Vote smart

The Vote for Environment website has calculated seat counts with and without strategic voting:


It's clear that with strategic voting all of the opposition parties would be better off. We would elect a Liberal minority with strong representation from the NDP and Bloc, one Green and two independents.

The site features recommendations to beat the Tories in each riding, with polls giving current standings.

On their blog, they quote Elizabeth May in yesterday's Toronto Star:

May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.

"We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."

"I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous," she said.

If there was ever a time for strategic voting, this is it.

Help Avaaz stop Harper

Save the Planet: Stop Harper!
For the last two years, the Harper government has done everything it could to wreck the world's efforts to fix climate change. At UN negotiations, Canada has been voted the WORST country in the world on climate change 3 times! Now, it's election time, and we have to make sure that Harper pays the price at the polls for his reckless and un-Canadian climate policy.

Avaaz is targeting 3 of Harper's top MPs (including Environment Minister John Baird) where it will hurt them the most -- at the grass roots. Together, we will try to stop their re-election with ad campaigns telling their constituents just how irresponsible they've been in the name of all Canadians. We'll beat them not by supporting any one party, but by appealing to all voters to help save the planet by voting for the candidate most likely to beat the Conservatives. Our ad campaign is ready to launch in these ridings, but we urgently need your help to raise $50,000 this week.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_harper/

$53 to celebrate Dion's 53rd birthday

Femmeverte is joining with A United Party, A United Canada - Stephane Dion in challenging Liberal supporters to celebrate Stéphane Dion's 53rd birthday on September 28, 2008, with a $53 donation to the Liberal party or your local Liberal campaign.

Donate online here: https://www.liberal.ca/donate_e.aspx.

Already at your donation limit? Consider volunteering or recruiting a new donor or volunteer.

Progressives for Dion

Confused voter? Read this: http://progressivesfordion.ca/alerts/

Dion on As It Happens - audio

Stéphane Dion discussed the Liberal platform and took questions from listeners on this evening's As It Happens (CBC Radio One):

http://www.innutube.com/play_audio.php?audio=77
(Note: audio will start automagically when you click the link)

Who is interfering with Facebook?

Guest post by Deb Prothero

Although I am trying to get some work done today, I was curious about the Liberal Campaign Launch, so I went online.

Facebook is one of the places I check out for recent activity that might be interesting. Under updates, I was online as this one came in:

Anyonebutharper.ca
From Mean People Suck
Hey folks,

I’m part of a non-partisan movement Voting to Win against Stephen Harper. You can check out our website at www.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca. The movement is comprised of hundreds of Canadians — Liberals, NDP, Green, Bloc -- from across Canada all working collaboratively to promote strategic voting. We’re not the only group doing this, by the way. Vote for Environment http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://(http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://voteforenvironment.ca), Department of Culture http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://(http://www.departmentofculture.ca) and even the CAW are all urging Canadians to vote strategically. If we work together, we may prevent a Harper majority government from becoming a fait accompli.

I’m writing this message because I need YOU to help spread the word.

Please visit http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca and choose ONE of the Anyonebutharper videos and share it with your network. The “SHARE” plug-in with the green icon allows you to easily share this video on Facebook, Myspace, Digg, and so on. It even lets you post it on your blogs and send it to friends via email. If you are so inclined you may even share One Video a Day for the next FOUR days.

And lastly, if you could please copy/paste this message and send it to FIVE of your friends, that would be great!

I know that if we all work collectively and harness the power of our networks, we can stop what seems inevitable from happening!

Vive la revolution!
(read less)
Today at 10:13am | Opt Out | Report Spam

I chose to click on the link and lookie here:

The following website has been identified as malicious:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://anyonebutharper.ca
The link you have clicked has been identified by Facebook as a malicious web site. For the safety and privacy of your Facebook account, we strongly suggest you avoid visiting this address.

Has someone been tinkering with Facebook or are the Conservatives really scared now after Nik Nanos' numbers yesterday showed that Dion has the momentum now and Harper is yesterday's news. Just because a majority of Canadians do not want Harper and are trying to organize a strategic response, does this mean the Conservatives or individuals supporting the Conservatives should interfere with that online effort? What about free speech or is that only for Conservatives?

And if I were to label something malicious, it would most certainly be the last two years of activity directed against Stephane Dion by the Conservatives in parliament and the Conservative Party of Canada's attack advertising campaign.

