Rules, and the Knuckleheads Who Break Them

Well, the Grit has certainly hit the fan...

Edmonton-Ellerslie MLA Bharat Agnihotri was turfed by Speaker Ken Kowalski for refusing to apologize for impugning the integrity of the premier and leadership contenders in his cabinet.

Nation, I don't need to tell you that impugning the integrity of politicians is a national past-time. However, there are rules about what you can and can't say (ON the record, at least) in one of the Provincial Assemblies, Ontario's Provincial Parliament, the National Assembly of Quebec, and in the House of Commons.

We all have rules to follow at our job, or we risk disciplinary action. You can't photocopy your buttocks. You can't send off-colour jokes around the office. You can't answer the phone with a yelled "Leave Me Alone!!!" and hang-up. Likewise, politicians have a line they can't cross, and it is made CRYSTAL CLEAR to them where that line is, on their very first day on the job. They are sat down in a classroom and Parliamentary Procedure and Decorum is explained in precise detail by the Speaker or one of his staffer's. "You must address the Speaker, never the other members directly." Or, "You must use parliamentary language" (no calling other members "Douchebags").

We recently saw how fine the line is with a federal flap over allegations that Prime Minister Harper made in the House of Commons that the Federal Liberals were trying to protect the father of one of their MP's from having to testify about the Air India bombing.

Note: Harper's statement was VERY carefully worded. He did NOT say the man was a terrorist. He did not say the Liberals were trying to protect terrorists, or were terrorist sympathizers. Because he knew he would be held to task and more or less EMBARRASSED by the Speaker for unparliamentary behaviour. So, he left the insinuation at just that... an insinuation. Dirty? Absolutely. Allowed, under the rules of his workplace? Yes.

Back to Bharat Agnihotri and his statement. What, EXACTLY, did Agnihotri say? Because suggesting that something untoward is going on within the government is nothing new, and hardly rounds for punishment - it happens every Question Period. As with so many things, the Devil is in the Details... According to Hansard, the exchange went like this:

Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The community initiatives program, CIP, application guideline states very clearly that if a group cannot raise matching funds up to $ 10,000, it will be considered on a nonmatching basis. However, documents tabled in this Assembly show that this government is breaking its own rules. To the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture: why has this government in three years awarded not one, not 10, not 20, but 43 nonmatching CIP grants over $ 10,000, totalling over $ 2 million? Why?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

The Enlightened Savage: So far, so good. A legitimate question that, clearly, the Speaker has no issue with, as he forwarded it right on to this Minister to whom it was posed.

Mr. Goudreau: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, with CIP we try as much as possible to provide equitable funding to all towns and all villages and rural areas, including the urban centres across Alberta. We recognize that at times there are some organizations out there that are providing a great service that are having some financial difficulties. CIP has been built to respond to our volunteers to provide a one-time, nonmatchable funding of up to $ 10,000 if the need is there, and that need comes across through our staff.

The Enlightened Savage (aside): Reading the question, and then reading the Minister's response, makes it perfectly clear why people lose confidence in our politicians. The answer had virtually NOTHING to do with the question, and yet if you write a letter to the Minister asking the same question, you'll get a response letter with the same answer. "Question about CIP, what should I do?" "Send 'em the form letter marked "CIP Inquiry". "That just tells them what it is, and how to apply!" "So what? You actually expect the MINISTER to read a letter from a voter, and respond directly to an inquiry? You must be new here..."

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, Minister of Finance, Minister of Health, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development all have secret donors to their leadership campaign. Can this minister assure this House that groups receiving this special treatment are not secret friends of top Tories?

The Speaker: We have a point of order that we’ll deal with at the conclusion of the Routine.

The Enlightened Savage: Oh-oh. That's the equivalent of YOUR boss telling you "see me in my office at the end of the day."

This bit of fun and frivolity comes from later in Hansard, when dealing with the Point of Order.

The Speaker: Well, you know, hon. members, we were actually making pretty good progress till today. The question from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, the first one, which wasn’t dealt with, basically says, “ If a group cannot raise matching funds up to $ 10,000, it will be considered on a nonmatching basis. However, documents tabled in this Assembly show that this government is breaking its own rules.” Well, that wasn’t even contested. There were no rules that were broken. This chair is very familiar with the rules of the community initiatives program and was an author of some of them in years gone by. It very clearly states that if a group does not have the matching portion, the $ 10,000 can be allocated, so that’s just a bunch of nonsense, hon. member.

Okay, so the Speaker has answered the question in clearer terms than the Minister. AND called the Minister on it, too. "The first one, which wasn't dealt with...". How's THAT taste, Hec? A little concerning, not all that shocking - but you know you're in for a rough ride when your supervisor tells you your point is "just a bunch of nonsense".

The Speaker: Secondly, we come to the brunt of the whole business. “ The . . . Minister of Finance” named, “ minister of health” named, “ Minister of Sustainable Resource Development” named, not part of a group as far as one can read this, named individually, “ all have secret donors to their leadership campaign.” Well, the chair has already pointed out that what that has to do with government business, the chair does not understand. Beauchesne clearly points out that political party matters are not the subject of the question period. Then the question: “ Can this minister assure this House that groups receiving this special treatment” – now, the question is: what special treatment? – “ are not secret friends of top Tories?” Boy, if that isn’t innuendo, you know, I must have just arrived. I’ve been here 28 years, and this is blatant innuendo. This is a point of order. This is not dealing with the integrity of members of this Assembly. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie can do better, and I expect him to do better, and I ask him to withdraw his words, please.

The Enlightened Savage: Doesn't get much clearer than that. "We're not discussion political parties, you can't smear individual members, take it back."

Mr. Agnihotri: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don’t want to apologize.

The Enlightened Savage: Oh-oh.

The Speaker: Well, hon. member, I’m going to point out the consequences of you not abiding by my request, and the consequences are not very nice. So I’m going to do this three times just so there’s no misunderstanding, and the third time the hon. member will be named. Now, this has happened before in the history of this Assembly when people have tried to make a point. Once they’re named, they lose salary and everything else. Please remember that. People have done that to showboat in the past. This has happened. I was here once with one hon. member. So I’m going to ask the hon. member to accept the ruling of the chair and withdraw his comments. That’s my first request. I’m going to ask the hon. member to accept the ruling of the chair and withdraw his comments. First time.

Mr. Agnihotri: Mr. Speaker, as you said, the rules were not broken. If you read the guidelines . . .

The Enlightened Savage: OH boy. Big mistake.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please sit down. I asked a few minutes ago if any other hon. member wanted to participate. I looked around. I waited. The hon. member did not move. The member was given a chance to participate. We’ve had under our process a submission provided by one, a submission provided by another. A ruling is then given. The chair has given the ruling. Now, for the second time the chair is going to ask the hon. member to withdraw his comments. The hon. member can either withdraw his comments or not. If he would just put on the record that he doesn’t want to, that’s fine.

Mr. Agnihotri: I didn’t do anything wrong, Mr. Speaker. I don’t want to withdraw my comments.

The Speaker: Fine. The hon. member was given an opportunity to participate; the hon. member chose not to take an opportunity to participate. For the third time: will the hon. member withdraw his comments?

Mr. Agnihotri: Mr. Speaker, no.

The Speaker: That’s perfectly fine, hon. member. I will now name you. This is the first time in nine years that I’ve actually done this. This is not a good day. It’s not a good day for the member. I’m sorry, hon. member. Please leave. Hon. members, the hon. member cannot return to the House until approval is given by the House.

So, there we have it. The MLA in question was booted from the House until he formally apologizes for 2 things: Firstly, for wasting the Legislature's time in very OBVIOUSLY discussing political party matters, rather than government or opposition matters. Secondly, for naming members and suggesting that they had "secret donors" who were funnelled money through the CIP. Whether they had leadership donors who didn't come forward or whose names we don't know is irrelevant to the issue - you can't go there on the dime of the People of Alberta. The Legislature is there, all those people are getting paid, to run the machine of government, not to bicker in an obvious way about partisan issues with no relevance to the government's operation, and CERTAINLY not outside the established rules of decorum. You can suggest a minister is incompetent. You can NOT suggest he's stealing. Agnihotri knew this, and chose to go forward anyway. He had 3 chances to apologize, and he didn't. And he's been suspended from the House.

Look at it this way: If you waste your supervisor's time complaining to him in the Monday morning meeting with all the staff that you think the guy in cubicle 4-C is running a swinger's club in his basement, and photocopying the fliers on the office copier, you probably aren't going to get 3 chances to apologize.

Now, if only our elected members could be held to this kind of code of civility for their OFF the record remarks, shouted across the chamber during other member's statements... hard to tell your kids not to interrupt when they watch the elected leaders of our nation, the BEST that we have to offer, behaving like impertinent 3 year-olds in a sandbox.

- ES

Don't Do It, Stephen!

Dear Steve (or, as I know you prefer to be called... The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Member of Parliament for Calgary South West, Member of the Queen's Privy Council):

Don't Do It.

I know that there were lids basically FLYING off of tetra-packs of Apple Juice at 24 Sussex last night as the results from Quebec came in. Well into the night, the ADQ showing in the Quebec Provincial Election gave you reason to get excited about your chances there given the current climate. I'm sure you may have even heard numbers like "40 Quebec Seats" thrown around as estimates of what you might be able to capture the next time you hit the campaign trail in the quest for that elusive Majority. And, as the strategist you're known to be, I have little doubt that you had a different plan for virtually every possible permutation of popular support numbers coming out of Quebec's election, and will likely stick to that plan no matter WHAT I ask of you.

