Thoughts on Political Discussion

We have just come through a federal election that was full of strong feelings and not a few big surprises. It was fascinating, newsworthy and history making.

Yesterday, I asked a friend what she thought about it and I was told in not uncertain terms that she does not discuss politics. I was taken aback with surprise because I haven't heard anybody say that in a very long time. My dad used to say that and to this day I have no idea which way he leaned politically, but in those days people did not, as a rule, discuss their politics.

So I thought is this friend a hang over from my dad's age, but then I realized that if my dad were still with us today, he woud be 100 years old. No, my friend is more like my own age. That can not be the reason.

Perhaps she simply has no interest in politics. Having no interest, perhaps she has no idea what has been happening and feels she doesn't know enough to contribute to a discussion. but, doesn't everybody have an interest in politics and their government? If I said to you, "give me 1/3rd of the money you earn and I will look after it and spend it wisely on your behalf." Would you not be pretty interested in me and what I am doing with your money? I know I would and I am. That can not be the reason.

There is only one other thing I can think of; she does have strong political beliefs. so strong are her beliefs that she soes not want to share them lest she is afraid of offending me. That must be it. Too bad, I would love to know her thoughts even if they don't agree with mine.

Liberals Should Promote Progressive-Canadian Party

While I do not belong to any political party today, ( I used to be a card carrying Tory), I receive regular mailings from the Liberal Party of Canada. Now, while I tend to lean a little right, I have never believed in the Harper Conservatives. They seem to be to be more Alliance and Reform than Progressive-Conservative. There is another party that has the heart of the true P-Cs, in fact, they are the P-Cs, Progressive-Canadian Party of Canada. As I mentioned above, I am not a member but my leanings are that way. Did I also say that I would far prefer the Liberals over the Harper Conservatives?
Today, I sent the following letter to the new Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff (Iggy), offering my sincere congratulations, good luck wishes and suggestion to split the vote on the right.

Mr. Ignatieff:
Congratulations on achieving your new leadership role and I wish you the best of luck in achieving victory over Harper and his Conservatives.
I have no active party affiliations now but am an ex Progressive-Conservative who left the party when Mulroney was campaigning for the MST (Mulroney Sales Tax).
Part of the problem the Liberal Party has today is that the centre and left vote is split between yourselves, the NDP, and Greens. Since the Conservative Party emerged from the PCs, Alliance and Reform, there is no such split on the right. Since any merger of the Liberals with the parties of the left is a non-starter, you must engineer a split on the right.
I suggest that you give some publicity to the Progressive-Canadian Party. I am sure you know that they are the renewed PCs, a true progressive conservative party. The trouble is, they are also Canada's best kept secret; nobody knows about them. If they could become better known, I am sure that they would draw a lot of votes from Canadians who would normally vote Conservative but would be unlikely to ever vote Liberal. Fewer votes for Harper's party equals more Liberals elected and if a few Progressive-Canadians were elected, they would be easier than Conservatives to work with.

Best wishes,
Doug

I don't know if Mr. Ignatieff will even get to read my suggestion, but I hope he does. If he does, I expect it could have two benefits. It could help the Liberals and it would give the Progressive-Canadians some much needed publicity.

I could live with that.

URINE TEST

I must admit that I did not write the following paragraph, it was a forwarded e-mail from a friend in the United States. Is it a little bit hard line; perhaps. When I walk around in the city of Vancouver, BC, I see these people sitting on the streets begging for money. Some have little signs asking for money for a meal or to pay for a place to stay for the night. I always wonder how much is not for the bare necessities of life but rather for drugs, cigarettes and beer.

Unfortunately, many of these people are here in these circumstances due to no fault of their own. Many have mental illness and were put out on the mean streets with little or no support when they were de-institutionalised from Riverview mental hospital, victims of political correctness. Others are unemployable for other reasons such as physical disability. These poor souls should get our help. No one in a country such as Canada or any other rich nation should live on the streets when they had no fault causing them to be there.