Stephane Dion has been a superhero in handling the malicious attacks, in my opinion.

The Green Shift, good for corporate Canada

Stéphane Dion explains the tax advantages for corporations in The Green Shift policy.



Dion on TVO's The Agenda, September 18, 2008. See the complete interview on the TVO website.

Healthy environment = healthy economy

Dion links a healthy environment with a healthy economy -

Canadians should not pay more taxes. But we need to be taxed differently to be stronger collectively.... When we ask Canadians, "What is your priority, the economy or the environment?" my answer is both. We need to bring them together instead of opposing them.

Stéphane Dion on TVO's The Agenda, September 18, 2008. See the complete interview on the TVO website.

Telling the truth in both official languages

Stéphane Dion on TVO's The Agenda, September 18, 2008. Asked by Steve Paikin about his progress with English, Dion replied: "I don't speak English as well as Stephen Harper. But I say the truth better than him in both official languages."



See the complete interview on the TVO website.

Stéphane Dion on The Hour With George Stroumboulopoulos

Stéphane Dion on The Hour With George Stroumboulopoulos -

intro, bio & interview:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=861028632

cold open:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=860999220

Listeria victim's family angry over Ritz jokes

CBC / CP coverage of reaction to Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's jokes about the listeriosis epidemic. In this clip, Dennis Schroh, son of a listeriosis victim, called Ritz's statements "ruthless and disrespectful." (September 19, 2008)

Conservatives to kill meat inspection in Manitoba: Ag Union

Agriculture Union media release:

Conservatives to kill meat inspection in Manitoba

WINNIPEG, Sept. 18 /CNW Telbec/ - If elected, a federal Conservative government plans to stop delivering provincial meat inspection programs in Manitoba leaving local consumers exposed to the risk of unsafe meat. The plan is revealed in a secret Treasury Board of Canada decision record, dated May 6, 2008, documenting the acceptance of a proposal concerning "Provincial Meat Slaughter Establishments (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia)" which calls for the "elimination of federal delivery of provincial meat inspection programs."

"Meat produced in provincially registered facilities in Manitoba would not be inspected by anyone under this plan," says Bob Kingston, President of the Agriculture Union - Public Service Alliance of Canada, which has launched www.foodsafetyfirst.ca, a tool for voters to email their local candidates during the federal election to urge them to make a commitment to food safety. The campaign is being organized jointly with the Professional Institute of the Public Service Canada.

The Treasury Board decision record says that following approval of a detailed implementation plan, "including risk mitigation and communications strategies," the cuts will come into force.

In Manitoba, the federal government delivers provincial meat inspection programs ensuring provincially registered slaughter facilities meet sanitation and other safety regulations. There are more than 30 provincially registered meat establishments in Manitoba that produce everything from beef to bison, ostrich to turkey and whose products cannot be shipped outside the province. "As we've seen during recent weeks, the federal government should be increasing food inspection, not cutting it," Kingston says.

The government of Stephen Harper has steadily cut funding for food safety programs and shifted responsibility for safety assurance to the food companies themselves.

According to current Treasury Board of Canada forecasts, funding for food safety programs will have declined by almost 30% from $359 million in 2006/07 to $254 million in 2010/11 under Mr. Harper's watch.

Meanwhile, the government plans to expand industry self-policing of safety. The same Treasury Board record also reveals plans to: "shift from full-time Canadian Food Inspection Agency meat inspection presence to an oversight role, allowing industry to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks."

The Food Safety First campaign is urging federal candidates to endorse a four-point commitment to food safety:

1. Hire 1000 additional inspectors and veterinarians to improve industry compliance with safety regulations.
2. Place a moratorium on industry self-policing.
3. Remove obstacles that prevent CFIA inspectors and vets from taking immediate action when they encounter potential public health risks in the plants they inspect.
4. Restore the system of public audit reports which were cancelled under pressure from the meat industry.

"Voters can visit www.foodsafetyfirst.ca to send a message asking their candidates to make a commitment to food safety. When the candidates are asking voters for their support, there's no better time to ask the candidates to make this commitment," Kingston said.

The Agriculture Union - PSAC represents federal food inspectors and its President Bob Kingston is an Inspection Supervisor on leave from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Before going on a leave of absence to serve as an elected union officer, Kingston spent 25 years as a CFIA and Agriculture Canada inspector, including 15 years as a multi-commodity supervisor, a senior level inspector position.