But I'm asking anyway: Steve, PLEASE don't touch the red button.

I'm not going to cite potential or active investigations against a former leader and current MP in your party, or of last campaign's chair. I'm not going to bring up that many of the ADQ votes were, in fact, cast by people who were sick of 30 years of being forced to either vote for crooked Liberals to run their province or Separatists. I'm not going to bring up the fact that the main-streak media is basically frothing at the mouth for an election, giving you all the reasons in the world not to have one. I'll avoid talking about the likelihood that you could do even BETTER in Quebec if you wait for Duceppe to resign in a quest for the leadership of the PQ. I won't talk about Caledonia, Afghanistan, Income Trusts, poll numbers that swing by huge margins in less than a week, traditional Liberal voters who feel their party has been sufficiently punished and will now vote for them again after holding their noses and voting Tory or NDP last time around, hockey playoffs, or anything else that might cause some of the millions that cast their ballots for the CPC to stay home this time around.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, I'm just asking you to think of one thing:

Me.

Stephen, *I* need you to hold off on this election.

I'm going to be frank with you: I need some time off. I know that as a hard-core Leafs fan, you might be unable to understand this, but last spring and summer, while my beloved Oilers were in what we call the "playoff hunt", and actually advanced to something called the "Stanley Cup Finals", I had what could charitably be called a LESS than productive work and home life. I'm PRETTY sure I still have dishes under the couch. After the playoffs came the busiest time of my year for one job, and the the busiest time of year for the other job. Then the Alberta PC Leadership race. And since that race prompted me to join the blogosphere, casting light onto the millions upon MILLIONS of desperate souls yearning for a beacon of enlightenment in their otherwise vacuous political lives, I've had budgets, cabinets, and all manner of issues come up.

Thankfully, my Oilers have made my burden lighter this year, for which I (and hundreds of thousands of other Oilers fans) am clearly and eternally grateful. Now I am asking the same favour of you... PLEASE, Stephen. On behalf of all of my undone chores, my 3 foot-long "To Do List", and my relationship crumbling under the weight of the fact that I LIVE for this stuff and she can't STAND it, I beg of you: Give me a few more months. Aim for autumn.

Don't do it to let the investigations blow over. Don't do it to sort out the First Nations mess. Don't even do it to improve your electoral chances by giving Duceppe a chance to bolt and Dion a chance to mis-step.

Do it for me. The Enlightened Savage.

Dion Expels Liberal MP; One Final Budget Thought

Just a quick one today, Nation...

Dion's expulsion of a Liberal MP for having the audacity to support the budget (and, perhaps even being so crazy as to READ the budget before deciding what to do about it) is ethically wrong, but politically necessary. This is another prime example of partisan games and political expediency trumping the common good - if MP's actually vote for or against the budget based on its CONTENTS, rather than along simple party lines based on who is introducing it, then we might (gods forbid) get a GOOD budget, instead of getting the budget supported by the winner of the numbers game.

ON the other hand... as a new leader, Dion needs to send a message to his caucus that there are, in fact, penalties for failing to tow the party line on issues he considers important. With his leadership in question anyway, this was an opportunity for him to crack the whip, and he wisely chose to do so. I don't agree with it, but it was a politically necessary move, and he made it.

A side note that I was thinking but somehow failed to mention in either of my budget posts is this: The Liberals and NDP get a bonus out of this deal in that, by virtue of the fact that they can vote against the budget without triggering an election, AND that they can claim (as they have in the past, but this time with evidence) that the Tories are being propped up by their "ideological brethren", the Bloc.

Further posts this week-end are unlikely, as I'll be in Edmonton, scouting out the parade route for my triumphant march through the streets of Edmonton upon my successful bid for the Premier's office. :)

Stay Strong, Nation! Only 6 more months until the municipal elections!

- ES

Budget 2007 - The Day After

Nation, just checking in with a few sober second thoughts...

The Bloc supporting the budget was a god-send for the NDP and the Liberals. It gives them the chance to oppose the budget just on principle without forcing an election. So they'll moan about how awful it is, but the reality is that if the Bloc weren't voting for this budget, they'd likely HAVE to. The irony is that, by coming out right off the bat and saying they would NOT support this budget, they're staking their claim to the ideological ground but also disenfranchising their own voters by giving the Tories no reason to sit down, talk to them and come up with compromises. Once again, political considerations get in the way of doing what's best for Canadians.

Once again, it bears repeating: This budget isn't going to save the world, and it won't get the Tories their majority. BUT, it does show the country that Harper is willing to piss off some of those groups his critics accuse him of pandering to at every step - Saskatchewan voters and Big Oil come to mind. Oil companies are BESIDE themselves at the regulation changes in store that affect oilsands production... predictably, the environmental lobby is claiming it's not NEARLY enough, but they wouldn't be happy unless Harper legislated that all gas companies shut down and their CEO's be assigned "cleaning oil-stained waterfowl with toothbrushes" duty.

So, the opposition and the government are once again going to give us less than what we deserve (also known as "good government", because the government is trying to get a majority and the opposition is more interested in opposing for the sake of opposing Harper than they are in offering credible alternatives), the special interests are ticked off (when are they not?), and partisans across the country are falling all over each other to fawn over their respective leaders for their "principles and beliefs" (or, more commonly known as "the opinions that our polling numbers tell us our voters want you to have") in supporting or rejecting outright this budget.

Sigh... the Greeks are rolling over in their graves.

- ES

Budget 2007 Analysis

View the Federal Budget here.

Now, analysis...

Before I begin, I should just go on the record as saying I really, REALLY don't want an election anytime soon... now that my beloved Oilers have taken steps to ensure I have a productive April, May and June (UNlike last year - so thanks for looking out for me, Oilers...), I'd really like to NOT be chained to a desk, typing away at this blog 6 times per day analysing every riding in the country.

Clearly, the government wants to avoid an election, at least immediately, as well. This budget has a little something for everyone - more for some than others - but doesn't break the bank, either, which was the big concern.

Of course, those with vested interest are going to do what they always do... The Bloc will say "It's good for Quebec, so we like it." while the NDP will say "It's bad for working families and working families are the backbone of Canada's economy and it favours the rich and the planet is dying and working families oh we love working families and where has our labour support gone oh maybe we lost it when we and Buzz Hargrove had that falling out but we love working families Tommy Douglas was in our party once you know immigrants are cool Stephen Harper is a madman we need more working families please vote for us... Working Families." (Apparently, none of the nearly 10 Million people who voted Tory or Liberal last January were from working families.) The Liberals will hem and haw and say the Tories made a few good moves, all stolen from the Liberal platform, but that it wasn't good enough and oh, remember when Stephen Harper hiked taxes on the lowest income earners? That has nothing to do with this budget, but we thought we'd mention it anyway. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will cry about Quebec getting money from Ontario, BC and Alberta, and bemoan the fact that there is any income tax at all. Students groups will stage protests because they have to pay for their own educations. Environmental groups will stage protests because... well, because that's what they do. And at the end of the day... the budget will pass, with a few modifications that the NDPs and the Liberals will both try to take credit for, but they'll both complain about the overall budget, and likely pass it anyhow.

A few highlights:

Restoring fiscal balance

by providing $39 billion in additional funding over seven years, which will allow provinces and territories to better provide services and infrastructure that matter to Canadians—everything from roads, bridges and public transit, to better-equipped universities and colleges, improving health care, clean rivers, oceans and air, and job training that helps Canadians compete with the best in the world.

Good. Some will complain it's not good enough... but they'll be drowned out by provinces and municipalities dancing in the streets, waiting for their cheque. Hard for the Liberals to comment on this one, since they refuse to acknowledge the existence of what they STILL call the "so-called" fiscal imbalance. So, for the hardcore Liberals in ES Nation, just consider this "39 Billion so-called dollars".

Further tax relief for working families

with the Working Families Tax Plan, which includes a new $2,000-per-child tax credit. Budget 2007 also helps parents save for their children’s education by strengthening the registered education savings plan program, and supports seniors by raising the age limit for registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans to 71 from 69 years.

Good. More money for working families (you just KNOW they put that particular term in there to see Jack Layton's hair catch on fire) is a good thing, although Canadians in major centres are getting more and more frustrated with the lack of child-care spaces - living in the GCA, I've got to get on a waiting list NOW, and we're not even going to conceive for 4 or 5 years!

Further debt reductions

resulting in savings for Canadians. After paying down $13.2 billion on Canada’s national debt in September 2006, Budget 2007 further reduces the debt by $9.2 billion. Thanks to the government’s Tax Back Guarantee, the interest savings on this year’s debt repayment will be returned to Canadians in the form of further tax cuts.

Good. The Liberals may, and the NDP DEFINITELY will, paint this as "retiring debt on the backs of overtaxed Canadians"... but it's not as though we can take the surplus and blow it all because we need, or think we need, to buy certain things... we OWE this money to REAL PEOPLE... the "working families" that the NDP love to talk about. It is a moral and fiscal obligation to pay back the money that we owe - and, it just makes good sense. OVERDOING it, as we saw in Alberta, just to get the debt off the book, is a bad idea - hings get left undone, repairs and needed infrastructure don't happen. But if your pal owed you $100, got a $50,000 inheritance, and spent it all on home renovations, you'd be pretty bent out of shape at him. We owe, and we need to pay.

Investing in Canadians

by providing $550 million per year for the Working Income Tax Benefit and $140 million over two years to establish a Registered Disability Savings Plan.

THERE'S the working poor and the vulnerable that Layton ties his wagon to... they'll say it's not good enough, but it's a heck of a lot more than "zero".

