The candidates in attendance were John Carmichael of the Conservatives who completely squandered his opening statement by talking about how he was a businessman.� His opening statement offered nothing of use. All he did was use it as a soapbox to talk about himself and being a car salesmen.� If nothing else, it affirmed the belief I had – he’s perfect Conservative material.� He knows squat about the common man and will use smooth talk to get what he wants.� I don’t want to be sold to, I want to hear what his beliefs are!

The next one was Cathy Holiday of the Communist Party.� In America this would have been absolutely unheard of and unpatriotic, but as this is Canada, it’s a different ball game up here.� While her speech did give a sense of what she stood for, she ran out of time and got the bell dinged twice by the moderator and had been unable to finish.

Running for the Green party was Dr. Georgina Wilcock.� Sure she may have had an impressive resume if she was seeking work in a hospital or a medical clinic but this the political realm and she came off sounding like a one-trick pony.� Her accent may have made her seem intelligent and her opening statement was performed nicely; she didn’t otherwise offer much.

This brings us to the last two, the first being the Liberal candidate, Rob Oliphant, a minister.� While he used to opening statement as it was meant to be used, I got the feeling he was on the merge of spewing national policy before the questions were even read out.� Overall, he came out smelling like roses and appeared personable compared to the Tory and Green candidates.

Lastly is our man, the candidate for the NDP, David Sparrow whose opening speech was fired by passion.� � His opening statement was the embodiment of the NDP’s core beliefs and stance.� His opening statement got some moderate applause before it was over.� Few candidates can claim such a thing.� I must admit though, I am biased in his favour as I am not only a member of the party but I am working on the campaign one day a week.

The overall debate was projected to last two hours.� The moderator was on the ball at first, being quick to ding the little bell every two minutes so that no candidate went over their allocated time slot. However, about half way through it was pointed out to me that he had dozed off and was catching up on some much needed rest, though, I think it was passed his bed time.

Just before it had started, all members of the audience in attendance were given 3×5 cards on which they could write their question for the candidates.� I had wanted to ask what the stance of each candidate was on the decriminalisation of recreational and medicinal marijuana.� My question never got ask.� The assumption between myself, my husband and my father was that my question was either too racy for the crowd or far to controversial.� It’s my belief that a little controversy is good.� It heat things up.� The pot wasn’t even simmering last night.� Well, that’s not entirely true; there was outrage voiced when the Tory candidate came out swinging in favour of private health care, something that never flies in eastern Canada.� Private health care is something that only truly flies in Alberta where they are already adhering to that kind of policy.

I had suspected my question wouldn’t be read.� I had hoped at least the question my husband asked would have been fielded; “what is your stance on peer-to-peer sharing of music and movies?� And what if any should be the penalty?”.� A legitimate question for the era, especially with all the copyright issues flying about in our courts of law.� It would have been nice to get a straight answer; alas, we didn’t.

The majority of the questions were on the economy, the environment, health care… there was even one question about if the candidates would appear at any of the high schools in the riding and how they would attempt to engage the younger voters.� � I started to feel at this point that the questions had been heavily sanitized; as if not to offend any sensitivities.� Bloody censorship it what it was!

In answering a question about what programmes each would cut in the face of a deficit, I found that the only candidates who gave good answers besides Sparrow, who struck a chord with the audience who had applauded him several times during other answers, only Wilcock and Oliphant offered true answers.� Carmichael acted like a true politician, danced around the question and didn’t actually answer it.� He spouted off useless numbers, which meant nothing.� He spoke about analyzing each programme and determining what cuts would happen if needed based on certain factors.� He then proceeded to act like a typical arrogant Tory twat and declared that it wouldn’t matter because the government was running a surplus.� Notably, he allowed for the Tories to take credit for the surplus that the Chretian and Martin Liberals had left Canada with after over 13 years of prudent governing.� Oliphant had provided a good answer in that the Liberals had previously cut programmes, balanced the budget and then reinvested.

I don’t recall most of the questions and the responses but what I noted was that the Tory candidate tried pathetically to appear empathetic when it came to those with disabilities but failed woefully because he had effectively shot himself in the foot with his earlier statement endorsing private health care.� He also quoted numbers by saying they invested “x” amount in this programme – well, sorry but that doesn’t cut it because that is how much it takes to run the programme.� In one instance he then proceeded to say how they increased funding. Does inflation NOT mean anything to the Tories?

The commie candidate did manage to take jabs at all the other parties, though most were directed at the Tories and this got a positive response from the crowd at large.

Oliphant came close to spewing national policy on some occasions but otherwise held back.� He made valid points on most topics.� He didn’t stray far.� He too took cheap potshots at the Tories; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel at this point but amusing nevertheless.