For further information: Jim Thompson, (613) 447-9592

Source: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2008/18/c5823.html

h/t T. Thwim

Dion on The Current

Here's audio of Dion's interview with Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC Radio's The Current yesterday:

http://www.innutube.com/play_audio.php?audio=65


He explained very clearly how the green shift will support lower and middle income people.

Gerry Ritz - "stupid and insensitive remarks"

CTV coverage of Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz making "stupid and insensitive remarks" about the listeriosis epidemic. Roger Smith and Bob Fife talking to Mike Duffy. Note the exchange between Duffy and Fife around 3:00.



Some commenters over at Maclean's blogs think the controversy about Ritz's jokes is being over-blown. I don't agree.

It's worth noting that the minister in charge of the safety of the country’s food supply thinks that the deaths of people due to unsafe food is a joking matter. There were about 30 people on that conference call, it wasn’t a private aside, he knew a lot of people were listening and he thought it was fine to joke about people dying.

Family members of people who died don’t think it was funny. The daughter of one victim called the comments “hurtful” and “disrespectful”: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/ritz-under-fire/#clip93578

This is what the phrase “adding insult to injury” means.

Coming on the same day as the CMAJ editorial that puts the responsibility for the listeriosis deaths squarely in the lap of the federal government, it is legitimately big news.

If family is everything, why not show some respect for the families who have lost loved ones? And why not some respect for families who have to feed their kids, their elders, family members with other medical conditions who are particularly vulnerable to listeriosis?

And how can the country have confidence in a minister who takes no responsibility for and doesn’t understand the seriousness of one of his core files - food safety?

The mother of all ridiculous claims

OK, so the real femmeverte is back and merci mille fois to Deb Prothero for alerting us all to uranium-related and many other Conservative nefariousnesses while fv has been busy cleaning litterboxes, taking cats to vets and other feline maintenance duties. (Oh yeah and that pesky day job, necessary to bring home the cat food and pay the vet bills.)

Now I'm sure I'm absolutely the last person in the blogosphere to see this, but it bears repeating so I'm going to shamelessly steal the whole thing from the Green website. Hey, we're friends, right? And I like their colour scheme.

12.09.2008
Secret government study belies Harper's claim that carbon tax will cause recession

TORONTO – The Green Party is releasing a secret report to the federal government from one of Canada's leading economists, obtained under the Access to Information Act in 2007. The report supports a carbon tax as an effective way to make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and concludes that a $50/tonne tax on carbon would have an insignificant impact on the Canadian economy and would open tremendous economic opportunities. The model estimates this carbon tax shift would cut emissions by about 36 megatonnes (MT) by 2010, 59 MT by 2015 and 114 MT by 2030 (Table 3).

Green Party leader Elizabeth May May diverted from her intended remarks at a campaign event in Toronto today to point out the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and thereby kicked off the leaders' debate.

The study, undertaken for Natural Resources Canada by M.K. Jaccard and Associates (MKJA), calculates the impact of carbon taxes of between $10 and $250 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) beginning in 2006 and applied throughout the economy at a single rate.

The report – Cost Curves for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Canada: The Kyoto Period and Beyond – concludes that the GDP impact of a $50/tonne tax shift is less than 0.1% of GDP per year until 2010, is virtually zero during the next five years and is then positive after 2015 (see chart below).

Further, the report projects net financial savings to those who take action as a result of the tax shift, after taking into account the investment in emissions reductions. At $50 per tonne, that windfall comes to $13.8 billion by 2010 and climbs from there (see chart below).

"Mr. Harper's ridiculous claim that taxing carbon will bring about economic ruin and a recession is starkly contradicted by his own research," said Ms. May. "In fact, this report shows a positive impact on GDP beginning in 2015. With this in the public domain it is clear that Mr. Harper is deliberately distorting the evidence. Mr. Harper's fear mongering on a carbon tax is a deliberate and premeditated effort to demonize a sensible plan.

"The government’s own analysis proves that a $50 carbon tax shift will benefit businesses and individuals, and will achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister should now explain to Canadians why, in the face of this compelling evidence, his government stubbornly refuses to consider the carbon tax option and continues to viciously attack those who do. Mr. Harper must bring some
honesty into this debate."