Preserving the environment

with a balanced action plan including rebates on fuel-efficient vehicles and efficient alternative fuel vehicles, an incentive to get older polluting cars off the road and a Green Levy on fuel-inefficient vehicles; by developing a new National Water Strategy; and by providing $1.5 billion to establish a Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change.

The Liberals and NDP are going to skewer this as sub-standard... can we do better? Sure. Is it a start? Absolutely. A growing consumer base, with cash to spare and large distances to travel (pretty big country - not exactly Luxembourg), is going to buy vehicles. Likely these "horseless carriages" I keep hearing about. Giving rebates on fuel-efficient cars and hybrids and adding a Levy onto that HummVee will help encourage people to make the right choices... not everyone still WILL make the responsible choice for the environment, but what does Dion expect, a law against selling Hummers in Canada?

Improving health care

by investing $400 million for Canada Health Infoway to support the development of electronic health records and up to $612 million to support jurisdictions that have made commitments to implement patient wait time guarantees, and by providing the provinces with $300 million for a vaccine to prevent cancer of the cervix.

Efficiency, wait-time guarantees, and a vaccine for cervical cancer. Is anyone politically suicidal enough to vote against those measures?

Supporting our troops

by providing $60 million to increase the field operations allowance, establishing five new trauma centres to help veterans and their families deal with stress injuries related to their military service, and creating the position of Veterans’ Ombudsman.

Again, all good... you're not saying "we're increasing the budget to buy more bullets to kill people with", you're establishing trauma centres for injured soldiers... who's going to vote against THAT?

Supporting our farmers

by providing $1 billion in commitments for improvements to national farm income programs, including $600 million to kick-start contributory style producer savings accounts and a direct payment of $400 million to producers to help address high production costs.

Some might ask why the Tories need to help farmers, as they've already got most of the Western ridings locked up. Hate to burst anyone's myopic view of things, but there are farmers EAST of Manitoba, too. And most of the country's farmers are in trouble, financially. Since I'm not crazy about the idea of importing beef or grain because Canada's farms started closing down, this is a needed and useful investment.

As I said, this budget has a little something to like in it for everyone. Enough that if you were a die-hard Grit of Dipper you'd vote Tory? Not likely... but enough that if you were undecided, you'd consider keeping the Liberals on the opposition benches, and see what this Harper fella could do for you? Perhaps.

To whit: Not a home run for the Tories, but at least a single, possibly a double. No election triggered over THIS budget.

- ES

CPC Membership Details

As Requested...

To become a member of the Conservative Party of Canada you must:

• Be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada
• Be at least 14 years of age

To purchase a party membership ($10, as I recall), call 1-866-808-8407

To be eligible to vote in a constituency candidate selection process, you must be able to prove residency in the constituency (a utility bill or driver's permit) and have been a party member for 21 days - so it's best to buy that membership ASAP if you're unsure when to expect a constituency race - it's good for a year.

To contact the Calgary West constituency directly (about when to expect a nomination meeting), e-mail them at communications@calgarywest.com or get more information at calgarywest.com (they haven't updated the site since the judge's ruling).

The Calgary West Clusterschmuck

Nation, it looks like things are getting all whacky out here in whackyville... and when things get whacked, there's little doubt that Rob Anders is involved.

Rob Anders (M.P. - Calgary West), for those of you drawing a blank, is the gentleman who blocked the honourary Canadian citizenship that the House of Commons was going to bestow on Nelson Mandela, on the grounds that he believed Nelson Mandela (yes, THAT Nelson Mandela) was a terrorist. He is also the most reactionary member of the Conservative Caucus and, before that, the most reactionary member of the Reform Party Caucus (now THAT is saying something). Let's just say that the vast majority of Canadians would find Mr. Anders a bit out-of-step with the mainstream. He wins his riding, though, and keeps the social conservatives within the party happy, so Harper keeps him around. He's considered such a loose cannon by party brass that, when it began looking in the last election that the Tories might actually win, they [ALLEGEDLY] shipped him out of town, as far from media microphones as possible, and kept him there until the night the ballots were counted...

But this post isn't about Rob Anders - it's about the Calgary West nomination process for the Tories.

A Court of Queen's Bench judge decided that the nomination process in Calgary West was unfair, because of perceptions of conflicts of interest and a lack of due diligence. He has ordered a new nomination process take place. Anders had argued that, as in internal party matter, this was outside the judge's jurisdiction. Perhaps, perhaps not - I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't know.

What I DO know, and have mentioned before, is this:

"...the National Candidate Selection Committee has authority to disallow...
candidacy on any grounds it sees fit..."
(CPC - Updated Candidate Nomination Rules & Procedures, Jan. 4, 2007 -
Sec.3.viii.1)

Now, of course this being politics, normally we'd be loathe to suggest anything approaching absolutism. That being said, though, either the above statement is TRUE, or it is FALSE. Clearly, the judge in the case of Calgary West believes it to be false, in which case the Party needs to re-write the rules.

Nation, between you, me, and the flies on the walls of whatever cubicles in which you're all reading this: I'd go so far as to suggest that IF a legitimate and respectable candidate came forward to oppose Rob Anders for the party nomination, they may just win it. Many people in Calgary West buy Tory memberships just to try and wrest their riding's mantle away from the guy who described Calgary West as "A Christian Constituency".

Let's call a spade a spade: Calgary West is going to vote Tory, and they're going to elect a Tory. So this nomination process is, in fact, the battle for an M.P. position. One that's pretty much guaranteed - remember: Anders did virtually no campaigning last election, the Party [allegedly] hid him in a B.C. motel for weeks, and yet he still handily won the riding, without having knocked on a single door. So, the Tory candidate WILL be the M.P. And if those inside the riding who DO share Anders' somewhat skewed social views are so enraged by losing "their guy" as a candidate that they decide NOT to vote Tory, they'll either have to run someone as an independent (they'll lose), vote for another party (they'll lose), or start a new party for social conservatives (they'll lose).

This decision has given the CPC, and its members in Calgary West (Not my riding, sadly) a chance to show the country that they are not, in fact, rednecks in sheep's clothing, and that they actually CAN move closer to that soft political centre that most Canadians number themselves among without selling out on their values of fiscal conservatism, small government, and democratic reform. THAT will have an impact on more than just the fortunes in Calgary West - it will send a message to the country that the Conservative Party practices what it preaches, and will no longer nominate M.P.'s to be ashamed of... after all, isn't openness, transparency, and showing the nation what you truly stand for all part of the blessed Accountability that we heard so much about in January of 2006?

I don't believe that the Tories of Calgary West all drink from Rob Anders' Kool-Aid pitcher. If Anders' people were so confident that he DID have the majority of support, they wouldn't have bent the rules to make sure he won the nomination by acclamation. Here's hoping the National party brass step in and make sure this is done RIGHT, so the members of the Party can choose, for better or worse, who they want their M.P. to be.

Who knows? Anders might still win... after all, it only took the Church a few centuries to realize that they owed Galileo an apology...

Who is Stephen Harper?

Well, he's been our Prime Minister for 14 months now. And yet, the question remains: Who is Stephen Harper?

Like so many other things, the answer seems to lie in the beholder. To some, he's an egomaniacal neo-con control freak, pretending to care about populist issues while holding the course on his long-held plan to decentralize power to the provinces, weaken Canada's place in the world, and pursue his agenda helping Big Oil and his friends in the evangelical movement. To others, he's a man of principle, politically savvy, unconcerned with the media and shifting his opinions as new information becomes available to him while sticking to his guns on issues that he feels matter to everyday Canadians.

But who is he, really?

I fear we may never know. The truth is, like so many current political figures, Prime Minister Harper is a polarizing force on the political spectrum. It's truthfully quite hard to even have a civil conversation about the man with someone who has a different opinion than yours.

Left-leaning people tend to sneer even at the mention of Harper's name. They cite his "God Bless Canada" postscript at each speech as proof that he wants to a) be American, and b) be George Bush (a.k.a. "The Great Satan", at least to leftists) when he grows up. They bring up the child care allowance as proof that he's out of touch, and doesn't care about children. They point out that his lack of support for Kyoto proves that he's an idiot, incapable of understanding science, a dinosaur, and a puppet for Big Oil. He wanted a free vote on same-sex marriage, so he's a homophobe. He wrote the Firewall Letter, so he hates the rest of Canada. He cancelled a promised Liberal income tax cut to drop the GST, so he's a tax-hiker. He supports the military with increased funding and hasn't withdrawn them from Afghanistan, so he's a warmonger and (again) wants to kiss George Bush's ass. He flip-flopped on Income Trusts, so he's a bald-faced liar. These aren't just inventions of my imaginations, they're characterizations I've heard and read all over the place, including many blogs that claim to be non-partisan, or progressive - and despite those claims, they seem completely unwilling to accept that there is room for debate on the man and his charater. "If you don't agree with me that Harper is a neanderthal, you're as bad as he is". I've seen responses to pro-Harper blog postings such as THIS gem: "Why don't you join Blogging Tories, since you are one?" My god, is this how far the quality of debate has dropped? Calling someone a "tory" is an insult? Many of these people would condemn Harper for calling the Americans "our friends" in a speech... and then, if the Americans attacked us and Harper condemned them, they'd accuse him of "flip-flopping". If he said it was noon in Calgary, they'd say it was 7 pm Greenwich, just to avoid agreeing with him.

