Election Notebook

The second leaders' debates looked more like a repeat broadcast of the first ones, with all the same over-caution, under-vision, and myopic choice of topics. Economy and health care, sure. But isn't one round on ethics and national unity enough? Are Canadians really so obsessed with scandals and Quebec that we've forgotten the environment, education, energy, or the rest of the world? Even the U.S. Presidential debates addressed foreign policy – we didn't even touch it.

To his credit, Paul Martin kept things lively while the others repeated their party's policies ad nauseum, continuing in the Liberals' odd election strategy of saying what they really think. “... First Nations people – now that's a major source of poverty in Canada,” Martin argued. His handlers quickly defused the situation with a make-believe Blackberry blast to the media. “Paul Martin did not intend to name the First Nations peoples as a major financial drain on Canada,” asserted this made-up e-mail. “Indeed, the Liberal Party recognizes the Métis and Inuit people as full equals to the First Nations in this regard. And while we're at it, the Irish suck too.”

But the highlight of the debate, according to the impartial mainstream media, was the one-week-to-go Prime Minister's surprise announcement that he would remove the federal government's ability to use the notwithstandng clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The move confused pundits who argued that the notwithstanding clause is largely meaningless, having been used only three times – never by the feds – since its creation in 1980. “It's kind of like swearing to never use your tonsils,” fictionally argued the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson.

“No, no,” retorted the National Post columnist Andrew Coyne. “Your tonsils protect against infections of the throat, and are only removed in cases of last resort. It's more like promising to remove your own appendix.”

“Get your facts straight, you nimrods,” chimed in the Toronto Star's Chantal Hébert. “The appendix produces anti-bodies that boost your immune system. It's clearly your wisdom teeth that you don't use.”

“A recent poll of twenty random construction workers at a Tim Horton's found that 36% of all Canadians don't need their stomach,” attempted Canadian public opinion guru Allan Gregg. “Clearly, Canadians are swaying toward the stomach.”

“You're all vociferously incongruous,” started Rex Murphy. “Vestigial organs are predominantly fabrications of languorous montebanks and platernic beandernicks. Blisterful rampant esterfast roogie.”

Perplexed silence.

CTV's Lloyd Robertson broke in: “You may all be thinking of the second kidney. Paul Martin promising to not use the notwithstanding clause is like promising to remove your second kidney – you haven't used it yet and probably never will, so it's essentially an empty promise. Except that it may come in handy in an unforeseen emergency, so it turns out to be a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm Lloyd Robertson.”

“Actually, the Liberals have used the mere presence of the notwithstanding clause repeatedly,” argued Global's Peter Kent, also a Conservative candidate in Toronto, “to fuel fear that the Conservatives would use it to turn back same-sex marriage and abortion rights, which is of course nonsense. In my very objective perspective as a respected and devastatingly handsome journalist, the Liberals are all crooked and the Conservatives are the best.”

When asked if there may be more important issues to talk about than vestigial organs, all pundits stared blankly.

“I didn't ask that question on my survey,” confessed Gregg.

By the way, a fictional advance copy of Paul Martin's debate talking points reveal other useless promises in addition to the notwithstanding clause. These may have included replacing all fire extinguishers in federal buildings with bouquets of cotton candy, building a water slide from the back of the Parliamentary Library into the Ottawa River, and replacing the Speaker's mace in the House of Commons with a hockey stick. [e]

-----------------

RCMP Investigation Exposes New Scandal

Three caveats before starting this article:
1. Please excuse the toilet humour.
2. If you aren't laughing by the end of the second paragraph, please skip to the next article.
3. Thanks to Lori Waller for the “lead” on this story.

Weary from the Gomery Inquiry and the Income Trust leak, Canadians have been subjected to another episode of embarassing scandal as the RCMP announced that it is launching a new investigation.

“We have received reports that three middle-aged white men are criss-crossing the country, each revealing his ‘package’ to the public,” according to an entirely fictional media release by the RCMP. “In most cases, they are revealing their packages in front of large audiences, who cheer vigorously as regular intervals as the package is being revealed. In some cases, they are revealing their packages on national television.”

Investigators do, however, know there are three distinct perpetrators based on witnesses’ descriptions of the packages. The first 'Liberal' package, exposed in its entirety on a conservative Internet site the night before its public unveiling, “appears impressive at first sight, but is disappointingly short on substance upon further inspection.”

“We’ve seen this same package every election since 1993,” noted one observer. “It has proven impotent when it comes time to actually performing.”

