With the Quebec Elections coming on October 3rd, this week’s Riding to Watch is one I’ve lived in more or less my whole life: Notre-Dame-de-Grâce (NDG).
NDG is one of the larger ridings in Montreal and has been a Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) stronghold for decades. However, as in many other ridings, the PLQ MNA, Kathleen Weil, has decided not to run again, creating an opening for new blood in the seat.
Why is NDG a riding to watch?
Location and Boundaries: Notre-Dame-de-Grace is comprised of Montreal West and part of the NDG/Côte-des-Neiges borough of Montreal.
Population: 72 520 with 46 268 electors
Language: 48.3% Anglophone, 24.2% Francophone, and 19.5% Allophone
Age: The two largest groups are the 30-39 (15.6%) and 20-29 (14.6%)
Average Income: With 17.7 % of the population in the >$9,999 and $19,999 annual household income range, NDG is one of the poorest districts on the Island of Montreal.
This is a borough to watch because it contains 34.2 percent visible minorities, compared to just 13 percent in all of Quebec. It is one to watch as the PLQ’s Kathleen Weil has been in power since 2008 and is choosing not to run again.
The PLQ’s replacement candidate, Désirée McGraw, was former Federal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s senior policy advisor from 2003 to 2006. She also has lots of experience fighting for environmental causes and is clearly one of the more experienced candidates.
In the 2018 provincial election, Québec solidaire (QS) came in second in NDG. While much of Québec solidaire’s platform, such as opposition to Bill 21 and fighting climate change, is ideologically in line with the values of the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grace, their refusal to oppose the aggressive language law, Bill 96, has left a sour note in the mouths of the district’s majority Anglophone population. It is no help to their cause that their candidate, Élisabeth Labelle is fresh out of university and has little to no political experience.
The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) candidate is Geneviève Lemay, who has a certificate in Diversity and Inclusion from Cornell University. The party clearly chose her for her bilingualism and education in an attempt to mollify the riding’s Anglophone and ethnically diverse population. She unlikely to win because despite the deep-seated cynicism of much of the riding’s population, Notre-Dame-de-Grace embraces ethnic and linguistic diversity and social justice in a way wholly incompatible with CAQ’s assimilationist xenophobic rhetoric.
The Conservative Party of Quebec (CPQ) candidate is Dr. Roy Eappen, an endocrinologist. Much like his party, he believes the solution to Quebec’s ailing public healthcare system is to lean more heavily on privatization, a solution that would likely create two-tier system in which the super-rich get better quality healthcare than most Quebeckers. Though Eappen himself immigrated to Canada from Kerala, India, he seems to take no issue with his party’s determination to slash immigration to Quebec.
There are two party leaders running for a seat in Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The first is the Green Party of Quebec (PVQ) Leader Alex Tyrrell, who has led the party since 2013. In the 2018 elections Green Party candidate Chad Walcott came in fourth after the Coalition Avenir Québec candidate in the riding. As it stands, the Green Party has yet to win a seat in the National Assembly and is unlikely to do so this time around.
Former Canadian Football League player Balarama Holness is the other party leader running in Notre-Dame-de-Grace. His party is one of his own creation, called Bloc Montreal. His party is all about ensuring that Montreal’s interests are properly represented in the National Assembly and their platforms begin with a recognition that Montreal represents fifty percent of the Quebec population and fifty percent of the province’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The party opposes Bills 21 (the secularism law) and 96 as being harmful to Montrealers. Though much of the party’s platform is meant for all of Quebec, the perception that they stand for Montreal and only Montreal will likely cost the party in this election.
No word on how this could play out locally for Holness, so NDG remains a riding to watch.
The Canadian Federal Election is October 21, 2019 and it stands to be an important one.
It’s important because for the first time the baby boomers are no longer the dominant voting block and younger people who’ve felt ignored or dismissed by the system can finally have their voices heard within it. It’s important because many politicians are realizing this and trying to cater to our needs, not the entitled uninformed whiny ones of our parents’ generation.
In my last article I tackled the four mainstream federal parties running in this election and how they fare on issues concerning voters under the age of 60. In this article I’ll be tackling two fringe parties on how they fare on similar criteria – specifically where they stand on climate change, LGBTQI2+ rights, and income inequality.
Once again, this is not to say that these issues do not concern older voters. It IS to say that these are the issues that younger people feel have been insufficiently addressed by mainstream politics in the past.
In cases where a party does not have a specific platform on the issue, I will elaborate in broader terms based on their track records and publications. Unlike the previous article, I’ll be going party by party instead of topic by topic.
For the purposes of this article, I am defining a fringe party as a party that either caters to a very specific, niche group of the population, or that expresses views far too extreme to fit within a mainstream party. I will elaborate further in my discussion of each political party.
Many will argue that the Bloc Québécois is a mainstream party because they’ve actually succeeded in getting seats in the House of Commons more often than the Green Party and they once even formed the Official Opposition in Ottawa. I argue that the Bloc is a fringe party for though they claim to advocate not just for Quebeckers but for French speaking Canadians across Canada, all their MPs are from Quebec and their platform seems focused only on advancing Quebec interests in Federal Parliament.
The Bloc Québécois’ platform shows a clear understanding of what their base is – specifically older white French Islamophobic Canadians. Nearly a third of their platform is devoted on improving care for seniors, while younger voters are not mentioned at all.
On climate change their plan includes:
• Imposing a carbon tax on provinces with higher greenhouse gas emissions than the national average – up for revision every four years • Funneling the proceeds of such a tax into provinces with lower emissions in order to facilitate green innovation • Introduce a law that gives Quebec a right to consent or refuse federal construction projects involving land allocation and environmental protection • Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies
On LGBTQI2+ rights, the Bloc does not have a specific policy, so I am evaluating them on how they address the broader issue of hate. Bloc Quebecois signs promoting a xenophobic form of state secularism have been found in Montreal within a few steps of Islamic centers and aspects of their platform include pushing this notion across Canada. Their platform includes excluding Quebec from a federal law recognizing Canadian multiculturalism.
Recently the Bloc came under fire when party leader Yves-François Blanchet tweeted that Quebeckers should vote for people that look like them – a tweet widely and appropriately criticized for being racist, despite Blanchet’s claims that that’s not what he meant. If their attitude towards visible and religious minorities is any indication, Canada’s sexual and gender minorities would be right to be worried for their own safety should the Bloc get seats.
On Income Inequality, the Bloc’s platform is focused on those not paying their fair share of taxes and making things easier for elderly Canadians. Their plan – which almost entirely excludes young people -includes:
• Having Ottawa demand that companies, especially businesses and banks, repatriate funds hidden in tax havens • Offering a tax credit to employers to train and keep employees over the age of sixty-five • Offering a tax credit to immigrants and recent graduates willing to work in remote areas • Allocating Federal grants for social and affordable housing
The People’s Party of Canada
The People’s Party of Canada is a party that has received a lot of media attention, mostly negative. In Hamilton, their people clashed with protesters who have branded them Nazis, and looking at their platform and leader’s comments, it’s easy to see why.
Many of the party’s values, which include the abolition of multiculturalism in favor of a broader national identity, claiming that being called racist for saying racist things is somehow persecution, and resorting to personal attacks rather than countering arguments on their merit (see Maxime Bernier’s tweet about Greta Thunberg) are right out of the neo-Nazi playbook. But, in the interest of fairness, let’s discuss what they’re actually saying.
The People’s Party platform on climate change claims that there is no scientific consensus on the issue (fact check: there IS). Their plan includes:
• Withdrawing Canada from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change • Abolish federal subsidies for green technology • Abolish the carbon tax so provinces can come up with their own plans to reduce emissions • Implement practical solutions to make Canada’s air, water, and soil cleaner, including bringing clean water to remote First Nations communities
On LGBTQI2+ rights, the People’s Party platform is pure hate. Their website actually berates the Trudeau government for allegedly forcing “Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.” Fact check: Trudeau actually just amended the Criminal Code so crimes motivated by hate based on gender identity or expression would be considered hate crimes.