There isn’t much I can say about Wilcock.� She really is a one-trick pony. While there were instances were she could have said more, she said very little.� It made me believe that the Greens while having good intentions really don’t have much to offer in terms of social reform and are indeed right of centre.� After all, one can’t claim to be social-minded and preach low taxes and small government, it just doesn’t work that way.� It doesn’t mean she wasn’t able to take cheap shots.� She nailed the poor Liberal candidate.� That got ripples of laughter through the audience.

Sparrow had some of the longest responses and to his credit, he didn’t sound off on national policy or give numbers.� I found that refreshing.� I wanted to know where everyone stood on certain issues and his stance came out the loudest because he spoke fervently of his beliefs.� Numbers matter when it’s time for a budget, not when you’re talking about what you believe is the right path for Canada.

When it came to the closing statements, I found that it spoke volumes of each.� Carmichael didn’t offer anything of use, Oliphant got the bell rang on his speech but nonetheless conveyed a positive message, though it may have appeared to be wishy-washy in that he encouraged people to think carefully at the polls and prevent a Tory majority.� The commie had a short but to the point message.� Wilcock came off sounding truly right-wing when she quoted verbatim a speech that Thatcher had given to the UN in 1989 on climate change.� Most people wouldn’t have caught on to that subtly.� I believe that there are other notable individuals from that time who are more left she could have quoted if she wanted to appear left and not so right.� Sparrow repeated his earlier opening statement; he didn’t add anything new but a closing statement is just that, a reiteration of what you’ve said before.

I found it interesting but it didn’t change my mind.� I still know how I’m going to vote on October 14.

a

The riding was originally to have been in a federal by-election on September 22nd, but because Harper violated his own law that would have seen the next federal election in October of 2009, Canada is going to the polls on October 14 of this year.� � � Of course, that’s just one of many broken promises by the double-faced twat who is undeserving of the position of being Prime Minister.

“Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody.” ~ courtesty of CBC News and ABC

Though I know how I intend to vote – it should be obvious from the opening paragraph – I support the statement that is being made by ABC (Anything But Conservative); a site sponsored by Newfoundland-Labrador Premier Danny Williams.� We as a nation need to vote for all the other parties.� Vote for the NDP, Liberals, Green and Bloc.� We need to stop the Conservatives from selling out Canada to the corporations; from destroying healthcare and everything else that makes Canada unique and not just the 51st American state.

We need to make the right (or rather left) choice and the choice is to vote for someone who will be figuratively sitting with you at the kitchen table when you lay out the budget and not thinking of how to save the corporations money in the form of tax cuts.

a

Even with that sword hanging over our heads, the government released a progressive budget that significantly strayed from the “advice” of heavily despised former Ontario Minister of Finance, Jim “the tax slasher” Flaherty and his audacious suggestion to “cut taxes” despite that doing so at the federal level proved to be a massive set back for the Canadian economy.

Flaherty and Harper have led a dual-pronged attack on the liberal province of Ontario because of the refusal to cut business taxes, claiming that it is a magical solution that will ‘stimulate’ the ailing economy. Of course, anyone here knows that it’s a bunch of conservative tripe and that Flaherty is a remnant of the Harris ‘Common Sense Era’ that saw the destruction of key social services, including and not limited to education.

Refusing the “sagely advice” of the federal government (and it’s willingness to treat Ontario as a cancerous growth on the backside of Canada), Duncan released the budget with no tax cuts in it. Instead, to help our economy, he included money to invest in labour retraining, to help those get a new trade if they are unable to find work with their skills.

Other keys areas include ageing and crumbling infrastructure (also a key to the economy; smooth roads make it easier to truck in goods, for example), and the environment, something that we need for the future.

“This Budget is about making sure people have jobs and Ontario’s economy grows,” said Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.

“This Budget is about ensuring that all Ontarians have the opportunities and skills to succeed, so that they are working in jobs that will strengthen Ontario’s economy.”

“This Budget is investing in infrastructure such as roads and public transit, which creates jobs in the short term and strengthens our economy in the long term.”

The budget had its focus on education, as well as the economy. Education is one key part given that it is instrumental in developing a skilled, competent workforce that is highly competitive and can bring the economy back to its feet.

Here are some of the highlights from the provincial budget for 2008…

EDUCATION (including post secondary)

• $18.8 billion towards grants for school boards in 2008–09, a 20 per cent increase since 2003–04
• $9,821 in 2008–09 in average per-student funding, a 24 per cent increase since 2003–04
• More funding for literacy programs and for children with special education needs.
• $135 million over three years to provide dental services to low-income families
• $32 million over three years for the Student Nutrition Program, doubling its annual funding
• $1 billion over five years for a proposed new property tax grant of up to $500 a year for senior homeowners with low and moderate incomes.