People on the right, though, view Harper as the Great Right Hope. He's a "true blue" tory, someone who put his job on the line in a party merger that he pursued in order to give the nation an alternative to the Liberals. An absolutely BRILLIANT political tactician, Harper knows he won't get any help from the national media, so he doesn't even make an effort to woo them, instead strictly controlling his message and releasing it directly, via the internet and rigidly choreographed press-conferences. He's a man of principle, but open-minded enough to have those principles and ideas challenged when the information changes. He's someone who values "made-in-Canada" solutions to the problems that plague us, rather than accepting the pressure of foreign governments who really, couldn't care less about our economy or quality of life. He's a man of faith, but willing to accept the rule of law over the idea of theocracy. A champion of senate reform and a supporter of the military, he values keeping Canada's commitments on the international stage, so long as they are practical and logical. He's willing to take heat in the media to do what's needed for the common good (income trusts). Anyone who disagrees with Harper is a central Canadian elitist, arrogant, after provincial rights and steeped in the legends of Trudeaumania, so good luck discussing Harper's character with a "true believer".

The reality of the man is somewhere in the middle... the only universally accepted Harper fact, on both sides of the aisle, is that the man is good at the political game. He knows how to play, and knows how to play dirty when necessary.

The bottom line here, is that Stephen Harper is many things, to many people. The only people who may TRULY know the man and his innermost thoughts, beliefs and opinions are those closest to him. What he thinks, and why, are open to interpretation by individuals - and, on both sides of the spectrum, they're not shy about expressing themselves. But at the end of the day, we need to be able to have discussions about the man's policies without exchanging insults. The bottom line, Nation, is that we need to talk about IDEAS without being IDEALOGUES.

Then, and ONLY then, will we be able to have a meaningful dialogue about anything political, be it Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Stephane Dion, Kyoto, Income Trusts, Afghanistan, Tax Cuts, Child-care, Senate Reform, Greenhouse Gases, Ed Stelmach, Equalization... too bad we have so little of import to talk about.

- ES

Alberta first province to legislate greenhouse gas reductions

Yes, that's right... not the tree-huggers in BC, not the oh-so-morally superior Ontario government, not the self-appointed guardians of the environment in Quebec - Alberta.

First, the statement. Then, the analysis.

Alberta is the first province in Canada to introduce legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emission intensity from large industry.

Bill 3, Climate Change and Emissions Management Amendment Act and its accompanying Specified Gas Emitters Regulation state companies that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year must reduce their emissions intensity by 12 per cent starting July 1, 2007.

The move reflects Premier Ed Stelmach's priority to manage growth pressures in Alberta. "This government is committed to tackling the issue of climate change, and this is just one of many ways we are responding,'' said Ed Stelmach. "We can embrace economic growth and also be good stewards of our environment, of our province."

The Specified Gas Emitters Regulation details how companies can reduce their emissions intensity. These compliance options include making operating improvements, buying an Alberta-based offset to apply against their emission total or contributing to a new government fund that will invest in technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the province.

"I believe technology is key to delivering on Albertans' vision for emission management. By dedicating a technology fund right here in Alberta, we are able to draw on our own renewable resource of innovation," said Environment Minister Rob Renner.

Projects that qualify as offsets must be located in Alberta and spending from the technology fund will occur in the province. The technology fund could be used to further the development of carbon capture and management- an option which has great potential to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide.

"This legislation once again affirms that Alberta is a leader on this important global issue," said Renner. "Albertans are very responsible people. We are proud of our majestic province and quick to take practical, thoughtful and innovative action to protect it."

Alberta was the first province to introduce specific climate change legislation in 2002 and the first to require large industrial facilities to report their greenhouse gas emissions.

Okay... so the government knows how much these large facilities are emitting, and they're expecting them to reduce by 12%. I'm a little foggy on whether the reductions need to be AT 12% by July 1, or whether they need to START the reductions by July 1. Either way, reductions are a good thing. Those who can't reduce will be held to task, and can make up for it by donating to or investing in clean energy alternatives, etc. in a similar vein to the "Carbon Neutrality" being championed by David Suzuki, among others.

Is 12% a huge deal? Not really. It works out to approximately 8% of Alberta's total emissions (the companies required to reduce their emissions account for roughly 70% of Alberta's total emissions), and that's only IF all the required companies made their reduction targets, which is a pipe-dream. The environmental lobby will be all over this, saying it's piss-poor and inadequate, no good, terrible, and a sign of the apocalypse. What they will FAIL to mention, no doubt, is that Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he of "No Green Bones" (as described by a Doctor, so it must be true), were the men who announced the first provincial legislation to reduce emissions.

Let's be frank, here... the reduction level is small. The total impact on the environment will be negligible, and will likely not be noticed in the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this blog. But it's SOMETHING... it's a START. And it's more than anyone else has done so far. Alberta's PC Government, with the help of the evil, tree-hating Conservative government in Ottawa, has announced legislated emission reduction targets. And although the environmentalists will bitch and moan (what they do best) about how inadequate it is... it's still 100% better than anyone else in the country. So they can go to the 9 other provinces and 3 territories, get reduction targets into legislation in THOSE jurisdictions, and THEN come back to Alberta and tell us our targets aren't good enough. Until then... our targets might not be great, but they're still better than anyone else's.

- ES

Speech from the Throne - Analysis

Alright, kids, here's how this'll work... actual Throne Speech segments will be in quotes

like so

And my insightful, witty, and sometimes funny analysis will be in regular format.

Ready? Here we go.

Alberta is fortunate. But Albertans have made good use of the resources that nature has bestowed upon our province. And they have made wise choices…

Including the bold and often difficult decisions made during the past decade.

Many of those decisions were made with a thoughtful eye on the future.

Fellow Albertans, that future is now.

Now, more than ever, the government must work with Albertans to ensure the good fortune we enjoy today is not squandered. We must respect and build on the work and the sacrifices that were made in the past.

We must plan ahead to ensure the prosperity this province enjoys today is secured for our children and grandchildren.

This means making the right choices so that Alberta’s economic growth remains sustainable, and that the world-class quality of life Albertans enjoy includes a clean and healthy environment.

Good opening... reflective of the priorities and current feeling in much of the province. IF the legislative agenda delivers on this premise, it will be a resounding success. The environmental reference is especially important, considering the "major announcement" coming from Edmonton tomorrow with Premier Stelmach and Prime Minister Harper.

At this unique time in our history, Albertans expect their government to have a clear plan, and to deliver tangible results.

Darned skippy we do. WHERE'S THE BEEF?

The government will act thoughtfully and decisively on behalf of Albertans. The Government of Alberta will:

• govern with integrity and transparency;
• manage growth pressures;
• improve Albertans’ quality of life;
• provide safe and secure communities; and
• build a stronger Alberta.

• 
  

Five priorities. Not as cut-and-dried as Harper's, but they give a good idea where we're headed.

Government Transparency is nice to say, and makes it seem like you're a less-crooked-than-most politician (useful comes campaign time), but at the end of the day, it can only go so far. Truth be told, most Albertans didn't even MIND the planned leaks and controlled media strategy of the Klein years - school and roads and hospitals matter more in our day-to-day lives.

"Manage Growth Pressures". We can safely assume that physical and social infrastructure are going to benefit from this priority.

"Improve Albertans Quality of Life"... this COULD mean anything. We'll see what it means in a bit.

To provide safe and secure communities is politics-speak for a crackdown on crime - always a popular move in Alberta.

"Build a Stronger Alberta" is something you've got to say, but again, it could mean anything. Any of the other 4 priorities helps build a stronger Alberta. Unless we're buying tanks with that surplus, I won't put too much stock in this one.

Governing with integrity and transparency is the first priority of this government — for a deeply fundamental reason. Albertans put their highest trust in the women and men elected to represent their best interests.

That trust will be honoured and respected.

Your government will introduce legislation to establish a lobbyist registry. Bill 1, the Lobbyists Act, will give all Albertans public access to information regarding individuals and organizations seeking to influence government decisions.

It will also take measures to improve information provided to the public about who has contracts with government.

These measures will increase transparency, openness and accountability, and will enhance public trust in the institution of government.

Your government will also review the way agencies, boards and commissions are governed, to ensure greater accountability.

As I said, these measures are probably overdue, and politically, you always score points by telling everyone you're going to clean up the mess upstairs, and make everyone more accountable, but at the end of the day there are more pressing issues facing Joe Albertan in his day-to-day life than his all-consuming need to know who is lobbying the government.

Your government recognizes that adequate housing is essential for all Albertans to share in the prosperity of their province. It has created a provincial task force to find ways to make affordable housing more accessible to Albertans. It will focus on solutions for homelessness and the provision of affordable housing.

Of course, nothing gets a proud Albertan's blood flowing more than a provincial task force... This will win votes in Fort Mac, but everywhere else in the province, the people who are feeling the housing crunch wouldn't vote Tory if they got a cheque and a limo ride from Ed himself. Make the province a better place? Eventually, perhaps. Help the Tories politically? Unlikely.

Your government will develop a long-term capital plan that will address infrastructure needs and inflation costs while exploring options to fund new capital projects.

It will also place great emphasis on controlled spending, to ensure Albertans get the best possible value for their tax dollars.

Read "P3's" - which is fine. If it helps in the long run, great. But there'd better be extremely good uses in store for that surplus. What we need now is a good plan and then ACTION, not another few years of planning followed by inaction.

The Government of Alberta will continue to build on its solid record in environmental management with some of the most progressive legislation and action-based strategies in the country.

Working with Albertans, the government will turn current environmental challenges into new opportunities. This will enhance Alberta’s standing as a leader in practical, innovative and sustainable environmental policies.