Those who are there because they have addicted themselves to narcotic drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine and etc. are victims of self inflicted injury and could have avoided being on the streets simply by avoiding these dangerous drugs which are also illegal under the Criminal codes of Canada, America , Great Britain and most civilised nations of the world.

URINE TEST (I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)I DO HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB..... BUT I AGREE 100%Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I Do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who Don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I Do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . something has to change in this country -- and soon!

For those who are homeless because of mental illness, give them shelter, care, treatment in mental hospitals or other treatment facilities where they can regain the self respect and mental and physical health they have lost.

For those with physical disabilities, much the same thing. Hospitalize those who can be treated for their ailments. Give retraining to those who can benefit from that to enable them to gain control over their own lives. Connect them with suitable agencies such as the Canadian Institute for the Blind or which ever is best suited to assist the person deal with their particular problem or problems.

Some are senior citizens, some quite elderly. Why are they living in such conditions? Chances are they are people who have contributed to this country in past wars as members of the armed forces or as civilians in other occupations. They do not deserve to be living on the mean streets of the city. They do deserve to be given respect, comfortable warm shelter, good nutritious meals and companionship in seniors' homes and if they choose, away from the slum areas where they had been living.

That leaves just the drug addicted who would otherwise be employable were it not for their self inflicted situation. What to do with them. Suggestions range from prison to supplying them with all the drugs they want - for free. The answer probably exists somewhere in between the two extremes or a combination of them. Discussions of the solutions and options are endless and I will not pursue them here, other than to suggest that something needs to be done with and for these people. As a society, we can live with nothing less.

Anti Scab Labour Bill Just won't go away!

I see the ANTI SCAB bill is rearing it's ugly head again in parliament. I know this is a sacred cow for the labour movement who always feel that they are being downtrodden and victimized. I just don't understand how having closed shops where employees don't have the right to work without being forced into the union or to have a secret vote when the union is holding a certification vote, a fundamental part of out democracy. It wouldn't be fair if people could vote against the union without the union bosses seeing who does not support them, would it?

Now the union says they need anti scab legislation in order to prevent an employer who is being struck, rightly or wrongly, from hiring temporary replacement workers.

I realize that there are times when employees are not treated fairly. An employer may not pay the staff fairly or fire without just cause or any number of other issues. There are times when it is difficult for a grieved employee to obtain a satisfactory resolution. If there is no ombudsman or other means to get fair treatment for the employee(s) a strike may be needed to force the issue.

However, there are many times a union wants pay or benefits that are unreasonable or that an employer simply can not afford to grant. In a case like that, a strong union can hold the employer to ransom over a pay raise that is unreasonble or unjustified. Often, it is not just the employer who is injured or hugely inconvenienced, but the public at large. Think government employee unions or transportation or utilities and many others. In many cases, the entire national economy could be put at serious risk.

Why is this a cause for concern now? The Liberal opposition under new leader Stephane Dion is supporting a bill sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois which is not very different that the bill they did not pass when they were in government. Why the change of philosophy now?

Now to my suggestion: PASS THE BILL INTO LAW, but with the following ammendment, "no striking worker will be permitted to accept any other paid employment during the period that the strike is in effect."

If the employer is to be denied the ability to make any money to cover ongoing expenses, pay the bills or create profits, why shouldn't the union members have the equal disadvantage? Or to put it another way, why should the striking workers be able to make money while they are preventing their employer from doing so?

Can you live with it?

Stephen "My Buddy Steve" and the Softwood Lumber Deal

Rant&Rave: August 2006

I've got to get this off my chest. While I consider myself to be pretty much a "right winger", I was loath to see Stephen Harper and his new Conservative Party get elected. Since then, he has done a few things that were starting to sway me into a more supportive position. Then came the Softwood Lumber agreement. First of all, I don't like to support anything that David Emerson is behind, just because he does not represent the good citizens who elected a Liberal and wound up with a Conservative member through no fault of their own.