ECONOMY

• $1.5 billion, three-year Skills to Jobs Action Plan that will provide new skills for new careers, expand postsecondary student aid and programs, and build places to learn, including:
  • $355 million over three years for a Second Career Strategy to help 20,000 unemployed workers get long-term training for new and better careers
  • $75 million over three years to increase the number of apprentices.
• $750 million in proposed tax measures over four years to encourage business growth, particularly in the manufacturing and resource sectors
• Proposing a 10-year Ontario income tax exemption for new corporations that commercialize intellectual property developed by qualifying Canadian universities, colleges or research institutes
• Modernizing regulation to reduce the paper burden for Ontario businesses.
• The five-year, $1.15 billion Next Generation of Jobs Fund will help secure new investment and jobs
• The government’s initiatives will help key sectors such as financial services, the entertainment and creative cluster, tourism, manufacturing, mining, forestry and agriculture stay competitive in a rapidly changing global marketplace.

There is more than one way to skin a cat (if you’ll pardon the expression), and our provincial government is showing us that we can help our economy that involves much more than tax cuts. You have to spend money to earn money.

Ontario Budget coverage

a

So, what exactly is Harper having a tantrum over? Oh right, the Cadman affair, in which the Conservatives supposedly funded life insurance for the former MP. The condition was based upon his return to parliament in 2005 to help topple Martin’s minority Liberal government. And this would be easy to clear up if Cadman (Chuck Cadman) hadn’t been diagnosed with terminal cancer and hence had his time on earth cut short.

Here’s the kicker, it seems that in the end, Cadman didn’t follow throw and instead voted with the Liberals. This makes the situation sticky, but either way, unlike the allegations being used against the Liberal party, this one actually has water and could hold up in court. That’s if the judge doesn’t decide that this lawsuit is frivolous and throws it out, leaving no recourse other than a parliamentary investigation (just what we need, another snore-a-thon a-la Mulroney-Schrieber affair and the endless pointless questions…).

As for evidence indicting the Conservative Party and Harper, there is a tape (isn’t that convenient?) in which party officials are heard making the offer to Cadman. Nevertheless, Harper and his cronies are alleging that it was doctored, according to court documents. That doesn’t change the fact that there is still a tape implicating them as key players in this scandal.

The alleged tape, used by Vancouver author Tom Zytaruk who penned the newest Cadman biography is also said to be incomplete, though the author, unconnected to the parties involved says otherwise.

Now then, to complicate matters further, the Liberals had gone as far as to publish this issue on their website, giving it a spot on their site’s headline.� And this is precisely why the Tories are taking them to court, because the material was published on the Liberal’s website.� Never mind that the Tories were using other mediums to get out their hate messages.

Pot, meet kettle…

Harper files lawsuit against Liberal over website claim

a

This legislation should it go on the books would be entirely unenforceable, especially in an era where the windows of vehicles are now tinted and people no longer dispose of cigarette butts in the cars’ ashtray, yet another thing of a not too distant past. And how so easy it is to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Smell alone means nothing. Cigarette smoke is notorious for clinging to fabric, the odour hanging in the air for long periods. Proving that the smoke is fresh is futile, as the driver or other of-age adult passengers could have been smoking before the young passenger got into the vehicle.

And the fine, if someone is actually caught, though it is unlikely, is a mere $200, and that is Canadian. If this is a crime, why is the amount so low? It’s more of a cash grab than a crime. It’s the government merely pretending it gives a damn, because at the end of the day the only thing politicians truly give a damn about is votes and as long as appearances are maintained, nothing else matters.

What’s more, if the police start pulling over people at random, there will be an incredible amount of public outrage at the blatant invasion of privacy by the nanny state in the pursuit of the elusive few who flout the law. After all, if someone isn’t speeding and they are following the basic laws of the street, there is no legal justification for pulling them over.

Even if a programme similar to RIDE is implemented, it’s easy to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Unlike alcohol, cigarettes do not intoxicate the user and hence, it’s legal to drive while smoking. Even if there are spot checks, smell alone is not grounds for charging someone because there is no way of proving when the smell got into the fabric of the car’s upholstery or into the person’s clothing.

And how will age be determined? A sight test will fail no doubt and not all people upon turning 16 years old immediately go out and get a license. There are no mandatory ID cards and not all people look their age at this point. Some people will look older, and some will look younger, much younger than they actually are.

What of court appeals? How will it go down? Will the officer take names of all the people in the car? There are too many problems with a piece of legislation like this. It provides too many ways for a person to get caught up on a law design to placate a few without thinking of the overall repercussions that will be incurred from the existence of a law such as this.

Ontario to ban smoking in cars with kids

a