Their platform on LGBTQI2+ rights includes:
• “Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation,” thus rolling back Trudeau reforms so people outside the gender binary and transgender people would not be protected under the legal definition of hate. • Roll back Trudeau administration changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act that had expanded the definition of prohibited forms of discrimination to include “gender identity or expression” • Pull federal funding from universities restricting free speech • “Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions” – with a specific reference in their platform to the Trudeau government’s refusal to provide funding to anti-choice groups as part of the summer jobs program
On the issue of income inequality and the economy, the People’s Party is focused on lowering taxes to boost the private sector and benefit the wealthy. There is nothing in their platform to directly address poverty and the growing housing shortage. Their plan includes:
• Gradually reducing corporate income taxes from fifteen percent to ten percent • Over the course of one mandate eliminate the current capital gains tax by reducing the inclusion rate from 50% to 0% • Eliminate corporate subsidies and government bailouts of failing companies
If you’re under sixty and have felt like your voice has not been heard by politicians in the past, remember that things are different now and your votes matter more than ever. On October 21st, 2019, you have a chance to finally see your choices determine the outcome of the federal election.
Take twenty minutes and go tick a box on a slip of paper. Our future is at stake.
For the first time, younger voters are set to overtake the baby boomers as the largest voting block in Canada, and it’s about time. The planet is dying due climate change, and wages have stagnated since the 1970s resulting in a wealth gap that is partly on generational lines.
While older people enjoy their golf courses and retirement nestegs, Millenials, Gen Xers, and GenYers who will never see the latter are increasingly frustrated and demanding change that helps them, not just their parents.
That said, only recently has there been a real drive to get younger people to vote, recognizing that their votes can finally make a difference. It is with this notion in mind that I write this article.
In this piece I’ll be giving a crash course on the main political parties, but not in the way you’d expect. Instead of discussing their platforms related to the economy and health care, I’m going to discuss the parties based on their plans and track records with regards to issues that concern younger voters: Climate change, LGBTQI2+ rights, and Income Inequality.
This is not to say these issues do not concern some older people. It IS to say that these are the issues that have not been sufficiently addressed for younger voters by politicians in the past.
For the purposes of this article, the main parties I’ll be discussing are the Liberal Party, The Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and The Green Party. Smaller fringe parties like Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party will be addressed in a future article.
First, as Montreal took to the streets yesterday, let’s talk about Climate change.
The incumbent Liberal party’s Climate change platform seems to benefit primarily the wealthy, with much of their programs targeting homeowners – when most young Canadians will never be able to afford to own a home – and corporations. Their platform in this regard includes:
Offering a $40 000 interest-free loan to homeowners and landlords to make their homes more energy efficient, with an additional Net-zero emissions home grant available to make clean living more affordable.
Cut corporate taxes in half for companies that develop products and technologies that produce zero emissions
Protect 25% of Canada’s land and ocean habitats by 2025 and work towards increasing that to 30% by 2030
Set a target of zero emissions by 2050
The New Democratic Party’s Climate Change platform seems far more ambitious than that of the incumbents, with plans focusing on punishing big polluters and investing in local clean projects. Their platform includes:
Declaring a climate emergency
Rolling back tax breaks given by the Liberal government to big polluters as well as abolishing current oil and gas subsidies
Reaching a target of carbon-free electricity by 2030, and 100% non-emitting electricity by 2050
Establishing a Canadian Climate Bank to boost investment in Canadian-made renewable energy technology, community-owned clean energy projects and the transition to renewable energy
The Conservative Party’s climate change policy seems far less comprehensive compared to the other parties, and leader Andrew Scheer’s absence from today’s climate marches is also quite telling. Their policy includes:
Getting rid of the carbon tax (though their website claims they are still committed to meeting obligations under the Paris Agreement)
Launch a green tech patent tax credit for businesses
Offering a green public transit tax credit to alleviate costs of public transportation and incentivize its use
Have Canada sign agreements allowing us to get credit for helping reduce emissions internationally
True to the party’s name, The Green Party has the most comprehensive climate change platform to address the climate emergency. Their platform includes:
Canceling the Trans Mountain Pipeline and other subsidies to fossil fuel industries, as well as denying approval to new pipelines, coal, oil, or gas drilling
Ramp up renewable energy targets, with a target of making a hundred percent of Canada’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030
Work with provincial governments, “ideally in partnership with First Nations” to determine which former oil and gas wells are best-suited to producing geothermal energy in order to turn liabilities into income-generating renewable energy
Ban the sale of internal combustion engine passenger vehicles by 2030
Though the Liberal Party has no official 2019 platform regarding LGBTQ rights, they do have an excellent track record when it comes to protecting sexual minorities in Canada. Aside from the symbolism of their leader marching in Pride Parades and raising the Pride flag on Parliament Hill, the government has made some dramatic improvements to LGBTQ rights in Canada.
This includes adding gender identity or expression to the definition of hate crimes in the Canadian Criminal Code, as well passing legislation to permanently destroy the past criminal records of people convicted for consensual sex with same sex partners if such sex would be legal today.
The New Democrats have integrated LGBTQ rights into their platform on fighting hate in Canada. Their list of the different forms of hate to be addressed include homophobia and transphobia, with their platform including better access for victims of hate crimes to services, support, as well as a say in court-related services that may impact their safety.
Their platform also includes establishing a National Working Group to fight online hate, and addressing radicalization though youth-focused community-led initiatives.
Symbolically, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has been seen at Pride parades and drag shows, tipping generously at the latter.
On LGBTQ rights in Canada, it is the Conservative Party that has by far the most to answer for. Their leader, Andrew Scheer is a self-professed devout Catholic and social conservative who has criticized marriage equality on the record. He is also the only federal leader conspicuously absent from Pride marches.
When questioned about his current position on LGBTQ rights, Scheer has been extremely evasive, giving people just cause to fear that transgender and LGBTQ protections will be rolled back under a Conservative government. Also telling is the lack of a policy platform addressing this issue on the Conservative Party website.
Though the Green Party is being criticized as a greener version of the Conservatives, their LGBTQ platform is quite enlightened. It includes ending discriminatory blood donation bans, banning medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex children, and banning and condemning conversion therapy – which attempts to force a more straight binary form of sexuality and gender expression on LGBTQ people, despite wide disapproval from the medical and psychiatric communities – in all its forms.
Their platform also includes ensuring access to comprehensive sexual health care and gender affirming health care including hormone treatments, blockers, and surgeries.
This is the one that infuriates young people the most because surrounding the issue are criticisms from baby boomers that if we just bought less coffee we wouldn’t be in so much debt when they entered the job market at a time when you could afford a home with one minimum wage job as opposed to the many we need to afford basic expenses. That said, here is what the main parties are doing to tackle the issue.
The Liberal plans seem to benefit primarily middle class families when so many young people cannot even reach a middle class income. Their plans include:
Lowering cell-phone bills by 25%
No taxes on the first $15 000 of income earned
Cut the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%
Creation of a First-Time Home Buyer Incentive that would cut 10% off the purchase price of new homes
The NDP’s plan to tackle income inequality is far more comprehensive and seems to target all Canadians, not just the middle class. Their platform includes:
Universal prescription drug coverage for all Canadians regardless of job, age, health, status, or income
Investing five billion dollars to create five hundred thousand quality affordable housing units to address the affordable housing crisis, and waiving federal GST/HST for the construction of these affordable units
Expand public education “from kindergarten to career”
Free dental coverage for families making under $70 000 a year
The Conservatives plan to address income inequality has some similarities to that of the Liberals in that it centers on cutting taxes and regulations, though the nature of these cuts does not seem to vary depending on the means of individuals. Their plan comprises of:
A universal tax cut for all Canadians
Address the housing crisis by easing building regulations to facilitate the building of new homes
Build pipelines to create jobs
Exempt home heating bills from the GST
The Green Party’s platform recognizes the increasing precariousness of work and the growing gig economy that is exacerbating unstable incomes for younger voters. It also acknowledges the ongoing poverty rates. Their platform comprises of :
Establishing a Guaranteed Liveable Income program to replace current income supports including disability, social assistance, and income assistance with payments set at a liveable level for different regions across Canada
Set the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour
Design and implement a national mental health strategy to address the link between mental health and productivity
Enhance the use of Community Benefits Agreements to increase inclusion economic opportunities for people of color
Over the past twenty years there has been a lot of apathy among young voters who felt like their votes didn’t count. That is all about to change. For the first time in a long time, young Canadians have a chance to have their voices heard within the system, not just on the streets.