In remaining doggedly opposed to even considering a carbon tax and attacking those who do, Conservatives are ignoring a growing international consensus among leading economists and a government-commissioned study contradicting its warnings of economic meltdown.

The Green Party of Canada would implement a $50 per tonne carbon tax shift – with matching cuts in income and payroll taxes – as the cornerstone of a comprehensive plan for a green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global
campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

"When we first released our plan to put a price on carbon, Environment Minister John Baird saw fit to deride our plan as 'the mother of all tax increases' even though we propose a tax shift with no net increase in revenue," said Ms. May. "It's another example of the government's willingness to deliberately mislead Canadians in support of its ineffective and widely discredited climate change policies."
To download the report and supporting documents go to www.greenparty.ca/carbontax.

h/t to Saskboy & Green Assassin Brigade

Why Uranium?

Guest post by Deb Prothero

Ever since last week's announcement by Harper about implementing some of the recommendations of the Competition Policy Review Panel's "Compete to Win" Report from June 2009, I've been wondering why in the world did he specifically talk about uranium? Who was that message for? Commodities investors, Bay Street, the average voter? It just didn't add up.

When things don't add up, I smell a rat and try to follow its tail.

Starting with the make-up of the Competition Review Panel: L.R. (Red) Wilson, CEO of BCE, chair; N. Murray Edwards, CEO of Canadian Natural Resources (one of the largest investors in Oil Sands); P. Thomas Jenkins, CEO of Open Text; Isabelle Hudon, CEO Montreal Board of Trade and Brian Levitt, Partner and Co-chair Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt (also member of board of BCE).

The Panel was appointed in June 2007 and issued their report in June 2008. Little commentary by the media or criticism by others of the report can be found online. Report here: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cprp-gepmc.nsf/en/h_00040e.html

Their recommendations are worth considering but in the environment of a balanced analysis of the impact on the Canadian economy prior to implementation.

So, back to uranium.

I had recalled a CBC radio interview which I heard recently, discussing an agreement with the US for a "cradle to grave" approach to uranium. The agreement is called Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a "cooperation of those States that share the common vision of the necessity of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner," according to the website of the organization (http://www.gneppartnership.org/). Did you know that Canada signed this? I didn't.

Reports (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=96ca068c-5191-4829-b63d-767648f0522f&k=76488) last fall claimed that, "The cornerstone commitment of the partnership is its 'cradle-to-grave' plan to have all spent fuel from the world's reactors shipped back to GNEP uranium-supplier nations for secure disposal at nuclear-waste sites."

Hey, wait a minute. Did that just say that the SPENT FUEL will be shipped back to GNEP uranium-supplier nations? Does that mean that Canadians get to take back all the spent fuel from the US? Well, yes on the surface and in the writing of the agreement that's exactly what it says.

But wait a second, our fearless new government, now dissolved and seeking reelection, wants to reassure us. Remember the brilliant star in Harper's cabinet who fired Linda Keen the evening before she was to give evidence to a parliamentary committee. Yeah, that Gary Lunn. Here's what he has to say.

"We made it unequivocally clear that we will, under no circumstances, ever accept any nuclear spent fuel back from any other country," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said in another CanWest article (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=532e51e0-089b-4f55-a5af-6d99960282a7&k=23825). "So this is a good initiative and Canada should be at the table to ensure that we have a voice."

But how can he say that, when Harper has signed an agreement with the US (or has he not signed and its in the negotiation phase) indicating that in fact we will be required to accept their spent fuel, if we supply the uranium. Guess Gary Lunn is smarter than me. Or maybe Harper/Bush have a different concept of what cradle-to-grave means. I thought it was about much-valued social safety nets which we adopt from Scandinavian countries with a Canadian twist. They seem to be talking about protecting investors from risk and responsibility from cradle-to-grave for every penny they invest!

So how about other agreements with the US... what do they say?

Uranium production and management is definitely an SPP priority being discussed by the North American Energy Working Group: http://www.pi.energy.gov/naewg.html. See the following quote on the Department of Energy website in the U.S.:

"Specifically, the trilateral working group explores policies, regulations and technological innovations with a view to encouraging the most optimal, efficient and sustainable development of hydrocarbons, energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean power, and nuclear energy and their related infrastructure as well as ensuring frameworks are in place for markets to work most effectively."