Your government will encourage all Albertans to take personal responsibility for energy efficiency and reduced consumption…

Let's see what's unveiled tomorrow... if it lives up to the hype, it's something to get excited about. If not, they're just meaningless platitudes to play to the environmentally-aware crowd. Myself included.

Your government will introduce strategies and provide new funding to respond to growth pressures related to the development of Alberta’s oil sands.

As a first big step, the Government of Alberta has committed almost 400 million dollars in new funding over the next three years to complete new water and wastewater treatment facilities, develop 300 affordable housing units and address health pressures in the Wood Buffalo region.

It will also create an Oil Sands Sustainable Development Secretariat to better plan and coordinate delivery of services as this important resource is developed.

In addition, the Oil Sands Multi Stakeholder Committee will complete its work and recommend strategies and policies, based on Albertans’ input, to guide future development.

Well, again this is an issue of particular concern to about 300 people who don't live in that particular area. We hear a lot about the Oil Sands, and how important they are, but the bottom line is that one day in the not-ridiculously-distant future, we're going to be out of oil, including in the sands, and we're going to need to have something to show for it. A meaningful review of the royalties would make a lot of people "down South" feel better about that $400 Million.

Your government will also complete its Land Use Framework, which will guide the way to balancing the economic, environmental and social needs of Albertans.

"We'll complete the framework, so we can begin the planning process." Wonderful - you can feel the winds of change blowing at hurricane strength. :) This is a huge issue for me, and having the government's word that it's going to forge ahead is good - but we need that framework completed, and we need measurable results. Not in a few years - now.

Your government will also increase access and quality in post-secondary education while strengthening its support for community education and literacy programs.

Good idea... there's a problem here, though. The political reality of life is that most students will vote for a leftist party, no matter WHAT the party on the right offers them. So no matter what you do, you likely won't get a payoff in subsequent votes. However, if you're doing it to improve the province's quality of life, as you claim, then there's a very real and important thing to keep in mind, that most governments who mention "access to post-secondary" seem to forget: Access doesn't just mean more chairs and desks, it means making it more affordable. The University of Alberta can have space for 100,000 students, but if it costs $50,000 per year to attend, that's not access.

It will work to improve high school completion rates and increase access to post-secondary education with an emphasis on the Campus Alberta approach.

Two points here... the current economic climate makes it harder, not easier, to keep kids in school when there are jobs out there with promises of fast cash and "adventure". Second point is that the Campus Alberta approach is a great idea, and needs to be fully supported. Used in conjunction with Alberta Supernet (which was the original intent), it can make a huge difference to not only Rural Albertans, but those who are holding down jobs that make traditional 9-to-5 classes unfeasible.

A sustained focus on wellness, injury reduction and disease prevention, combined with efforts to improve productivity and accountability in health care delivery, will provide the framework to ensure a sustainable public health care system.

Failed PC leadership candidate Gary McPherson had better be involved in this, his ideas in this area were brilliant and far-reaching.

Building the health workforce of the future will be a top priority. Albertans will see stronger emphasis on primary health care and self-management of chronic diseases through the provision of information, resources and support.

Partly the same old song-and-dance ("Need more Doctors, need More Nurses"), but the information, resources and support part sounds as thought it may be promising.

A new pharmaceutical strategy will capitalize on opportunities to improve the range of drugs available, and to reduce or avoid costs.

A fully-funded PharmaCare program would both immeasurably improve our provincial quality of life AND be a boon to the government's political fortunes. I won't hold my breath, and that's not what they're promising at this point, but...

... your government will work with community leaders to establish a Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force that will consult with Albertans on how to reduce crime and improve public confidence in the justice system.

ALL RIGHT! Another task force... VERY exciting. That should capture the imagination of Albertans.

It (government) will conduct an open and transparent review of the resource royalty system through an independent committee recently established.

At the end of the review Albertans must be confident that the right system is in place… one that is fair to both industry and to Albertans, who own the resources.

Complicated, drawn-out, and hard to fathom... yet it needs to be done. Here's hoping they do it right.

Your government is taking action by developing a surplus management policy that reflects Albertans’ long-term priorities. Details of this policy will be announced with the 2007 provincial budget.

We look forward to it.

Your government will build on Alberta’s traditional strengths, which include energy, agriculture, forestry, tourism and the people of this province. It will build on these strengths to develop a robust knowledge-based economy to compete in world markets.

The Alberta government will develop a long-term strategy for technology commercialization and economic diversification.

It will continue to focus on research in priority areas of energy, information and communications technology, and life sciences.

In addition, it will place an increased emphasis on nanotechnology — the “science of small.” Research in this field has the potential to impact every sector of our economy and to diversify and sustain Alberta’s prosperity for generations.

Led by world-class researchers at the National Institute for Nanotechnology in Edmonton, our province is positioned to become an international leader in this field.

Sounds good... not sexy, probably won't win a bunch of votes, but we need to diversify our economy as surely as we need oxygen and water, so this benefits all of us. Sure would like to see a plan, though.

Fellow Albertans, the Government of Alberta is making a solemn commitment to you: In all that it does, it will reflect your values and act on your priorities.

It will conduct itself with the recognition that it is an honour and a privilege to serve as government — not a right — and that it must continuously earn that privilege.

Your government will listen to, and work with Albertans. Because together we can do great things.

We are faced with a unique opportunity to build for the future, and to secure the long-term prosperity of our great province.

Your government has a solid plan to accomplish these goals. It will take full advantage of that opportunity.

A cynic would say "yeah, right". I've been accused of being a cynic before. And yet, I've got to believe Ed Stelmach for now. He hasn't lied to me, and I firmly believe that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He'd better follow through on these priorities, though - as a relatively unknown entity in Albertan politics, Ed will be judged by this speech and the action that follows. When Albertans make up their minds, he will either be rewarded, or punished, accordingly.

The truth of the matter is, this speech is big on vague statements of values, but extremely short on details. I saw more detailed plans in the leadership race - particularly from Dave Hancock, Premier Stelmach's Minister of Health. The proof is in the pudding, and we'll soon get a chance to take a look as we get closer to a budget, but still... as an initial throne speech, the promises are good, but some beef would be better. A for effort.

- ES

Ed is Reading the Enlightened Savage!

That's the only reason I can see that he would announce the Throne Speech, to be read at 3:00 pm Mountain Time today.

Analysis later tonight.

Stay strong, Nation!

- ES

An Open Letter to Ed Stelmach

Mr. Stelmach:

We've never met, but I want you to know that in the recent leadership campaign, there was a number beside your name on my ballot. I am a member of your party, and in all my voting life have always cast my vote for the Progressive Conservative candidate in my riding in provincial elections. Some of this was party loyalty, but most of it was a reflection of the esteem in which I hold the character of my local PC candidate.

I am writing to you using this method in the hope, however forlorn, that you might actually read it. Having worked for a time in a constituency office, I have little doubt that the vast majority of correspondance to you is in fact read and responded to by your staff - it's only practical. There are far too many letters to read and respond to each one personally, and I'm sure that your staff are clear on your priorities and you wishes to make each letter writer feel important.

However, it is of your staff that I wish to speak. Mr. Premier, in a short phrase: "They are letting you down".

I'm not "on the inside" of the inner workings of your office, so I won't pretend to know what's going on. As a member of the public at large, though, I can tell you what SEEMS to be going on: nothing. In politics, it is often the PERCEPTION of reality that counts as much as the reality itself: It's not really all that important to BE honest or trustworthy, so long as you APPEAR honest and trustworthy, you'll be the person elected. Your integrity is highly spoken of by all those who know you, so I have little doubt that, on the "honesty and trustworthiness" front, the perception of Ed Stelmach and the reality of the man are one and the same. However, the perception of PREMIER Ed Stelmach, to the common voter, is of a Premier who is doing nothing.

Mr. Premier, you and I both know that's simply not true. I'm certain you're working at least 12 hours per day, getting up to speed on virtually every aspect of governing the runaway train that is Alberta and its economy. But the public doesn't SEE that work happening... they don't see the late nights, the seven-day work weeks. They see that, since being elected Leader of the PC Association of Alberta, and Premier of the province, their government has seemed to grind to a halt. I have heard it said on several occasions that Premier Klein, in his last few months as a "lame duck" Premier, did more than you have since receiving your mandate from the members of the PC Association of Alberta.

Again, Mr. Premier, you and I know that's not the case. But Albertans are longing for a sign of your intentions - they want to know where you're going to take us. They don't need 50 pieces of legislation passed upon the first 50 days of the next Legislature sitting, they don't need any barn-storming speeches, they just want SOME idea as to what's going on. Your political opponents and detractors aren't sitting back and waiting, either: Already, Mr. Taft has begun defining you and your policies, whether accurately or not. In the absence of anything from your office to the contrary, people are going to start believing what they hear. I don't know if the problem is with the office's communication strategy, or if your advisors have told you that Albertans want some peace and quiet, but I'm telling you, as one of those Albertans: What we want is to hear from you about what path you intend to take us down. So far, all we've heard is that we have a $7 Billion surplus. And yet, despite this surplus, we shouldn't look forward to any additional money for schools, or hospitals. We have a $7 Billion surplus, and across the page from that announcement is a story about expectant mothers sent to Montana to deliver due to a lack of hospital beds.

I have little doubt that running a government is more complicated, more time-consuming, and more complex than anything I will likely ever TRY to do in my life. But Albertans, rightly or wrongly, expect that with the debt dragon slain and with record profits coming in, that the massive infrastructure debt that has piled up over the past decade will be dealt with. At this point, all we've heard is that local authorities are musing over whether they will have to borrow money, and put us back INTO debt, to build these much needed roads and facilities. While we as a province post a surplus of $7 Billion. Enough to build and staff 7 full hospitals. Or hundreds of schools. Or 100 major interchanges.