Sanders is the Tom Mulcair of candidates south of the border. Just not in the way you might think.
Each has pulled his party in the polar opposite direction. Yet they share a gruff gastronomic asceticism on the campaign trail.
If you recall, Forget the Box was the first outlet to uncover the bombshell news: Mulcair’s organs are made of bricks and wool. Our investigative report disclosed that this Prime Minister hopeful had never been seen partaking in food, even when hiking on Mont-Royal, stumping in small towns, or Schwartz-ing with jovial peers.
Now Sanders’ food choices remain equally opaque, leaving us up here to surmise that he survives on his healthy diet of finger wagging. Even the hearty US press corps, with its fifteen months of research, has come up mostly empty trying to paint the “lifestyle” profile of loveable Uncle Bern.
In candidate surveys, the best they could come up with was “scrambled eggs for breakfast.” This sounds like it was filled in by some campaign intern. Though it’s not really an answer, we’ll assume they’re unsalted, devoid of condiments.
To be fair, Sanders has this slight edge over Mulcair. The latter was never even seen sipping coffee, whether in meetins or at pictoresque rural working class diners. Sanders, on the other hand, was definitively ID-ed sipping Vermont craft beer. It seems suspicious, sort of a photo-op setup.
Bernie Sanders with a can of Heady Topper (the top-rated beer in the world) which is brewed in Vermont. pic.twitter.com/kKRe39RoK6
Yet I believe it. He is drinking the hoppiest beer in a state known for very hoppy delights, which seems to fit with his enjoyably bitter personal brand.
You might recall the eponymous #GuacGate, spurred by the NYT’s suggestion of peas in traditional Mexican-American versions of guac.
We saw then that guacamole was a deeply divisive political issue, and this was before the immigration debate gathered full steam. Yet it also united party leaders in unexpected ways, such as Jeb and Obama’s ardent disavowel of this French intrusion into an already-perfect dish.
Fittingly, one of the only dissenters, even in a moment of bipartisan fun, was divisive Senator Ted Cruz. The Texas senator came up on the wrong side as his colleagues as usual, claiming his distaste not only for guacamole, but for avocadoes full stop.
Fitting consistent with his Texas image, Cruz picks enchiladas (the legal kind) over any other dish.
Now to the frontrunners. We’ll save Clinton to the end, because her food preferences, like Harper’s in my original article, somehow leave me most unsettled.
This is a surprise in itself, because in this unprecedented US primary spectacle, you’d think Trump would reign supreme generating gastronomic headlines. Yet despite him criticizing Kasich for his hearty four-course Italian meal at a New York market food stand, he has been criticized for eating pizza with forks and generally unhealthy food preferences. This might be exciting for another candidate, though for Trump’s grand style, his diet lands up surprisingly boring, even unworthy of mention.
He claims he eats light and healthy on the trail, sans alcohol. He does, of course, mention that he indulges in his favourite dish once in awhile: US steak. This is helpful, given the cartons of unsold Trump Steaks likely sitting in some warehouse.
Remember Obama’s epic stops at Ray’s & In n Out burger, photos of juicy burgers joyously shared with Senator Joe? They swarmed over social media, part of his fresh new image that helped launch him to the win.
Clinton, on the other hand, is ever the milquetoast frontrunner. In ways eerily similar to Harper who, lest we forget, was once touted to regain his majority reign, she avoids unplanned ops or stops or any real insight into her soul. So the first similarity is their over-advised inhuman personas: it’s hard to discern if they have any real passions or preferences at all.
Now, some criticized this as blatant pandering, since this detail unsurprisingly slipped out during one of her Southern campaign stops. It’s possible that Clinton’s hot sauce obsession is as manufactured as her Southern accent.
Like her true views on society, policy and values, one thing’s safe to say: we’ll never know the truth.
What dirt have you uncovered on the Presidential candidates eating habits?
UPDATE: Press time: Carly Fiorina just announced her VP run with Cruz. We’re curious if the Cruz team vetted her dietary preferences before the presser.
‘I always used to eat Milk-Bones as a kid’: Carly Fiorina snacks on dog treats and tells puppies to vote Republican because ‘Obama ate your cousin’ in bizarre video – Daily Mail, 15 Dec. 2015
The other day I saw people sharing an article with the headline: Southern Poverty Law Center Lists Donald Trump and his Campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. as a Hate Group. I didn’t open it right away and believed it was real for almost a day, eventually discovering the source was a parody site.
Honestly, I was disappointed to find that out. There is no reason why the Trump Campaign shouldn’t be classified as a hate group, because, well, they are.
Donald Trump himself, I still believe, is nothing more than an opportunist. A billionaire without a conscience who will say absolutely anything to become President. When he said that he would deny all Muslims entry into the US, he did so because he knew that everyone in the media would be talking about it.
His plan worked. He was on all the morning shows the next day. Defending the indefensible and even using the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was responsible for Japanese internment camps and is still celebrated as justification.
FDR is still celebrated in spite of the internment camps, not because of it. They are probably the second biggest domestic policy blight in the history of the United States, following, of course, treatment of natives.
While that may not be lost on Trump the person, who is, by all accounts intelligent, it is lost on Trump the candidate. Bringing up a dark chapter in American history and using it to justify an unthinkably racist and at the same time pointless position is just par for the course for this candidate.
What was once a joke candidacy stopped being funny a while ago. While I feel that Trump personally does not believe more than half of what he says, the truly frightening thing is that quite a few people do.
Racists and other ignorant people had been restricted to trolling and operating in secret for decades. Now, thanks to Trump, they are able to take part in a national political debate. They’re not afraid to say the crazy shit out loud anymore, either.
Prohibiting all people who practice the world’s second largest religion from entering a country because a few adherents committed violent acts in said country is the sort of nonsensical idea you would expect to hear from some loner with no concept of how the world works and a serious axe to grind. Now we’re getting it from a front-runner in a major political party.
As a result, all the racists, Islamophobes and other assorted bigots feel free to express their prejudice openly and sometimes violently. It’s hard to forget that just a few weeks ago, Trump supporters physically attacked a Black Lives Matter protester during a rally.
Republicans Distancing Themselves
Amidst all the petitions to remove Trump branding from buildings and bar the billionaire from entering cities and countries (like the UK and Canada, we’re seeing something new. Several prominent Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump.
People like Paul Ryan and even Dick Cheney are publicly speaking out against The Donald. Yes, the same people who built careers partially on the support of bigots are now turning on bigotry.
It’s clear why they’re doing it, too. Using divisive issues to mobilize voters is one thing. Actually speaking the language of racists from the top to do it is very different.
The Trump Campaign doesn’t use coded language for the base while sounding moderate to moderates. Instead, the hood is off. They are a hate group and if Trump gets the nomination, the Republican Party will be one, too.
A Hate Group by Definition
The Trump Campaign isn’t a hate group because of satirical comparisons to The Emperor in Star Wars. Though accurate, they are pretty common with far-right politicians:
It isn’t because of comparisons to Hitler, either. While also pretty common and usually a reach, taking a look at their respective campaign tactics side by side, the comparison seems to ring true this time:
But that’s still not why.
No, the Trump Campaign is a hate group by definition:
“A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.”
Let’s see: Organized group? Check. Advocates hostility? Barring entry to a country based exclusively on religion is definitely hostile, so check. Advocating violence? Well, supporters physically attacked Black Lives Matter protesters and Trump defended the attackers, so check as well.
These are but a few reasons why the Trump Campaign is a hate group by definition. There are more.
This is frightening. We shouldn’t treat the Donald Trump Campaign as a joke, or a legit political force. We should treat it as a hate group because that’s exactly what it is.
Weed, Pot, Mary Jane, marijuana – these are all names for cannabis and its derivatives. Marijuana has been helpful to people with chronic pain issues, in calming muscle spasms and in neutralizing the nauseating effects of medications.