Reducing the barriers to foreign involvement in Canada's uranium industry is, in a big sense, about creating a more seamless North American uranium and nuclear market, which is an SPP priority (probably the U.S.'s biggest priority.)

Now I'm getting worried. Harper is going to allow greater foreign investment in Canadian companies, especially uranium. Doesn't that mean that the profits leave Canada? So not only will the American-owned multi-nationals get the profit from our uranium. Canadians living in uranium rich areas will get the pollution from the extraction. Then once the Americans are finished with the uranium, they're going to ship us the spent fuel!

I thought the softwood lumber deal negotiated by Harper and Emerson was the sell-out of the century but this uranium deal takes the cake. The Americans couldn't convince the residents around Yucca Mountain to accept the spent fuel so now they're adopting the unique approach of shipping the used uranium back to where it came from - Canada!

When are we going to see some discussion about this agreement? If uranium is one aspect of the "Compete to Win" report, when are we going to see some healthy criticism of its recommendations and ideas? And when I say healthy criticism, I am serious. There are aspects of the Competition Policy Review Panel report's recommendations which may in fact be necessary or important since some parts were implemented 20 years ago and need updating.

BUT, I have not heard anyone in this campaign offer any information about this issue and I'm listening. When are the Canadian media going to inform us about our choices? When are all the parties going to give us some real information about our choices?


Tip of the hat to the local Council of Canadians for some tips and links.

What happens when you quit your job?

Seems to me that Employment Insurance benefits are denied if you quit your job. Harper quit his job and now he wants more - he wants a majority.

I've observed a successful strategy that Harper has employed and it is distressing to watch it play out. His abuse of the Parliamentary system seems to have gone unpunished. Through an abuse of the confidence motion (more than any other Prime Minister in history), Harper has set all the progressives against each other. Jack Layton is blaming the Liberals for propping up the government and Liberals are blaming Jack.

So it is a perfect storm. The NDP are blaming the Liberals for doing what they had no choice but to do. Jack should be aiming his guns at the Conservative abuse of the minority Parliament. Making a bill a confidence motion used to be a move taken with care. Heck, I saw more confidence motions in the last parliament than in the entire 30 plus years of previous voting.

Why isn't Harper being blamed for the ruination of the minority Parliament. He abused the rules; quit his job and now he wants to collect on benefits!

Don't think that's fair and why are we propping him up by shooting at each other.

Right, let's get on that!

Right wing, free enterprise, deregulated meltdown.
So we want a majority conservative government?

Thanks for telling Canadians that we are becoming more like conservatives, Harper - pretty insulting, I'd say. You say we're becoming more like the conservative Americans who are engaging in melting down their economy???

Good job on the economy, Steve!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/15/world-markets.html

Let's tie our balloon to that basket:

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/09/14/financial-makeover.html#socialcomments

The Crux of the Matter

The Crux of the Matter

Harper wants us to believe in his newly minted fatherly image. What does a conservative father believe?

According to George Lakoff’s book, “Moral Politics – How Conservatives and Liberals Think”, conservative fathers are strict, authoritarian figures where the father can protect the family in a dangerous world, support the family in a difficult world and teach his children right from wrong.

Obedience is implicit. That is, obedience of the electorate, obedience of the parliament. Once Harper gets a majority, he’ll do all the thinking, thank you very much. The rest of us can go back to work and shopping while he dismantles our federation handing over the juicy bits to American multi-national corporations, as he’s done so handily with the income trust matter. Don’t worry your pretty little heads about these tough economic issues.

What is our federation’s role? It alone stands in the way of the complete corporatization of our society, in my opinion. Without a federal state, our universal health care (among other important institutions) is at risk of being privatized completely. This is what this election is about.

When will we get to the crux of the matter in this election?

Harper has gleefully explained exactly what this country would look like when he's done with it, especially during his National Citizens Coalition days. We will have war, increased military spending, increased prison populations, no arts and no health care. That's his vision.

My vision of Canada is much different. We need to pull together as a nation to weather the coming economic storm from the south and to carve out a positive role for Canada and Canadians in the global effort to solve the greenhouse gas emissions problems. Without a federation, we'll be 10 provinces and territories fighting over scraps whilst the world crumbles around us without our leadership.

As has been succintly said, "The world needs more Canadas." But not the sort that Harper envisions!