We wound up with this deal on softwood lumber largely because Steve wants a way to cozy up to his good buddy, George. Now I believe that having a good working relationship and friendship between our leaders is a good thing, but not at any cost.

The US lumber lobby is ruthless. They claim that Canada is using illegal subsidies for our industry which harms theirs. (How about their hugely excessive agricultural subsidies that harm the agriculture industries all over the world, including Canadian farmers) So they have persistanly imposed punitive duties which to date have totalled over $5 billion in spite of the fact that lumber is included in NAFTA and the NAFTA judicial board has consitantly sided with Canada. Steve's Conservative government and George's Republican government negotiated a deal that is highly beneficial to America and for Canada, not quite so much. A summary of the Softwood Lumber Agreement is here, http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1234. It is from the government's own website so it looks very positive.

The government claims that the provinces and industry are supportive of the deal. Well, they are now, they weren't initially. They came on-side when former Liberal David Emerson told them that if they didn't come on-side, the government of Canada would drop the whole matter and leave the provinces and industry to the wolves (not a direct quote). No wonder they came on-side, they were given an offer they couldn't refuse.

Of course, the deal can still fail to pass in Parliament when the enacting legislation comes up in the fall. Now, this could happen very easily because Mr. Harper and his merry band are in a minority position in the House and every party other than his is against the bill. Bingo! Harper is crazy like a fox though. Knowing that the Liberal party will still be leaderless and therefor, not ready for an election, the PM has declared that the bill will be a matter of confience. If it fails, the government will fall and we will have an election shortly thereafter. Absolutely brilliant. He has forced the Liberals into a position where cannot sink the deal, snookered the best interest of the Canadian softwood lumber industry and the will of the majority of Canadians and solidified his relationship with Mr. Bush with one fell (or is that "foul") swoop.

I guess that for the next 7 years we will just have to live with it.

BillBoards Along Vancouver Bridges

There is screaming all over the Vancouver media today about the Squamish Native Canadians plans to erect huge billboards beside the approaches to several to the city's bridges. I have two questions about all the fuss.

1. Why is it a surprise?
2. Are the folks who are so upset the same people who have pushed for native rights for the past several years?

As a little background, I know that a couple of hundred years ago when Canada was a huge forest with rivers for highways and the land was owned by England, France and the Hudsons Bay Company, many treaties were signed on behalf of the British crown which recognized extensive rights to the native bands who occupied the land at that time. At the time, these treaties made a lot of sense and were the right thing to do. The only other option was to try to take the land by whatever means necessary. That would have been the wrong thing to do, but has serious effects on Canadian current events.

Since those days, Canada has become a proud nation and taken its place proudly on the world's stage. Both during the time when we had a system of British comom law and more especially since P.M. Pierre Trudeau gave us a constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have cherished the notion of equality of all our citizens, or at least so far as our rights and obligations as Canadian citizens is concerned; unless you happen to be born a Native Canadian. We have the Indian Act and all the treaties signed so long ago.

In more modern times, Canadians were absolutely indignant about the condition of black people in the United States. We received them by the thousands as they escaped slavery in the US and even into the 1960s we worked to help abolish segregation.

Likewise, we worked very hard on several fronts to eliminate apartheid in South Africa in the firm belief that separation of the races is wrong.

Flash forward to Canada today. Many battles have been won by the native Canadians in the courts to verify and prove the rights granted by treaties signed in the days long ago. Our courts have granted that the treaties are valid and legal to this day and our native Canadians have standing as "First Nations" with powers of nations on a par with Ottawa. As a result, we have defacto apartheid here in Canada today, not inflicted on the minority by the majority, but on the minority by the "First Nations" themselves.

Now, today, in Vancouver, the Squanish Nation owns the land under your bridges. It is their land, they will do with it as they want. They have decided that huge billboards on tall steel poles erected on their land is in their interests. Well Vancouver citizens, you have supported and encouraged native rights to be nations of their own as opposed to being Canadians who happen to be aboriginal. The Squamish Nation has the right to the billboards to block your views of the north shore mountains - live with it.