According to the Canadian Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)’s website, 44% of Canadians say they have used marijuana at some point in their lives. A Statistics Canada report on Police-reported drug offenses in 2013 stated that there were approximately 73 000 reported cannabis offenses that year, 80% of which were for possession.
Marijuana has become one of the wedge issues in the current election because of the Liberal Party’s plan to legalise it. The problem, however, is that many voters don’t know what the current state of Canada’s marijuana legislation is.
Cannabis and its variations and derivatives are considered controlled substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). This law works in conjunction with the Criminal Code to control drug offenses. Marijuana offenses can be lumped into two categories: possession-related, and supply-related (production, trafficking, and importing).
If you have marijuana in your actual possession, someone is holding it for you, or you have it stashed somewhere, you are considered in possession. You can’t possess, seek, or try and get it. If you try and get it from a doctor or dentist, you are guilty of an offense unless you disclose to them the particulars relating to its acquisition and every attempt you’ve made to try and get marijuana in the past 30 days.
The penalties for all these offenses vary depending on how many times you’ve been convicted. The maximum prison sentence for possession of is five years less a day OR for a first offense, a prison sentence not exceeding six months or fine of up $1000 or both.
For a second offense the maximum jail term of five years less a day applies, or you could be made to pay a fine of up to $2000 or serve a jail term of up to one year or both. In all cases, conviction will result in a criminal record.
Trafficking marijuana is selling, administering, giving, transporting, transferring, sending, or delivering it. Trafficking is also the selling of an authorization to obtain that people would have gotten from a healthcare professional, or even offering to do any of the aforementioned things.
The sentence depends on aggravating factors like whether the person used or threatened to use violence or a weapon, sold the drugs for a criminal organisation, or did so near a school or to a minor. The maximum sentence is life in prison, the minimum is one year. However, IF the amount of cannabis being trafficked was no more than one gram of resin or 30 grams of marijuana, the maximum sentence is five years less a day.
Importing and exporting of marijuana fall under article six of the CDSA. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, the minimum is one year. The sentence depends on whether the offense was committed for the purposes of trafficking, if the person abused a position of authority or trust, or whether the person had access to a restricted area and abused that access to commit the crime.
Growing marijuana and doing anything to alter its chemical or physical properties is considered production under the CDSA. The sentences vary according to the amount produced and aggravating factors like whether you’re using someone else’s property, said production put minors at risk, was a public safety hazard located in a residential area, or the person set a booby trap in the production location.
Growing marijuana comes with a maximum sentence of 14 years and minimum sentences of six months if you have less than 201 plants and more than five. If you have more than five plants but less than 201, you’re considered to be producing to traffic, and any of the aggravating factors apply – the sentence is nine months or the 14 year maximum.
If the number of plants is over 201 but less than 500 and any of the aggravating factors apply, the minimum sentence is 18 months. If the offender has more than 500 plants, the minimum sentence is two years unless the aggravating factors apply in which case the sentence jumps to three years. Though the law is silent about what the penalty is for having four plants or less, chances are you’ll get charged with possession, not production, as you were probably keeping those plants for personal use.
The Liberal Party’s plan is to “legalize, regulate, and restrict” access. Legalization would start with a task force of public health experts, substance abuse experts, and enforcement specialists to advise on the creation of marijuana regulations. This includes removing marijuana consumption and possession offenses from the Criminal Code, and enacting stiffer penalties for those who push marijuana at minors, drive high, and sell it without obeying government regulations.
Many critics argue that decriminalisation, and not legalisation, is the answer to society’s marijuana problems. Decriminalisation is the act of making something legal that was once illegal. Legalisation is the legal recognition of an unregulated practice or illegal act that society has already been tolerating.
However, Canadian society hasn’t exactly tolerated marijuana as police continue to arrest even those who keep the drug for personal use. These people often find themselves stuck with criminal records and there is no proof that tough cannabis laws deter use. Those convicted of marijuana offenses often continue to smoke it.
With the Harper Conservatives bellowing about how marijuana is worse than tobacco and most statistics saying otherwise, it is imperative that Canadians know what their rights are with regards to cannabis related offenses.
Regardless of why you have marijuana in your possession, remember that as long as it remains illegal, you can find yourself with a hefty fine or even stuck in jail just because you wanted some to ease your pain or lighten your mood and couldn’t get a prescription.
After dissolving parliament, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promptly lies to Canadians about the election’s cost
October 19th 2015 has been the chosen date for Canada’s next election since Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his first majority parliament back in 2011. It should be mentioned that the fixed election idea belongs to Harper’s Conservative Party which amended the Canada Elections Act.
What Canadians didn’t expect at the time was a 78 day election campaign marathon. The longest election since 1872 when the country was just five years old. Well buckle up Canada because that’s what harper has brought us. This Canadian Election will be twice as long as past traditional elections and twice as expensive to tax payers.
After dissolving parliament, Prime Minister Harper stood outside Rideau Hall yesterday and announced the 11 week campaign. He then blatantly lied to Canadians as to why he called the election more than a month early by saying “As it my intention to begin campaign-related activities and it is also the case for the other party leaders, it’s important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves, rather than taxpayers.”
The Conservatives of all people should know how bullshit a statement like that really is. Last year they changed the election rules to allow more money to be spent on longer campaigns. Approximately $685,000 for each day beyond the basic 37-day campaign. Campaigns that are 50% funded by the public.
After being challenged about the statement from a CBC reporter, Harper repeated “I feel very strongly that if we’re going to begin our campaigns, if we’re going to run our campaigns, those campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law, that the money come from the parties themselves not government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources.” WTF?
In the last election of 2011, taxpayers refunded 50% of each party’s spending limit, which was just over $20 million for each party. This time around thanks to Harper’s rule changes and early election call, the limits will be above $50 million each.
It should be noted that as the only right wing party in Canada, the Conservatives have raised more money than the other major parties combined. A long expensive election works to their advantage which I imagine was the plan all along.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May sarcastically joked about the rules being fair then said “What isn’t right is to claim that the taxpayers’ aren’t subsidizing this election. It’s going to cost Canadians tens of millions of dollars more because for all of those horrible attack ads that we are about to hear — we will be bludgeoned in our own homes by attack ads — and every single one of those attack ads, we are paying for half.”
Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair of the NDP spoke about the need for change and said the campaign is about priorities. “Mr. Harper’s priority is spend millions of dollars on self-serving government advertising and an early election call.”
The cost of the early election to the Canadian public is not the only thing Stephen Harper lied about in his opening election speech. He also falsely claimed his Conservatives have balanced the budget despite having a deficit for eight straight years including this one. He even had the gall to say that the Canadian Economy was stronger, but I’ll get into that story another time.
Over the next 78 days, there will be plenty of time to expose the lies and the policies of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. In the meantime, please do not allow an extremely long hate filled campaign to keep you from voting. It is too important.
Check back with Quiet Mike and our partners at QuiteMike.org throughout the campaign for all the election coverage you can stomach. We will do our best to keep all the parties honest.
Although it may feel like our federal politicians have been in election mode for a few months, Canada’s 2015 Federal Election was only officially called this morning, August 2nd. That’s eleven weeks away from Monday, October 19th, election day, making it the longest federal election campaign in recent memory.
I already know who I’m voting for. While sometimes I choose None of the Above, this year I’m going Orange and voting for my local NDP candidate, mainly because I want to see C-51 repealed.
That doesn’t mean that everyone involved with Forget the Box or our readers feel the same way. That’s why we don’t do political endorsements from the editorial team as many media outlets do.
Instead, we ask our readers, contributors and editors to decide who gets an endorsement, which I will write up, whether the result is what I want or not. You get a vote – one vote – but, just as with real politics, you can also campaign by sharing this poll with your friends on social media who agree with you. Believe me, if my choice isn’t winning a few days before the election, I will.
So here it is: FTB’s 2015 Canadian Federal Election Poll:
Who do you plan on voting for in the 2015 Canadian Federal Election?
