While the Conservatives beat the drum on the economy being job #1, they are whittling away at the institutions that make Canada a fully-functioning democracy.

Before you vote, I ask you to read this article by Lawrence Martin on the treatment of Canadians by Conservatives… while they were in government and now out on the campaign trail.

Conservative candidates are avoiding debates in ridings out west
Students are being screened and ejected from rallies
The media is being limited to 5 questions per day and kept back behind fences

Our youth and our media deserve better treatment.

We all do.

Support Canadian democracy and think twice before you vote for a Party that holds it in such contempt.

Not that the proposal for income splitting really has anything to do with the carbon tax but it is just like 2008 all over again for the Green Party.

Once again, one of the major parties has taken one of our policy proposals and totally bolloxed the introduction of it to the Canadian people. Well played! Dion did it in 2008 with the carbon tax and now Harper has done it in 2011 with income splitting.

To be clear, the Green Party of Canada supports income splitting. Yes. We really do. You can find it right here in Vision Green – our guiding policy document. The important thing to note is that it is one of a suite of measures that would be introduced to help all Canadians improve their quality of life. Here’s the quote from Vision Green:

While income splitting does not benefit low-income families or families where income earners earn about the same amount, failure to solve all problems through one measure is not a good reason to fail to solve many problems. Those not impacted by the income-splitting move will be helped through targeted programs to assist low-income families.

And now the Conservative Party has introduced it as a stand-alone platform plank. Which has raised the ire of people whose opinion I totally respect like the CCPA and Proud Fringers.

As the Social Services Critic for the Green Party, when Diane Finley does something questionable I can’t keep silent. And I don’t want to. She has messed this up and now it’s my job to fix it.

Waiting 5 years to bring in income splitting is ridiculous. Middle class families need tax relief now. So do most Canadians. And Canadians who don’t earn enough to pay taxes need different programs than those who do. The Green Party has those as well.

Of course, the Green Party takes it even further – we don’t like income taxes and our plan is to slowly, in a revenue-neutral way, shift our tax base from income to pollution. Put simply, we believe in taxing what is bad (pollution), not what is good (income).

Every Canadian deserves to live with dignity and income splitting is one way to move toward that. I refuse to accept the argument any longer that we live in a country that cannot work for all of its citizens. One type of family should not be pitted against another. There is plenty for all – and the Green Party will be releasing a budget that proves it.

Instead of arguing about one policy as if it were the whole platform why don’t we change the channel and talk about creating a national youth education and employment strategy that will keep our young people in Newmarket and Aurora – and create the kind of place where they want to stay.

This pair of opinions from the National Post reveal an interesting facet of our current minority Parliament: the Opposition has made itself irrelevant.

Gerry Nicholls predicted that Harper would engineer the downfall of his own government in a last-ditch effort to win a majority. And that he would do it this Spring (most likely around a Budget that the Conservatives cannot reconcile with their record deficits), rather than waiting until 2012, when his own law requires a federal election.

Michael Taube was quick to respond that the numbers do not support a Harper majority, that they haven’t in at least a year, and are unlikely to in the coming months.

A conundrum perhaps? Perhaps. To me though, the most important point being made in these articles is not whether or not we will have an election, but that if we do have one it will be entirely of Mr. Harper’s making. He will have created the circumstances that cause the fall of his government and not the Opposition Parties who apparently have neither the power nor the gumption to take Canadians to the polls.

Again.

For the third time in four years.

At a cost of $300 million.

And that is what I’ll remember if I end up in a campaign this Spring. That our supposed economically-aware and competent leader has decided to blow another $300 million of taxpayer funds in a desperate attempt to win a majority.

I hope you’ll remember that as well.

A few thoughts:

1) This video is funny. It’s fun to make fun of our Conservatives who favour ideology over data. And Stockwell Day is a prime target.

2) Yes, crime rates per 1000 are higher than they were in the 60s. You can see it in the Corrections Canada article I link in #5.

3) Yes, there are unreported crime statistics. They compare reported crimes with surveys asking people if they have been the victim of a crime (victimization stats).

4) The Conservative attempts to justify their ‘tough on crime’ approach, and to take credit for a decline in crime that has been happening for over a decade, are painful yet hard to resist watching. By raising the mandatory sentences and changing the credit system for time already served they will increase the prison population significantly and thus require that $9b in new prisons and management.

5) This is an interesting article about the effect of the Baby Boom on the prison population and crime rate. The general idea is that when you have a massive population surge of young people you are going to see more crime. As people age, they are less likely to commit crime. However, they are increasingly paranoid and ready to believe that the world is a more dangerous place. Even if it isn’t. As an ideological government, it makes sense, therefore, not to tell the voting population the truth, but to tell them what they already believe.

6) As always, discussions on crime statistics remind me of FreakonomicsFreakonomics and the idea that legalized abortion has a significant impact on decreasing crime rates. Funny how the Conservatives don’t talk about that at all.

While perusing my Facebook updates I came across an article about Bill C510 (Roxanne’s Law) from the National Post. The idea of the Bill is that it would criminalize the ‘coercion’ of abortion. Interestingly, Harper is reported to be voting against the legislation and strongly recommending that his caucus do the same, though it will be a free vote. If so, it looks like the government will be keeping their promise to not introduce or support anti-choice legislation. Cool.