Mr. Premier, my Grandfather taught me the value of showing trust in your staff. He had plenty of hands working for him on the farm (near Athabasca), and he often made the point that the trust you show in your people returns to you in spades through their hard work. Sometimes, though, Grand-dad had to let people go because, despite their best efforts and intentions, they just weren't meant for the farm-life.

Ed, someone (or several someones) in your office is making you look bad. It's not necessarily their fault, but it's still happening. And if you don't do something about it soon, then Albertans are going to assume that the problem's not with the office, it's with the man who sits in it. And that will surely be a bad day for our Party, and for yourself.

Please, Mr. Premier - show us some leadership. Stand up and tell us where you're taking us. Don't let bad advice or poor communications allow Kevin Taft or Brian Mason to tell us what the Stelmach Government stands for - tell us yourself. We need to know what the plan is, or we'll be forced to conclude that there ISN'T one - while Kevin Taft spends all day telling us HIS plan. It doesn't sound like the greatest plan ever, but it's still more than we're hearing from our Premier's Office these days. If the plan is to HAVE us borrow money to build hospitals and schools, then fine - but TELL us, give us the rationale behind the decision. Every day that passes without a new hospital or new school is made worse by your silence on these issues - and by that $7 Billion sitting in the bank account while people sit in emergency waiting rooms, and kids ride buses an hour each way to school.

One last piece of country wisdom, sir: You only get one chance to make a first impression.

Someone in your office is squandering that chance. I urge you not to let them squander it completely.

- ES

Is Stephen Harper getting ready to pull the pin?

We all know that minority governments are destined to fall - it's a political sure-thing. When they do, it's for one of 2 reasons: Either the opposition decided that it was time to force the government down, or the government decided it was time to go to the polls and try to get more members, or possibly even a majority.

Mainstream Media news reports over the past 2 weeks have indicated tht Stephen Harper and his inner circle may be considering this second option. Of course, the Mainstream Media loves elections, and hopes we get one every few months - this is the same media, though, that thinks a washed-up pop princess' sexual escapades and haircut are front-page news while we've got troops in combat. Today, we'll examine whether or not Prime Minister Harper SHOULD engineer the defeat of his own government, and head to the polls.

Point One: Democracy is inconvenient. The possibility for voter backlash is a real one when a government engineers its own defeat. Unless the spin doctoring in the media is expertly done, the public can decide to punish the party that triggered the election. And although the Harper Tories have some PhD's of spin in their ranks, the media aren't exactly enamoured with Steve and the Gang.

Point Two: The Conservatives are in the best possible situation they could hope for as a minority government. At this point, support from ANY of the opposition parties is enough to ensure a bill or motion passes. The only way they could be more secure in their numbers would be if they were to capture a majority of the House - a possibility that nobody, within or outside of the party, is even daring to mention, it's so preposterous with the polls where they are.

Point Three: The malaise and partisanship on Parliament Hill is gumming up the works. A fresh mandate from the people of Canada would give the Tories a green light to go ahead with their climate change initiatives, the Income Trust issue would go away ("the voters agreed with us").

Point Four: IF you fall on your legislative sword to trigger an election, you've got to make sure it's on a very popular piece of legislation. If the Tories pick something too far to the right, KNOWING it will be defeated (as an example, a ban on gay marriage), then the voters will view the defeat of the bill, and of the government, as a neccesity rather than as a simple matter of fact, and the governing party starts at a disadvantage, as the other parties can begin the campaign on the high road, saying that all Canadians need to act to keep those "right-wing nutjobs" out of office, on account of what they were trying to do before "we righteously brought them down".

Point Five: The record of "Canada's New Government" is lacklustre, at this point. They've accomplished a lot, all things considered, but except for the GST cut, none of their initiatives has been front-and-centre. They've tried to get legislation passed, and most Canadians will remember what at least a couple of their 5 Key Priorities were in the last election, but with the exception of the GST cut, most won't be able to identify if the Tories got their way or if the laws are sitting in minority parliament limbo. After a year in power, if you go to the voters asking for a new mandate, you've got to show them WHY you deserve more time, since you're just not getting a majority in this political climate.

Point Six: The sponsorship scandal is yesterday's news. The anger that the average Canadian voter felt towards the Liberal Party of Canada is gone, for better or worse. Stephane Dion may be a leadership neophyte, and there may be fresh footage from the Liberal leadership debates to illustrate their lack of unity, but the greatest impetus in the last election was not to elect the Tories, but rather to punish the Liberals. With that impetus gone, many people who voted Tory while holding their nose last time will go back to voting Liberal at worst, or stay home at best.

Point Seven: The NDP is down in the polls, but those voters aren't running to the Tories, they're running to the Greens and the Liberals. There's a chance to capitalize on the NDP drop and steal a few seats for the Tory cause, but not enough to get you a majority.

Most of these points argue against calling an unneccesary election. Prime Minister Harper announced today that he has no plans to rush into an election - and that's a wise decision. Until the Tories get their first Five Key Priorities through the House, one way or the other, coming back to the voters to ask for a new mandate is a dangerous proposition. In the meantime, the Tories should keep trotting out centrist policies (like today's HIV announcement), completely immerse themselves in the environmental and climate change dialogues, and take the chance that the Liberals might organize themselves and fundraise. Because at this point, the Tories have a lot more to fear from themselves and the voters than they do from the other parties in an impending election - and that's not likely to change for quite a while.

- ES

There's No Business Like Snow Business...

Well, the Chinook wind has blown through Calgary, and with it the warm-fuzzy feeling that city planners hope will all but erase the feelings of outrage that many Calgarians had been simmering in for the week before that.

Calgary is a city of a million people, with 4,203 kilometers of paved roads, and is in Canada. Even a 10th-grade drop-out from Little Rock, Arkansas could tell you "it's probably gunna snow there, y'all". And snow it does. And the plows hit the road... after 3 days of non-stop snow. Why did it take 3 days?

"We send out the plows after 10 centimeters have fallen". So said the head of the snow removal crews, many times, this past week. Even though the city's own website says it's 5 centimeters that is the bench-mark, not 10. But, he says they start plowing at 10 cm.

Really? Where are the rulers, pray tell? Who's measuring this 10 cm? Is there a little old lady in Mount Royal with her yardstick, waiting for the snowfall to hit 4 inches so she can call city hall and tell them it's time to dispatch the plows? Because here at my house, by the time the first plow passed by (I'm on one of Calgary's secondary roads, not a major road like the Deerfoot or Glenmore, but close), there had been close to 22 cm of snow. Getting in and out of my place had become an absolute joke - and I'm not alone.

Now, the city claims that most Calgarians won't support a tax hike of $30 to $40 per year for improved snow removal. What they FAIL to mention, however, is that Calgarians as a rule get their taxes hiked by 3 to 5 percent EVERY YEAR, for nothing more substantial that what is vaguely referred to as "maintaining high levels of service". Well, DUH... if you hiked people's taxes and told them much of it was going to be because you had to hire 3 new communications specialists and buy 65 new computers for City Hall staffers, because the 2 year-old machines were obsolete, most Calgarians would tell you where to go, and how to get there. But you don't GET that specific, do you? You just say "maintaining service levels, 3 to 5 percent", and we swallow it. So, hike the taxes, plow the road, and we'll swallow it.

Will the Chinook inevitably come? Yes, it will. But, in this last winter storm, we had 850 collisions in this city. EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY. The Chinook hit only yesterday. The average amount of damage to vehicles in these collisions is estimated to be around $3000, and about half the collisions are single-vehicle crunchers. So we're looking at a cost to Calgarians of $3,825,000. During this ONE STORM. That doesn't factor in personal injury, or lost productivity or wages due to injury or traffic snarls. $3.8 Million. But it's through the insurance companies, so who cares, right?

Believe it or not, when most people get into an accident on a road covered with snow that they pay the city every year to clear, the first thing that pops into their head after they hear that sickening crunch is NOT "Thank god, the insurance company will pay for the damage".

Now, back to figures. You'll recall that the cost in pure damage to vehicles, for this one storm alone, will cost Calgarians (and their insurance companies) $3.8 Million. This city's snow removal budget, for the YEAR, is $17 million. Edmonton's budget is double. Makes sense, Edmonton gets more snow than Calgary, right? Wrong. According to Environment Canada, Calgary averages 5 cm more per year than Edmonton. But the Chinooks melt it all, right? Right. Eventually. But tell that to the people involved in the 850 collisions in less than a week, while the city sat on its hands, did a "Sun Dance", and prayed for warm weather so they wouldn't have to pay the plow operators overtime.

The Chinooks came. The furor will die down. But $3.8 Million is a heavy price to pay for the city's lack of foresight. And that's just for ONE storm like this. Calgary gets 2 or 3 of these storms, in an average year, with similar numbers of collisions.

Perhaps the insurance companies should send the bills to the city?

- ES

Who is the Canadian Soldier?

We used to know our men and women in uniforms were "the good guys". It was an accepted fact of life that those in the Canadian Forces were there to help, both at home and abroad. They were people of the highest character, doing what few of us dared, and continuing a long tradition of service to Sovereign and Country. We even had something of a reputation for going out of our way to thank them, especially those who chose to identify themselves as Veterans as November the 11th neared each year.