New Democratic Party (NDP) (51%, 137 Votes)
Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) (30%, 82 Votes)
Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) (4%, 11 Votes)
Green Party of Canada (Green) (2%, 6 Votes)
Bloc Quebecois (BQ) (2%, 5 Votes)
Pirate Party of Canada (2%, 5 Votes)
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (1%, 4 Votes)
There's an Election? (1%, 4 Votes)
Communist Party of Canada (1%, 3 Votes)
Libertarian Party of Canada (1%, 3 Votes)
None of the Above (1%, 3 Votes)
Other (1%, 3 Votes)
Marijuana Party (1%, 2 Votes)
Forces et Démocratie (1%, 2 Votes)
Rhinoceros Party (0%, 1 Votes)
Non-affiliated Candidate (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 271
You can vote above or in the sidebar of every page on the site. The poll closes at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time the day before electips day. The results and the endorsement post will be published the following day as people are voting for real.
We included as many so-called fringe parties as we felt our readers may actually consider voting for. If you’re planning on voting for a registered party not listed, you can either check the “other” box or let us know in the comments and we’ll add them to the list.
Pros and Cons
To get this started, I have compiled a list of the pros and cons of each political party as well as the None of the Above option. Now, what is considered pro and con is entirely subjective, but given the progressive bent of a large portion of our readership, these should pass the test. Honestly, it was kind of difficult coming up with “pros” for some parties, but I did it.
Please feel free to debate these pros and cons in the comments below and, of course, debate the election.
Here goes in the order they are currently polling in the major polling firms:
New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP)
Against C-51: The NDP is the only party with a decent expectation of forming government that not only voted against Bill C-51, Harper’s so-called anti-terrorism legislation, but promises to repeal it if elected.
MMIW Inquiry: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has promised an inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women on the first 100 days in office.
No Community Mailboxes: The NDP has promised to reverse Canada Post’s decision to end door-to-door mail delivery and replace it with community mailboxes.
Energy East: The federal NDP doesn’t have a clear policy on the proposed trans-national pipeline project. In fact, Alberta NDP leader and premier Rachel Notley is actively campaigning for it.
Gaza: It took the party’s grassroots occupying MP offices to get Mulcair to offer a balanced approach to Israel’s attack on Gaza last year. Also, Paul Manly was denied the chance to run for the party’s nomination in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, BC, supposedly due to his father and former MP Jim Manly, being on the flotilla to Gaza.
The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)
What You See is What You Get: If you’re happy with the last four years of federal policy, then you can expect more of the same with Harper & Co.
Protest Recruitment: If you think mobilization on the streets against the government is the only way to achieve social justice, then there is no better recruiting tool then Prime Minister Stephen Harper (though it may be more difficult now that C-51 is law).
Band on the Backburner: The silver lining of another Conservative majority is four more years of Harper only rolling out his musical chops on special occasions. He’s really terrible.
What You See is What You Get: Omnibus bills, fear, second-class citizens, bromance with Bibi, Duffy, fraud, community mailboxes, muzzling scientists, muzzling charities, the list goes on
Liberal Party of Canada (LPC)
420: Trudeau supports the legalization of weed for recreational use. It worked for Colorado, why not for Canada?
First Nations: The Liberals also support Nation to Nation talks with indigenous populations.
Experience: While the CPC love to mock the Liberal leader’s lack of experience, quite a few of the candidates have considerable government experience.
Voted for C-51: How can you be against something and vote for it? Also, only promised to change it, not repeal it.
Pipelines: The Liberals may also be unclear on Energy East, but their leader went down to Washington to pitch Keystone.
Bloc Quebecois (BQ)
Against Energy East: This may be a wedge issue against the NDP. The Bloc has released ads against the pipeline project and presumed Dipper support.
Gilles Duceppe: Although he got his political ass handed to him in 2011, Duceppe is a consumate, likeable and ultimately progressive politician.
Conservative Vote Splitter: Harper had hoped to make inroads in rural and suburban Quebec. Some of those right-leaning voters may also be nationalist and a viable Bloc may just make those Con inroads impossible.
Electoral Math: The Bloc cannot form government, the best they can hope for is opposition.
Mario Beaulieu: Before Duceppe took over, the Bloc was attacking the NDP from the right, releasing xenophobic ads and pushing a Marois-esque message. Despite changing gears, the Beaulieu faction is still around.
The Green Party of Canada
Democratic Reform: While not the only party pushing to get rid of the First-Past-The-Post system, the Greens have made it one of their core issues.
Against C-51: They were the first party to raise the alarm about Bill C-51.
Clean Energy & Green Transport: One of the main planks of their platform is investment in clean energy. Another is investment in green transport.
First-Past-The-Post: The electoral system which the Greens hope to reform could be the greatest impediment to them being able to pull off any real change after this election.
Policies Adopted by Other Parties: Most of the best ones have been.
None of the Above
Record Your Displeasure: If you really don’t like any of the options, then not voting for any of them by scratching your ballot means your displeasure will be heard. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Why vote for evil?
Broken Promises: Party platforms are not written in stone. Politicians break promises all the time, even major ones if they become impossible in the current system (cough, Greece, cough).
The State: If you are fundamentally opposed to the state and would like very much to get rid of it, it makes sense not to perpetuate it with an endorsement.
The State Exists: While the Canadian state still exists, the winner of the election will be able to form its policy. By voting None of the Above, your only recourse against the one of the above that wins may be the streets.
C-51: With Bill C-51 now law, it’s a helluva lot easier to be labelled as a terrorist. With Bill C-24 people with dual citizenship could be deported after being labelled a terrorist for doing something as simple as protesting an injustice. With these laws on the books, taking to the streets may be considerably more difficult. For some, repealing C-51 is an “at all costs” sort of thing and None of the Above isn’t an option this time.
Tuesday night’s BC election was supposed to be an in-the-bag victory for the NDP. Instead, it turned into a cautionary tale of Canada’s altered political landscape.
Adrian Dix, BC New Democrat frontrunner, will perhaps go down in history as the suffocated canary who somehow managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
According to Angus Reid, a forecast before the election showed New Democrats were the party of choice with 45% of decided voters and leaners. Liberals were in second with 36%. On Election Day, however, Liberals won 44.4% of the popular vote with the NDP trailing at 39.5%. This translated into Liberals winning 50 of BC’s 85 legislature seats ― an increase of five seats.
Unlike Quebec PQ premier Pauline Marois, Christie Clark’s supporters should not hail Clark as the Iron Lady of the West. Premier Clark failed to secure for herself a seat in her own riding of Vancouver-Point Grey. An MLA elected in a Liberal stronghold will likely surrender their seat so the party leader can run in a by-election.
Postmortem assessment will likely uncover ‘leadership’ as the underlying cause of the BC NDP losses. BC’s election may have had more to do with Dix’s incompetence than Clark’s popularity.
Polls definitely showed that while federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s popularity rose, Clark’s popularity declined. Neither her nor Dix inspired province-wide confidence.
Indeed, Clark’s only saving grace was her ability to stay on message as the only viable candidate to stabilize BC’s economic sector and create jobs. BC Conservative leader John Cummins, shared similar policies with Clark but ultimately, his skepticism about global warming proved incompatible with BC voters.
An effective strategy for Dix would have been to prime Northern Gateway and frame it as a political clash between BC’s populous left against its irreconcilable right. Dix did no service to the party by clouding his position on Northern Gateway with qualifiers while Clark had indicated willingness to do business with Alberta if the price was right. An uncoordinated effort to attack the right in cooperation with the Greens also proved devastating.
What happened should give NDP brass in Ottawa pause. Party leader Tom Mulcair, who had openly campaigned for Dix and saw this election as a potential warm-up for the next federal campaign, has already pledged to apply the lessons learned here in 2015.
This result was also bad for Dix’s campaign manager Brian Topp, also Jack Layton’s former chief strategist, a member of the NDP old guard and last year’s federal NDP runner-up to Mulcair. Topp’s miscalculation shows signs that the Orange Wave is regressing. Its effect could prove fatal to the federal campaign.
BC’s election represents the largest NDP experiment since the 2013 Montreal convention rejected creating a provincial party in Quebec. It may soon be the NDP’s Spanish Civil War before World War II.
Clark’s negative attacks on Dix and Dix’s unwillingness to be nasty in return, shirking away from confrontation at the televised debate, proved lethal.
Is the negative attack strategy no longer just a Harper hallmark, but a matter of political survival? Canadian politics may have not only shifted further into negative campaigning, but proved it is here to stay.
