is the buildup to WrestleMania, and everyone wants the audience pumped.

The side we don’t see is the locker-room. Where the politicians slap each other on the ass and chuckle with one another. Stephen “HitMan” Harper looks at “Smiling Jack” Layton and jabs, “ you got me on that ‘incompetent’ comment you ol’ communist bastard, you!”. Stephane “Captain Planet” Dion and Dirty Duceppe banter amongst themselves in French about how sacrilegious it is to have a Calgarian for a Prime Minister, and Elizabeth May…who is little more than the unknown wrestler of the week…sits alone because nobody likes a jobbing whiner who snuck in the door.

So how much of what we see is real? Well, in as much as even Hulk Hogan had some locker-room politics, that’s probably about as far as it goes in professional politics too.

What is even more frighteningly similar to the freak-show of wrestling is how we, the public, respond to the political promos. The main reason some people don’t like Prime Minister Harper is because although he’s a great “wrestler”, he doesn’t necessarily do a good promo. Jack Layton does a good promo, but he's a “wrestling one trick pony” that would run the country into the ground.

Staying with me on the wrestling comparisons so far?  Good…

Remember people, what you are seeing is the show. If you get caught up in the quick one liners and flashy displays, you will quickly loose sight of real issues.

Look past the “political spandex”, and try to see reality.

Please note: The views expressed in these videos are those of the candidate and are not necessarily those of the news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca or Toronto Community News.

The news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca is offering candidates a free, one-minute video spot on our election website where they can raise issues, talk campaign plans and get their message out to voters.

Videos will be posted within their corresponding riding page (see tab at top of this page) and posted on our main news page as they are filmed and produced. So check back often as more roll in!

Please note: The views expressed in these videos are those of the candidate and are not necessarily those of the news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca or Toronto Community News.

The news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca is offering candidates a free, one-minute video spot on our election website where they can raise issues, talk campaign plans and get their message out to voters.

Videos will be posted within their corresponding riding page (see tab at top of this page) and posted on our main news page as they are filmed and produced. So check back often as more roll in!

Please note: The views expressed in these videos are those of the candidate and are not necessarily those of the news team at insidetorontoVOTES.ca or Toronto Community News.

- Harper minority government, with more seats than the last

- The Liberals will not break 100 seats but will get at least 90

- The New Democrats will increase their seat count above the current 30

- Elizabeth May will not win her riding, but will stick on as leader

- The Greens will increase their popular vote to at least 8%, but will not win a seat

- Goodbye Fournier, Lunn, Clement, Flaherty

- Goodbye Kennedy

- Hello confidence motion bonanza for the next 2 years

- Watch out for those knives Dion

This is a reasonable approach to a government committed to fiscal responsibility in a time of economic uncertainty, as this pledge is worth an additional $50 million to parents.

The Liberal leader has promised to double the benefit, a benefit he voted against in favour of a national daycare program, one promised to Canadians since the 1993 election.

When the Tories initiated the $2.5 billion program in 2006, they axed the $5 billion supposedly put aside for the national plan to give parents a choice, instead of committing to another expensive, government run bureaucracy.  Stephane Dion wants to bring the cost back up to $5 billion.

What is it with the Liberals?  Why do they, along with the NDP, think Canadians want our federal governments to tax and then spend, spend, spend?  All we've heard about is the Tory "squandering" of a "$20 billion surplus", when in fact, the Tories truly balanced the budget by giving more back to Canadians.  The carbon tax, on the other hand, will create a $12 billion deficit and will increase government revenue twice as much as the Liberals say they'll reduce taxes. 

The NDP want to scrap $50 billion in corporate tax cuts on one side of their mouths, then promise to keep jobs in Canada on the other side of their mouths, without actually explaining how they'll keep businesses from moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

I can't understand, for the life of me, why the media in this country seem to be on some sort of suicide mission, refusing to publish the realities of the dangerous levels of spending both parties propose!

Instead, they're preoccupied with glorifying the separatists, accusations of plagiarism and publications of NDP lies! (It's all Harper's fault that individuals have bad credit resulting in the banks declining credit applications, didn't you know?)  It took CTV, for example, until 11am EST to even publish this announcement on their election website. 

The Tories have a sound, safe and measured approach. The others do not, and I can't understand the fact why the media aren't educating the public on the realities of the dangerous promises made by the Opposition.

ANOTHER THING: It seems as though the Prime Minister is trying to reach out directly to Canadians after all. I saw a Conservative-funded message from the PM on television this morning explaining the realities of the economy and the dangers of taking huge risks like implementing a carbon tax.  Once it's available on YouTube, I'll put it up.  I still think a scheduled message from the Prime Minister is the smart way to go, but then again, I don't make the big bucks as an advisor.

I think we can generally expect both leaders to be trying to woo soft support their way for the next 7 days, sparing no ounce of pride.

Let's just not forget about Harper & Co, who seem to be finally having to deal with the faults, blunders, and evasiveness that has marked their entire campaign.