In the past few years, that image has changed. Now, soldiers are viewed with a sense of foreboding, or mistrust. Politicians all say the right things: "We support our men and women in uniform, and trust that they live up to the high standards of conduct set by their forebears..." but, in the end, much of that support is of the verbal sort only. As a society, we have changed the way we view the Soldier. Some of this is perhaps leftover disgust at the Airborne fiasco... some of it, from the stories that hit the newswire every so often of atrocities committed by Canadian troops in faraway lands like Somalia, Rwanda of the Balkans. Some of it - in fact, perhaps a large part of it - is our general dislike of the need for a martial element to society, and the things we see, hear and read about troops from the U.S. and their alleged indiscretions. But somewhere along the line, we as a society decided that the last group of Veterans who served for a higher purpose were those in Korea and, before them, WW2. The lack of a Hitler-esque threat has also contributed to this general shift in attitude towards the military - we don't have a foreign army, led by an evil madman and all wearing matching uniforms, threatening to destroy us or our Allies of Mother Britain, so why do we need a full military? We did fine recruiting and outfitting troops after Hitler invaded Belgium.

Now, the disrespect for the military has been creeping to the forefront as late (see the aborted "Troops in Our Streets" ad for proof), but is this a purely Canadian phenomenon? Hardly. Americans, much as they did in Vietnam, have begun to view their own troops not as liberators or heros, but as (at best) puppets of a corrupt, incompetant government or (at worst) little more than government-sanctioned thugs. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, "Pardon me, but aren't you all just a bunch of hired killers?".

As a nation, we have to decide what we're going to do about our soldiers... the current missions to Afghanistan have put the military life, once considered a viable option for graduating high schoolers unsure of their next step, in stark opposition to its former perception. No longer are the Forces viewed as "getting to wear that messed up hat and turn the ship 135 degrees on a dime, like in the commercials". Heck, even the COMMERCIALS for Armed Forces recruitment have changed to reflect a more operational status.

As I mentioned above, all politicians say the right things about our troops. The Harper Government is taking steps to modernize our equipment and increase our recruiting numbers, and the mumblings of "warmongers" aren't all that hard to pick out, if you just listen hard enough. They're accused of wanting to cuddle up to George W. Bush, who'll be gone in less than 2 years anyway. Some people actually suggest that these new soldiers, with their new guns, will be used to launch OFFENSIVE missions against other countries. In short, they're suggesting that Stephen Harper is going to wait for a majority government, and then try to INVADE somebody. The only thing more laughable and simultaneously sad than the assertion that the government, and PEOPLE, of Canada would support such an action, is the suggestion that, if told to invade, say, Chile, that Canadian troops would simply say "okay", and grab their rifles. Kevin Bacon following Col. Jessop's orders in Gitmo notwithstanding, few soldiers will do something they know to be illegal simply because they're ordered to. One would think this would be the case even LESS often in Canada, where rule of law and order rather than fear or hope for domination have been the driving force for generations.

What we need is to decide as a nation whether or not we're going to support our troops. We can choose to support or withhold our support from their leaders, the ones we elect. But when those men and women put on the uniform, whether to help set up sandbags in Manitoba or to flush out Taliban in Kabul, we have to decide whether we support them or not, without condition. They can't be heros on one mission and thugs on the next, simply because of our politics. They put their lives on the line for poor pay and minimal respect, and have to endure dangerous working conditions even when NOT in combat. Either we as a society believe that this is because they are good people drawn to public service, or we believe that they're really frustrated bullies who want the government to give them a gun so they can kill other human beings without fear of legal reprisal. We need to decide which case we believe, and we need to commit to that belief. Then we can at least know what to tell our children when we see that uniformed man shopping at Safeway.

Either's he's an example of the best we have to offer, or he's a thug with no good job prospects who enjoys hurting people.

It's time we decided, and reacted accordingly.

I vote "Hero". Just as my grandfathers and uncles did when they signed up for fly planes, jump out of them, build bridges across France and stomp through the mud to stop Hitler's war machine. These men who, because of their surnames had their farming equipment confiscated by the Canadian government as possible security risks, yet still volunteered to serve that same government and, in some of their cases, bled and died on the same ground in Europe that their parents had left behind for a better life not 30 years earlier. They didn't have to go... but they went. And not because they were thugs, or bullies, or murderers. They went to save people like their parents, and their cousins. They went because it was RIGHT, knowing full well they could die. I owe no less respect to the men and women who wear that uniform in a time of peace as I do to my dead ancestors buried in the cold, dark soil of Western Europe. To me, they represent the best that our nation has to offer, and what little money and respect we pay them for their efforts doesn't even BEGIN to account for one sweat-soaked night of terror that these brave people have to endure not in battle, but when they come home to their loving wife or husband, lay down to sleep, close their eyes, and see the face of the man they killed who was trying his best to kill them first. Many have those same nightmares every night, for years. Or forever.

Thug? I think not. Hero? Only because there's no better word.

- ES

The Blogger Blogs on Blogging

Well, I've been at this for a little while now, and I thought I'd take advantage of a break in the insanity that has become my schedule as late to post some quick observations about my experience thus far. No hard-hitting political commentary today, sadly.

I've found, for the most part, that I'm really enjoying my voyage through the blogosphere. It's been a great chance to add to the conversation, rather than just contributing to the noise. Most of the people I communicate with are extremely friendly, and welcome all viewpoints, not just their own. Even people who comment on this blog, anonymous or not, have tended to send well-thought out arguments and offered their support. I'm really enjoying myself, and hope to continue this as long as I can. With municipal elections, federal elections, and provincial elections all seemingly within the next 12 to 18 months, at most, I hope to use this beach-head to offer the same biting, insightful, witty, and humble commentary you've come to expect. ;)

I wanted to give special thanks to Ken Chapman, who went out of his way to make me feel welcome. I really enjoyed our conversation, Ken, and hope that we can have many more as I get more entrenched in the "alternative media", and eventually make my grab for the reigns of power as (gods help us all) an elected official someday.

So, who does the Commander-in-Chief of the ES Nation read every day? I read Ken Chapman's Blog several times a day - I have to, to keep abreast of all the varied issues he brings up with machine-gun rapidity. Phendrana Drifts is a daily read as well, and Duncan and Allie have been extremely kind to me. daveberta is a great read, and although you'd think that Dave and I had little in common philosophically, I often find myself nodding in agreement with his posts - before I realize that, as he's a Redmontonian, I'm honour-bound to disagree with everything he says except for any positive comments about God's Favourite Hockey Team, the Edmonton Oilers. ;) I also check out Larry Johnsrude on a daily basis, and find his blog a great source of information on the blogosphere itself.

I received mail today officially welcoming me to Progressive Bloggers! BOO-yah! Everyone make sure to vote for my posts - if I can figure out how to get them to appear. Opinions, I'm long on. Blogging Tech Knowledge, not so much.

Projects coming in the future include a possible podcast or vidcast (depending on the technological know-how required to get such things set up). There are "Enlightened Savage" stickers on the way - although I'm having a difficult time deciding between simple stickers with the logo and the URL on them, or stickers and buttons with "Proud Member of the E.S. Nation" on them.

I'm still trying to get time off from the gov't job (in the mysterious, un-named department in the miscellaneous ministry) to attend the PC Convention in Edmonton this May. I'd really like to meet up with the usual suspects while there (Ken, Duncan, Allie, Dave - I'm talking to YOU!) and report from the proceedings, but we'll see. I will DEFINITELY be in Edmonton in March, performing, and will let anyone who expresses an interest to my email (amishbuggyracing(at)gmail(dot)com) in on the where-and-when of that appearance. :)

I recently upgraded cell-phones to a Sony-Ericsson Z710i, which will make it infinitely easier for me to post remotely to the blog, if and when I figure out how to get the wireless keyboard for my Palm Tungsten E working, so I can type the message in the Palm, beam it (via I/R) to the phone, and post it to the web from there. I know, Blackberry would probably be easier - but I'm a Fido customer. :) Only provider with per-second billing.

On a personal level, work and life have caused me to contribute to the blog MUCH less often than I'd like, but those of you who have had to move 20 years worth of knick-knacks and whatzits into a substantially smaller space than they previously inhabited, while still trying to live your lives, not ruin your personal relationships, work several jobs and run a business (so, clearly no one who's SANE) can attest to the mess that things have become lately.

Thank-you all for your patience, and here's to many more great conversations in the days, weeks and months to come!

- The Enlightened Savage

"The Party" versus "The Caucus"

Well, Garth Turner surprised absolutely no-one (except, possibly, himself) by crossing the floor yesterday and joining the Liberals. As usual, the MP in question decided they would never be the kind of player they hoped to be within the caucus to which they were elected, stepped down "out of principle", and then at the first opportunity, jumped to a new party, trusting that the new party will form the next government and they'll get the clout for which they were hoping originally.

The familiar chorus from the floor-crossing MP's these days is as predictable as a Rush Limbaugh interview on gay marriage:

"I wasn't comfortable in that party/Their leader is (a dick/jerk/little hitler/imbecile)/They're being run by idealogues".

Worth looking at, though, is the assertion that these MP's make, that there's something wrong with the PARTY that they're leaving...

The Party is the national executive, the caucus, the leader, and the thousands of members from coast to coast to coast who vote on policy points and form the planks of the platform that you RAN on, and had no problem with at the time of your election as a Liberal, or Tory, or whatever. They're the people who spent insane hours at your campaign office, to whom you rarely deigned to speak except for a select few, whom you lent to other candidates (from that same party) to bolster their fortunes, whom spent hours knocking on doors, dropping off flyers, and making phone calls to undecided voters, all on your behalf.

THAT is the Party that you suddenly feel so uncomfortable with?