New Democrats may have to commit sacrilege against their fallen hero whose dying breath was of love being better than anger and optimism being better than despair if they want to win in 2015.
This story was broken by Ethan Cox in a rabble.ca exclusive
With a little over a week to go until the Quebec Liberal Party elects a new leader, a leading contender for the post is facing questions over his work at McGill University during a four and a half year absence from politics.
Dr. Philippe Couillard, the neurosurgeon and former Quebec Health Minister widely considered to be the front-runner to replace former Premier Jean Charest, was appointed Senior Fellow in Health Law at McGill University in January 2009, shortly after his resignation from politics in the summer of 2008.
According to sources at McGill, he held that position until April of 2012, a period of over three years, or ten academic semesters. At the time of his hiring, it was announced that he would be joining the McGill Research Group on Health and Law, and his responsibilities would include “teaching, special lectures and research.”
However a search of Minerva, McGill’s electronic registration system, shows that he taught only two courses over his time at McGill, one in the fall semester of 2009 and another in the fall semester of 2010.
This appears to be at odds with Dr. Couillard’s campaign website, which states that he was “appointed Senior Fellow in Health Law at McGill University in January 2009, and taught there from January 2009 to December 2011.” Minerva records show Couillard did not begin teaching until Fall of 2009, and did not teach at all in 2011.
“Here at McGill, we’re seeing budgets being slashed across the university, and these cuts are having a profound impact on students and the quality of our education,” said Jimmy Gutman, a Student Senator with the Student Society of McGill University who researched Couillard’s teaching record.
“If he was doing research he certainly didn’t publish any of it. I think students and taxpayers alike deserve to know what he was paid, and what work he did for the university.”
Dr. Couillard did not respond to repeated requests for comment directed to press secretary Harold Fortin, and did not reply to a request for a list of what duties other than teaching he performed for the university. McGill promised to, then failed to respond to a series of questions submitted in writing.
Wendy Thomson, a faculty member in the McGill Research Group on Health and Law, said that although she did not work directly with Couillard, she remembered him being around and suggested that his case is not comparable to that of Arthur Porter, the former MUHC head who was publicly criticized for drawing a teaching salary without teaching any courses. “[Couillard] taught a course or two on healthcare policy… he was certainly visible and present in the university.”
“For me it’s about transparency,” continued Gutman, who says he will raise the issue at the next meeting of the university’s Senate. “If he was doing something other than teaching, why won’t he or the university tell us what that was? Why won’t they disclose his salary, which is paid out of our tax dollars? If he was paid a significant salary for over three years to teach two courses then I believe that’s a misuse of public funds.”
It was a tense election, but I didn’t think it would end this way. In the alley, behind Metropolis, one person on the ground, held there by cops making his gun visible to the cameras, another, sound technician Denis Blanchette, dead and another injured.
PQ leader Pauline Marois, newly minted Premier-designate rushed off stage by security mid-speech. She had just won a minority government.
That’s right, the same kind of government that made Harper hold a damn kitten on his lap for years. A minority PQ can’t and won’t call a referendum. They can’t even hold a bake sale without at least some Liberal, CAQ or QS MNAs supporting it.
The election result was perfect for progressives, even for progressive anglos like me. Charest was gone (officially as leader this afternoon) and the PQ can’t do much, except maybe stuff that’s good for everyone.
And then some idiot goes and brings a gun to the PQ victory party. And he has the nerve to say as the cops were parading him in front of the cameras, in French, that the English were waking up.
Waking up from what? Waking up from years of voting for the Liberals no matter what? Waking up from the Federalist/Sovereigntist English/French debate that has dominated our political discourse in Quebec for too long?
Apparently, the shooter hasn’t woken up yet. Sad. Even more sad that one person is dead.
For the rest of the evening, well, here’s what I was planning to write up until the plot changed:
Quebeckers sent a message that they reject Bill 78, tuition increases and Charest’s corruption. That’s a good thing, in my book, because enforced austerity must be rejected. Charest had to go.
They also elected our first-ever woman premier. While I’m not a fan of some of the things Marois said during the campaign and am disturbed by others, I’m happy that our local political glass ceiling has been shattered and believe that she will do her best to make her new government work.
The impact of the CAQ was muted—also good. Quebec Solidaire doubled its seats, now both leaders, Francoise David and Amir Khadir, are MNAs and the party finished second and third in quite a few ridings. This is a big step forward for a forward-thinking party.
There was a chance, that finally, the discourse would change. The parties were forced to work together, Marois even spoke English during her speech (that’s finish your drink time in our Quebec Election Night Drinking Game).
All this, sadly, will take a backseat to one confused individual’s attempt to bring us back to that same discourse.
There is a vigil tonight at 8pm in front of the Metropolis for the victim of last night’s shooting
Ever been asked if you’d rather contract herpes, gonorrhoea or crabs? That’s pretty much the question facing progressive Quebec voters on September 4th, at least when it comes to what the mainstream media (and TVA in particular) see as the three main parties. I’m beginning to understand why so many politically active students are considering not voting.
First we have Jean Charest’s Liberals (PLQ). If this election is about anything, it’s a referendum on Bill 78, Charest’s handling of the student strike and corruption in the construction industry.
Unless you’re a supporter of one or more of those things, then one thing is crystal clear: everything else aside, Jean Charest has got to go. But you replace him with who or rather what?
The PQ? True, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois was really playing to progressives a few months ago. Her MNAs were passionately speaking out against Bill 78 and she seemed to be stepping away from the PQ boilerplates of sovereignty and language towards more socially-driven causes. She even wore a red square.
Now in campaign mode, her red square is gone and that boilerplate is back on the table. Just a reminder that today’s PQ and PLQ are essentially the same corporate party, with minor philosophical differences. Voting PQ to get rid of Charest is like banging a nail through your thumb with a hammer to take away the pain from the brick you just dropped on your toe.
That brings us to the Coalition de l’Avenir du Quebec or CAQ (most unfortunate acronym when said as a word in English, ever). François Legault left the PQ, hooked up with some Adequistes and formed a new party. Well, new if you’re talking dates, ideas are a different story.
This is basically the ADQ all over again. While they’re making a big deal about cleaning up corruption and have a better track record in that department than the PLQ or PQ (not hard given they’ve only existed since last year) their platform includes some right-leaning gems like exploring the idea of a two-tiered healthcare system.
They originally voted for Bill 78, but now are suggesting that they would eliminate some of the law’s provisions. I’m not usually one to champion a black or white approach to politics, but the unconstitutional suspension of basic rights and freedoms is a pretty cut and dry topic.
It’s something you really should be either for or against. There are fences you can sit on. This one, they’ll find, is particularly uncomfortable.
All this is not to say that there aren’t choices out there that lean left or are full-on progressive. In fact there are three.
Option Nationale is interesting. They’re advocating two things primarily: free tuition and sovereignty.
While I support the former wholeheartedly, the latter really isn’t my cup of tea (not a fan of any type of nationalism: Canadian, American or Quebec) and is something that has been played to death in Quebec.
It’s rare for a Quebec party to make ads in English in general, but aiming a separation pitch squarely at anglos is a unique approach to say the least. Can’t quite tell if it signifies a bold new way of doing politics or that they sent the wrong script to the translator by mistake
There’s also the Quebec Green Party. Not usually a ballot box favourite anywhere in North America, these Greens seem particularly confused.
First they made former MERSQ (a group for the tuition increase) president Karolane Baillargeon their candidate in Outremont. Then, after news of her recent job spread in the media, they backpedaled and announced that she wouldn’t be their candidate.
While Green squares apparently aren’t a great fit in the Quebec Green Party, I doubt any of them would have even thought of approaching Québec Solidaire to run. Party co-leader Amir Khadir was, after all, arrested at a casseroles demonstration and was very vocal against Bill 78, urging civil disobedience shortly after it was passed.
I like QS. That is to say I like most of their ideas. I’m not too fond of their insistence on sovereignty, but at least their vision for it is an inclusive one that goes beyond one dominant culture seceding. They even got slammed by former Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, you know, the guy who oversaw the decimation of his party when the Orange Wave hit last year.