Dammit Janet did a great job of breaking down why it is ridiculous to call it Roxanne’s Law. And in the Comments to her post SustainableFamilies wrote the following:

“But I would like, in my imagined utopia, for crisis pregnancy services to basically first ask a woman if she could have her DREAM situation… if she had support, resources, emotional support, financial support… would she want to parent? And if so, I would like for her to be offered all known parenting resources in the area.

Likewise. If she says there is no way, this is not what I want right now, abortion services would be offered compassionately and quickly (and affordably.)”

I love that vision. Is it only possible in a utopia? Or is it possible for family planning/crisis services to step beyond their own political positions and empower the young women who come to them to make the choice that is best for themselves?

Has anyone had good or bad experiences with these services that they want to share? I’d love to hear about it. I think it is important that those who are most vulnerable are given the power to create their own lives.

I listened to Ursula Franklin interviewed on The Current on Friday and the part that is really sticking with me, other than how inspiring she is and how I can only hope to ever be as passionate and cool as she is, is her concern about Conservative insinuations, if not outright accusations, that the Opposition Parties are not ‘trustworthy’. This is in relation, of course, to the government’s refusal to disclose un-censored documents to members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. This issue has been somewhat mitigated by the Speaker’s decision that is forcing the documents’ release but it is the underlying implications that have really got me thinking.

What does it mean when the leader of the country says that the Opposition cannot be trusted? Where could this lead? Well, in the past it has led to the elimination of democracy under the guise of ‘national security’, a phrase that has been tossed about quite a lot lately. It has led to the rise of totalitarian states who claim to be acting in the best interests of the country and citizens and who allow their lust for power to guide them.

How much power should the Prime Minister’s Office have? How much power should a government that received less than a quarter of the potential vote have?*

I was just wondering: Are Canadians ready to give up their democracy for the illusion of security? Now is a good time to re-watch Professor Fonseca’s videos and maybe take a listen to Ms. Ursula Franklin – two people who chose to come to Canada from countries that had experienced dictators in order to participate in a lively democracy and who now feel that it is slipping away.

That queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach? Don’t ignore it. There is trouble afoot.

*Note: The Conservatives received 37.65% of the popular vote, but the voter turnout was the lowest in Canadian history at 59.1%, so the total percentage for the Conservatives was 22%.

This is going to be one amazingly ‘signature’ Conservative plan. No abortion – deep sigh but okay. But to not even include access to contraception as part of our super-duper G8 ground-breaking plan to improve maternal and infant health? I’m having a hard time imagining what will be in this plan.

Guaranteed access to:
Clean water? Not sure how they would do this…
Affordable medication? Nope, this would threaten pharmaceutical monopolies.
Nutritious food? Nope, this would interfere with free-market agribusiness.
Education? Nope, then women might learn about family planning and their rights.

Or maybe they’ll just make sure that every newborn gets a Tory-blue swaddling blanket and a booklet on how to keep their legs crossed in the future.

“On his watch, the proportion of women on the government benches has fallen to 11 per cent, from 25 per cent under Paul Martin and 23 per cent under Jean Chrétien.”

I didn’t know that. How interesting. And distressing.

From this article by Carol Goar in the Star discussing Minister Guergis’ less than inspiring performance at the UN this week leading up to Monday’s celebration of International Women’s Day.

I was incredibly happy to hear the government state their commitment to investigating the ‘missing’ aboriginal women – over 500 of them now in both the throne speech and the budget.

I’ll believe it when it happens.

I was incredibly happy to hear the Mr. Harper’s primary objective as head of the G8 this year is to improve maternal and infant health.

I’ll believe it when the numbers change.

I’ve just begun a new blog, The Long View, to indulge my musings on the various books that I read my way through. I figure it gives me some justification to read as much as I do and buy as many books as I do.

One of the books I’m reading right now is Tomorrow’s God by Neale Donald Walsch. I was just blogging about how his challenge to us is to realize that we are all one. That there is no such thing as separation. That every part of this Creation is also the Creator. Y’know, that kind of stuff.

And then this article came across my Twitter stream (Tweet-stream?). Jason Kenney, the Conservative Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, deleted any mention of equal rights for non-hetero citizens. Really? And then, according to the article, he was surprised that it had happened. Really.

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of not doing unto others, and not following any sort of belief that we are all one.

At least to me, if he had these beliefs, he would be unable to ostracize and continually villianise even one person, let alone an entire demographic of the population. And let’s be honest, he’s been on record against same-sex rights for a long time.

And, to be clear. I care because I believe we are all One. What we do to another, we ultimately do to ourselves.

That is why I care about equal rights for all citizens.

That is why I care about human rights for all people.

That is why I care that 20% of the world’s population has 80% of the wealth.

And, that is why I care that we are devastating our natural environment and resources.

We have been terrible stewards of our world. I think it is time to change that.

Harper’s Canada is not my Canada. And that’s why I’m running for the Greens.

So there.