Look Garth, Belinda, Wajid, David, Scott... you all had a problem with your caucus. With the other people who managed to get elected under the same banner that you did. With the guy sitting at the front of the room, or his secretary, or his pals, or whatever. You wanted to be one of the people sitting near the front of the table. You wanted to be "on the inside". An advisor to the leader. Helping to set policy. Sitting at the cabinet table. Having your people spin you as a possible leadership heir. But it didn't work out, and you decided you'd have a better shot at your goals in another party because, quite frankly, you hate the people you work with and you've got no power and no hope for advancement. I get it. Nobody likes to go to work where they think the boss is a jerk and nobody likes them and the feelings are quite mutual. So you quit, and find something else.

But DON'T step in front of the camera and tell me you're quitting because you're "uncomfortable with the party's policies towards women", or because "Mr. Dion isn't a leader". Tell the truth.

Step up to the mic and say "I'm jumping because we'd need a 50-member cabinet for me to even get a sniff of cabinet on this side of the house, the leader and I disagree on just about everything, and I think (name 3 or 4 MP's here) are just total jag-offs."

Don't tell me you're uncomfortable with the Party, or its direction... because that discomfort wasn't enough to prevent you from accepting the help and money of the THOUSANDS of Party members who got you elected with their money and their hard work. And if you think you're uncomfortable with your former party NOW, keep bashing it (and those thousands of grass-roots members and supporters who worked so hard to get you IN), and see how hard those same people work, and how much they donate, to get you OUT of office.

- ES

The Road to Damascus

Alright, my biblical history is a little on the thin side, but the sentiment will be clear soon...

Prime Minister Harper came out today and stated, unquivocally, that Canada "must act" to curb global warming. Opponents of the Prime Minister will point to statements he's made in the past about "so-called greenhouse gases" (oddly enough, many of the networks airing those complaints still refer to a "so-called fiscal imbalance" and see nothing wrong with the term when they themselves use it) and Kyoto.

Many of these opponents are completely ignoring 2 key points. Firstly, Kyoto is not the be all and end all of environment change. Just because it was agreed to years ago by many nations (although it was ignored by most of the largest polluters), and Jean Chretien liked it, does NOT make it the only possible way to deal with climate change. "I disagree with Kyoto" does NOT translate as "I think there's no problem". It just means that you prefer a different solution. The second main point these people are ignoring is the possibility of conversion. Yes, as in "conversion on the road to Damascus". There's the tie-in. Harper made these statements in the past. As he became better informed about the issues, he may have changed his mind on the science of the issue. Critics will come out, no matter WHAT the Tory plan, and trot out Harper's old letters and speeches as proof that he's a dinosaur on the issue. But they discount the possibility that he may have changed his opinion in the meantime.

Consider the heros of these critics:

Stephane Dion was a seperatist who campaigned to break-up this country. He's now readily accepted as the man to "stop Stephen Harper and untire all Canadians". Perhaps he converted on the road to Damascus, and changed his opinion on seperatism?

In 2004, Jack Layton demanded for the revocation of the Clarity Act, and said that the NDP would immediately recognize an independant Quebec after any referendum win for the "yes" side. In 2006, he pledged his unwavering support for the Clarity Act. Another Damascus conversion, leading to a change in opinion?

Al Gore, the Godfather of Global Warming Activism, is not immune to this type of conversion. In the 1980's, Gore voted 84% of the time against abortion. Yet, once elected Vice President, he became a champion for a woman's right to choose. A change of opinion? An unconvenient truth.

The bottom line here is that those on the left readily accept all of these "conversions on the road to Damascus", all of these changes of opinion, yet they generally refuse to accept that such a change in the opinion of the Prime Minister is even the remotest of possibilities. I submit, respectfully, that if politicians can change their opinions on such fundamental, values-based policies such as Quebec remaining a province of Canada, or abortion, they can certainly change their opinions on whether or not the environment is changing.

If it's good for Saul the Tax Collector, it's good for Paul the Apostle.

A Pinch of This, A Dab of That...

Greetings, ES Nation... once again, real life has been getting in the way of my duty to tell you all how you should think. I'll have to get on that plan to launch "ES" merchandise and quit my jobs, so I can just blog all day. ;-)

Now then, only have a bit of time, so I'll throw out a bunch of quick hitter today. If people comment on particular topics, I'll flesh them out in frther detail later.

The Ads
Well, all too predictably, the press got up in arms over what is universally referred to as "American-style" ads the Tories hav eput together about Stephane Dion. Nope, no anti-American bias in the mainstream media there. Just every time they want people to hate something, they throw "American" into the name (American-style attack ads, American-style health care).

The Tories took a calculated risk by running these ads - could it be construed as desperation? Yes. Could one presume that, by attacking Dion in this way, the Tories are legitimizing him as a threat to their grip on power? Yes - but who ELSE would the Tories consider a threat to their hold on Parliament? Are Duceppe, Layton or May going to win a majority?

The bottom line here is you only get one chance to make a first impression. The Liberals, largely with the media's help, made Stock Day look like a total buffoon shortly after he came onto the scene federally, and the Canadian Alliance paid for it at the polls. If Harper has learned a lesson from this, he has Sensei Chretien to thank for the education... and since the Tory mistrust of the mainstream media is both ingrained and probably legitimate, paying for ad time seems the best way to go. Is it ugly? Yes. But it's a calculated risk - and one that may end up paying off at the polls. Bad news for Dion. Dare I say, good news for Justin Trudeau, who may get to take a shot at taking his "rightful place" in a few years?

Hancock on Health
Dave wants us to be healthy. He figures, shockingly, that one of the best ways to save the government money in healthcare is to promote healthy living. Wait a minute, he's putting the onus on US? Nah, that'll never work...

But seriously, Dave has been all over the Health portfolio since first opening it up just over a month ago, and he's made some great suggestions. Will everyone be happy with them? No. Will some of them be difficult to put into place? Sure. But will we all benefit in the long run? Absolutely. It's like the Metric system - not everyone wanted to change, but it made sense in the long term. Among Dave's pondering as late:

• Province-wide smoking ban: General ban? No way. That's prohibition, and won't work. Ban in all public spaces and buildings, including bars and casinos? It's going to happen eventually anyway, it's a great idea that will save lives, and if you do it across the porvince in one fell swoop, no businesses will suffer a loss of customers to the bar the next town over. Get it done.

• Eliminate Health Care Premiums: Taking away the tax that everyone sees, and replacing it with a bump in the taxes we automatically lose off each cheque, is a smart move. It may be a political shell game, but in the end, we're always happiest when we're not thinking about specific taxes. Winner.

• Healthy Living Tax Breaks: HELL yes, and about bloody time. People who spend their own money to get healthy will, as a rule, cost the public less money in the health care system, so those healthy choices should be rewarded and partially subsidized by the government. Giving people tax breaks on exercise equipment, gym memberships, etc. is going to be a pain in the butt to get set up, but once it's going it will give people a fiscal incentive to take responsibility for their own health. One wonders if Dave is going to listen to some of Gary McPherson's ideas from the leadership race, and include therapies like chiropractic of chinese medicine either as covered by Alberta Health or as eligible services for tax write-off...

Is Stephen Fat?
Answer: It doesn't matter. Dion comes off as a petulant child for bringing it up on the heels of what he knows are going to be ads aimed at him. He brought it up in a joking way, but the Tory ads are focused on his policies and leadership, not on his accent or his physical appearance, which are (and should be) off-limits as personal.

That said... the Tories come off as the big losers here, because most casual observers won't split that hair. They'll look at this little temper tantrum the Tories are throwing and say "if you can't take it, don't dish it out". They'll be right, of course, even though Dion's attack is personal and Harper's is professional. The Tories cemented their repuation as thin-skinned, quick to anger and ready-to-fight at the drop of a hat - not what a lot of people list as major selling points in a government.


ATM Fees
Jack Layton had a good idea. Excuse me while I go wash my hands for even having typed those words.

Back. Now look, if I actually add up my ATM fees over the past year, and add them to my account fees each month, I've paid probably $720 for a bank to hold my money, pay virtually no interest on it, and I've never once gone in to see a live human being about my account. No teller withdrawals, nothing. The ATM and its explosion in popularity (along wth Internet banking) has reduced the number of living, breathing people banks need working at each branch. And yet, despite the fact that the advance has saved the banks millions in wages, we're charged further fees for the privilege, "for the convenience". Well, if it's convenient for me AND it's convenient for the bank, why don't we drop the charge and call it even?

An ATM transfer costs the bank nothing to process, save for a slip of paper and a couple watts of electricity. The calls from machine to computer are all local. There's no need to charge me to use the machine, because by using it, I (and millions of Canadians like me each day) am SAVING the bank thousands of dollars by not going into a branch and dealing with real, live people who are paid by the hour.

Non-brand ATMs should still charge - they're businesses, usually put there by the establishment or by a third-party, offering a convenient place to withdraw money that you can then turn around and give to the waitress/throw into a VLT. Convenient? Yes. Does the bar or restaurant is most cases get the money right back? Sure. But a private entrepreneur put that machine there, and filled it with his or her own money - for that risk, they deserve a chance to make $0.75 on a transaction.

But the bank's ATM is sitting there, at the bank, holding MY money. That I pay the bank $20 per month to watch. And if I want some of my money, they're going to charge me to give it up? When they're already turning hundreds of millions in profits each year, on projects they're investing in with MY MONEY? No. Good business, bad sense. Give me back my money! Jack's got a good poisition on an issue that affects a lot of Canadians. Unfortunately for him, it's a minor annoyance rather than a full-on crisis, but with the NDP polling numbers as late, he needs every ray of sunshine he can find.

- ES