Will there be a Vague Solidaire sweeping Quebec in September? Well, while I admit that it’s not likely, stranger things have happened in Quebec. QS is the one left-leaning party with a chance (albeit a small one) of winning. Maybe the climate is right.
If not, then we can all go back to protesting and demanding real change out of whatever “major” party takes or keeps power in hopes of washing the bad taste out of our mouths.
When Rick Perry announced he was running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States on August 13th, he did so with much publicity and fanfare, he even managed 700+ votes as a write in candidate in the Ames Straw Poll that same weekend. He was instantly dubbed as a man with charisma, a man of action, and a man who isn’t too shy to let his voice be heard, kind of like a George Bush that can speak English. Perry has deep corporate pockets and will be a formidable foe for the other conservatives aspiring for the top job, but like Chuck D once said “don’t believe the hype”, at least not yet.
Rick Perry was molded by former Senior Advisor to George W. Bush Karl Rove, the notorious Republican strategist. Rove this past week turned on Perry and now wants to bring down the Frankenstein he created, warning people of his right-wing extremist views (ironic isn’t it?).
Perry’s views are as far right as one can get, he is quick to dismiss evolution saying recently that “God is how we got here.” He also defended the teaching of creationism in schools because evolution “has some gaps to it.” Unlike the bible which we all know is seamless without gaps and contradictions.
Going along with conservative tradition Perry, also does not believe in man-made global warming. He said Earth’s temperature “has been moving up and down for millenniums now and there are enough scientists out there that are skeptical about the reasons for it.” For the record, 98% of scientists believe man is responsible for global warming.
Not to be outdone by his predecessor, Rick Perry broke George W’s record for state executions under a governor’s watch, 234 at the last count including Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was executed via lethal injection in 2004 for murdering his wife and three kids through arson. It soon appeared for certain that Willingham was innocent, but Perry declined to grant a stay of execution when presented with evidence that his case had been mishandled. When the Texas Forensic Science Commission was on the edge of concluding that the fire might not have been arson after all, Perry promptly replaced three of its members. An innocent man grieving the loss of his wife and kids was put to death and Perry pushed it aside then covered it up.
Perry is also concerned that the rich are carrying too much of the nation’s financial weight. The wealthiest one percent of Texans paid only 3 percent of their income in state and local taxes while without having to pay income tax, the poorest fifth of Texans ended up paying about 12 percent of their income in taxes. Perry said during his announcement speech that “spreading the wealth punishes success.” If that’s true it’s no wonder the poor stay deprived in Texas.
Speaking of the economy, Mr. Perry likewise took on the Federal Reserve and its Republican-appointed chairman Ben Bernanke last week. He stated the central bank’s leader would be committing a “treasonous” act if he decided to print more money to boost the economy before the election. Treason of course is punishable by death and boosting the economy is good for Obama.
If Rick Perry is trying to win over Tea Party members to his cause, he will have an awfully tough time. During Perry’s time as Governor of Texas the state debt has almost tripled from $13 billion to $38 billion. The few tea baggers with half a brain should see right through him.
Furthermore, Perry’s claim of high job creation in Texas (mainly minimum wage jobs) was by no means his own doing. It was due in part by the booming oil industry and Barack Obama’s stimulus package, $17 billion of which went to Texas. 47% of all government jobs added in the US between 2007 and 2010 were added in Texas.
This Texas Governor has a good a chance as any conservative of winning the Republican nomination as long as he continues to convey the message of God, guns, no taxes, and the American flag wrapped in unrelenting support of Israel. While the average conservative might fall for all this, other high ranking Republicans think this message will make him unelectable versus Obama.
Rick Perry’s bark might indeed be worse than his bite, but when it comes to elections nothing bites harder than money, corporate money. This is one area in which Governor Perry thrives. The corporatist knows who his friends are and how to make them happy, so he is free to bark as loud as he desires and his food bowl will continue to be replenished. Let’s all hope that people will learn how to ignore that unintelligible noise coming from next door.
I’ve decided to have a little contest for next week. For those who are interested, send me your favorite political cartoons (photos). I will pick the top 20 and post them in my article with the submitter’s name underneath. Send your entries to email@example.com and be sure to include your name, thanks everyone!
By all accounts, this looked like it was going to be an election that would really change the political map in Canada, and it was. It looked like some political careers would be over, and a slew of new MPs would come to Ottawa. That happened too. It looked like an unstoppable wave would sweep through Quebec, then head west and not stop until we had a new Prime Minister with a new vision for a better Canada, and that’s exactly what happened – at least, the first part happened, then something went wrong, really wrong.
As the dust settles, we see a Quebec painted NDP orange with 58 MPs, a huge leap for a party that held just one seat (Thomas Mulcair in Outremont) after the 2008 election. We also see the party in second place nationally with 102 seats, something that has never come close to happening before.
There is now a strong, left-of-centre national opposition to the Harper Conservatives. Quebeckers have decided to stand up, en masse, for progressive social policy ahead of the sovereignty-versus-federalism, anglo-versus-franco dialogue that has dominated the discourse for so long in this province.
The Bloc is broken, reduced to just four seats from 49 in 2008. Even leader Gilles Duceppe lost his Laurier Sainte-Marie seat to the NDP’s HélÃ¨ne LaverdiÃ¨re.
The Liberals aren’t doing much better, falling to third party status with only 37 seats, something that has never happened to Canada’s “natural governing party.” Leader Michael Ignatieff also lost his seat in Etobicoke-Lakeshore to Conservative Bernard Trottier.
This was an election that saw many prominent politicians lose their seats and political careers, making way for a slew of new, mainly progressive candidates. A wave of change, an orange wave of change, was all around. The perfect storm, right? Well, there was one huge problem. This election produced a nightmare scenario that pretty much everyone on the now-united left dreaded happening. Stephen Harper got his majority.
Alberta and the rest of the Prairies were pretty much a lock for the Conservatives already and BC fell a little more into the blue column than expected, but that alone didn’t change the game. It’s southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area, and even parts of the City of Toronto itself, that put Harper over the top, bringing his total to 167 seats, enough for a majority.
A closer look at those ridings shows that Liberal support didn’t bleed to the NDP as anticipated, or at least not as anticipated by those like myself. We were hoping that strategic-minded anti-Harper people in Ontario would clue into the fact that Quebec and a good chunk of the rest of the country would vote for Layton, giving the NDP enough seats to take power with their help. The old two-party far right/centre-right-posing-as-centre-left dynamic still applied.
Some might claim that NDP supporters in Ontario should have voted Liberal to give the Grits a few more seats and the Conservatives a few less. Others argue, as my colleague Megan Dougherty does, that our voting system, which allows a party that doesn’t have the majority of votes to form a majority government, should be reformed.
No matter how you analyze it, one thing is clear. People living in and around Canada’s largest city actually voted for Stephen Harper.
Whether they realize it or not, they voted for corporate tax breaks, fighter jets, an endless war in Afghanistan, no more CBC, an internet unprotected against corporate interests, more prisons, less social programs, no federal funding for other political parties and a police state. Remember the G20? Remember the mass arrests for no reason? That’s what this guy did in a minority position. With a majority, who knows what he’s capable of.
He’s going to try and implement his far-right platform as soon as he can, so it’s up to the opposition NDP and all of us to stand up to it however we can.
For those in opposition, I have high hopes. If the energy in the Rialto at the NDP victory party isn’t reason enough, it’s knowing that people like LaverdiÃ¨re, whom I proudly voted for (not a chance to knock out Duceppe, my ass) and new Jeanne-le-Ber MP Tyrone Benskin, whose campaign I proudly helped out with, now have our back in Ottawa.
It’s also knowing that people without tons of corrupt political baggage like new Sherbrooke MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault (at 19, the youngest MP in Canadian history) and McGill students Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne-Blainville), Matthew Dubé (Chambly-Borduas), MylÃ¨ne Freeman (Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel) and Laurin Liu (RiviÃ¨re-des-Mille-ÃŽles) will bring new ideas to Ottawa.
We can only hope that this newly invigorated party will do three things: oppose, oppose and oppose! Whenever Harper tries to shove one of his unethical, destructive policies down our throats, let’s hope the NDP makes a huge fuss about it in Parliament and gets the rest of us energized, too, through the media, through grassroots organizing and through any (legal, of course) means necessary.
No, they can’t vote down any proposed laws, but they can make sure the rest of us know about them so that we can bring them down with our voices and our actions. It now becomes our turn to take action and hopefully that’s just what we’ll do. We know it’s possible to bring our voices to Ottawa, now let’s make sure they get heard loud and clear so that the next time around, with all the pseudo-progressives out of the way, Harper won’t stand a chance.
Today is Election Day in Canada and tomorrow the Canadian political landscape may be drastically different. What seemed like an ordinary campaign at the start with predictable results similar to those attained the last time around has been flipped on its head and might just take a sharp turn to the left before the dust settles. It’s a bit cliché to say that every vote counts, but this time, it looks like that’s actually going to be the case.
It seems, for once, people are excited to go out and vote and more than two million of them did just that in the advance polling. Even though it was a holiday weekend, advance polling numbers were up 34% from the 2008 election.
For those of you who didn’t go out last weekend, you now have twelve hours (9:30am 9:30pm) to let your opinion be counted. All you need is the voter card you got in the mail with your name on it or a proof of address (a driver’s license or a bill addressed to you at your address) and a photo ID. If you’re not sure where to vote, check the Elections Canada website.
Last time around, there was a growing resentment of Stephen Harper and what he was doing to the country. Unfortunately the political left, and quite a bit of the center as well, were divided between the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc (in Quebec only, of course) and the Greens.
Strategic voting sites sprung up, telling people which party to vote for in which riding in an attempt to defeat the Conservatives. For the most part, it involved people having to hold their noses and vote Liberal.
Fast-forward to now, past the G20 and other scandals, and people have even more reason to dislike Harper. This time though, the left is uniting and according to pretty much every poll done over the past two weeks it is uniting behind Jack Layton and the NDP.
This orange wave started in Quebec and could very well wipe the Bloc off the map or push it back to its hardcore sovereignist base while bringing the Liberals down to third-party status, something that has never happened before, ever.
The most recent polls see the NDP neck and neck with the Conservatives. This has scared pretty much everyone in the other parties who launched some last-minute attack ads and even a very ineffective smear campaign.
If enough Liberal and other voters switch, we may have Prime Minister Jack Layton and Harper can go back to whatever it was he did before.
Vote Internet and Culture
Elections always bring out special interest groups trying to push a particular policy they champion to the forefront of the discourse. This is sometimes done in a backroom wheeling and dealing way but when it comes to issues that affect all of us such as the environment, it’s usually quite public.
Sometimes they poll the parties on the issue and make the results public, issuing “checkups” or “report cards” on their stances. Sometimes they throw together entire parties dedicated to the singular issue. Now, one special interest that is of interest to us all, really, is doing a little from column A and a little from column B. Yes, The Internet is running for Prime Minister of Canada.
This candidate, known more simply as Net, is already off to a great start. Not only does Net connect millions of Canadians together from coast to coast, 35 000 people have signed an online pledge to vote for the Internet and this only a month after half a million people signed OpenMedia.ca’s Stop the Meter petition against Usage-Based Billing (UBB).
The threat of UBB is why the web is such an important issue this election. A few months ago, giant telecom companies like Bell, Rodgers and Shaw convinced the CRTC to allow them to put a cap on the amount of online content their customers, and the customers of smaller ISPs using their lines, can access and charge more for anything beyond that point. Not only is this a cash grab not based on what it actually costs the big boys to provide the service, but it’s a threat to the free flow of information online in Canada as we know it.
And just how do you vote for the Internet? Well, since Net doesn’t have a party and is only looking for the top job, OpenMedia.ca has prepared a list of local candidates that support a free and open Internet. If one of them is running in your riding, then a vote for them is a vote for the Internet and a fair and open media future in Canada. They’ve also published the results of a quiz sent to all the main and some not-so-main parties running. Pretty much all except for the conservatives responded. No big surprise there.
The Net isn’t the only thing to consider. Culture is also very important. Having successfully won (for the moment) against the City of Montreal and developper Angus, the coalition to save Cafe Cleopatre hope that you vote with culture in mind. They’ve issued their own report card on the parties and even released an attack-ad style video on the candidates.
An electoral campaign dominated by talk of coalitions, corporate tax cuts and care for seniors has sidelined an issue crucially important to the future of the country: court appointments to Canada’s highest judicial body.
With four of nine Supreme Court Justices approaching the mandatory age of retirement in the next four years, and eight of nine eligible for retirement with full pension by the end of 2011, Canada’s next Prime Minister will likely wield an inordinate influence over the country’s judicial landscape for years to come.
In Canada, the Prime Minister appoints judges to the Supreme Court with no formal checks and balances. While the Supreme Court Act requires that three of the nine judges be from Quebec and that all nominees must have been members of the bar for at least ten years, the appointment process is otherwise uninhibited.
This leaves Canada’s Prime Minister with unchecked power to choose the individuals who will make definitive judgments on abortion, national security and religious freedom among other contentious issues. Long after the Prime Minister has held office, judges with no term limits will continue to make policy that affects the lives of future generations.
So, given this startling number of imminent Supreme Court vacancies, why have judicial appointments been a sleeper issue during this campaign?
First, in Canada media coverage of political culture does not normally extend to the judiciary and Canadian new sources have few, if any, justice reporters. This stands in stark contrast to the Unites States, where Supreme Court Justices border on celebrity status (consider the media coverage of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination).
Second, despite the fact that Supreme Court rulings have a profound effect on our lives, judgments are notoriously long, dull and academic, and most Canadians are more interested in clipping their toenails than following the procedures of this far-removed institution.
Finally, there is the unavoidable fact that reforming the judicial appointment process is a complicated issue no matter how you shake it.
Critics of the Canadian appointment process have lobbied the government to reform the current system to resemble the more democratic US system of appointment where nominees must be confirmed by the senate, which holds veto power.
In Canada, leaving the confirmation to our unelected senate would do nothing to improve the democratic value of the process. Bestowing the confirmation on elected legislators would be equally fruitless since the Prime Minister’s party holds the most seats in the House of Commons and, with the crack of the party whip, the PM’s nominations would likely go unchecked.
Detractors of the US-style process are also quick to point out that including legislators, while more democratic, would render the process a legitimately partisan affair. The independence of the judiciary may be compromised when the process is politicized and party preference for Supreme Court Justices plays an accepted role in the process.
Heeding to criticism about the democratic deficit, in recent years the executive branch has taken minor steps to reform the unchecked Canadian appointment process.
In 2003 Prime Minister Paul Martin altered the process by initiating a parliamentary committee to review nominations, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed suit by allowing the committee to question Supreme Court nomineesâ€”a commonplace practice in the US but a first in Canadian history.
Ultimately, however, the committee’s role was simply a perfunctory one, as the committee was carefully instructed as to what types of questions they could ask nominees, and accomplished nothing in fundamentally altering the appointment process.
Although these superficial changes to the appointment process have been disappointing, we should not be discouraged from pursing a more meaningful type of reform. A major step in this endeavor is to cast the net of possible reform options beyond the usual reach of our Southern neighbour to consider how other countries proceed.
In Australia for instance, there must be consultation with the Attorney-Generals of the states and territories, which offsets the executive’s concentration of power. The United Kingdom, while not operating under a charter, takes a distinctly non-political approach to High Court appointments by forming a selection committee, which includes significant lay representation, each time a vacancy arises.
While far from perfect, both countries’ appointment processes offer potential options for reforming our current system’s disproportionate concentration of power.
With a frightening number of vacancies looming, and a still yet unknown government, it is especially important to moderate the majoritarianism that a selection process left entirely up to the Prime Minister creates.
If Harper’s two previous Supreme Court appointees have been relatively uncontroversial picks, his track record suggests cause for concern. In 2008-2009 alone there were a documented 233 patronage appointments sprinkled generously among the senate, lower courts and various other government positions.
If we really believe that judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy, and that its primary function is to provide a balance to executive and legislative powers, then why has the appointment process gone unchecked for so long? Now more than ever we need to demand real checks and balances to the appointment of the individuals who have the final say on our rights and freedoms.