The second 'NDP' package was flaunted by its leader as a “package that gets results for ordinary Canadians” and one that “especially working families will want to take a look at.” It was the least noticed of the three packages, as the mainstream media focused more coverage on the “swordfighting” between the two so-called election frontrunners.

The final package was revealed amidst lofty promises that it would “Stand up for Canada.” Long accused of harbouring a “hidden agenda,” the perpetrator noted that his agenda was now fully exposed and out in the open for all Canadians to examine very closely.

Oddly, observers argued that this Conservative package was “backwards, which is very scary” and over-obsessed with “cutting taxes.”*

* That last one is NOT a double-entendre. If you thought it was and giggled about it, you have worse potty humour than me! [e]

--------------------

Ah, shit.

The same feeling one gets when fixing a leaky faucet, unknowingly splitting a pipe and flooding the kitchen, swept across Canada as the potential of a Conservative government came into view.

Perhaps it's more like realizing that the rats you just got rid of (using humane traps and released into the field out back) were controlling the cockroaches that are now overtaking your apartment. Shoulda just got a cat.

After five years of berating our American neighbours for electing George W. Bush, Canadians are slowly showing that we are more cynical than compassionate – more pragmatic than progressive – by embracing the kingpin of the Canadian far right as a possible Prime Minister. Just as a slight majority of U.S. voters ignore Dubya's religious and economic fundamentalism, overlook his pro-rich tax cuts and war-mongering, and give the “average-Joe” dork the beneft of the doubt, it appears as though the requisite 37% of Canadian voters are ready to forget Stephen Harper's entire career – as head of the ultra-right National Citizens Coalition and founder of the Reform Party – because he looks cute throwing a snowball.

Hey, people can change. Ariel Sharon abandoned his war-mongering and became a man in search of peace. Stanley “Tookie” Williams recanted his violent past and became a strong advocate against street gangs. But Mr. Harper is the same old fellow – same tax-cut obsession, same corporate agenda, same regressive social policy. He just smiles more.

Besides their mindless fiscal policy crafted by and for the Council of Chief Executives, most odious for Canada are the Conservative foreign and environment policies – conspicuously absent from the televised leaders' debates.* Copying American rhetoric on “democracy, freedom”, a promise to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, tying development aid closer to helping big Canadian companies and NGOs instead of the world's poor, permissive polution policy, and pushing neo-liberal free trade including the Free Trade America of the Americas, all represent huge steps backward for Canada's role in the world.

Our larger rich-poor gap won't be the only embarassment for Canada under Stephen Harper's Reform Party government.**

It appears, though, that Stephen Harper has learned the key lesson of the Liberal empire: pay lip service to Canadian values, aggressively implement corporate Canada's wish list, orchestrate a couple humanizing photo ops, and smile as you screw us. Then we make you Prime Minister.

Our American friends, lamenting Bush's re-election, will tell us that it doesn't matter if you voted for 'em or not, the world judges you based on your government. Is this our choice, Canada?

* Raising these two critical issues in the televised leaders' debates would have been a huge advantage for the NDP (and the Greens had they been invited) because the Liberals' record is atrocious and the Conservative platform is worse. This isn't the only evidence of mainstream media bias against their decided third-place party: the Globe and Mail itself published a study of front-page election headlines citing an unmistakable bias: Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have each had 15-20 front-page headlines in Canada's major dailies, while Jack Layton has had only 2. Which begs the question: between the media and public opinion, which is the chicken and which is the egg?

** If Harper's platform is going to come from the last century, we may as well call his party by their name from last century. [e]

--------------------------

Good News Story of the Week

Having failed to raise the requisite courage to enact a pesticide ban, the City of Ottawa will soon have another opportunity to join the League of Progressive Cities by going sweat-free this spring!

Ottawa City Council will be presented with a draft resolution on ethical procurement of city uniforms for police, fire and other departments, by the Ottawa No Sweat Coalition. Ethical procurement ensures decent labour and environmental standards in the production of clothing and other goods, including a living wage for workers overseas.

Currently, our uniforms and coffee (as well as other clothing, exotic fruit, sugar, chocolate, cell phones, stereos and other goods) are brought to us so cheaply because of desperately low wages for the world’s poorest workers.

We may be part of the problem, but we can just as easily be part of the solution!

Citizen power brought the most comprehensive fair-trade policy in North America to Vancouver, including ensuring fair-trade certification for all applicable food and coffee. Toronto and Calgary are other cities with sweat-free policies – will Ottawa be next? Updates this spring!


Action Items

1. Don’t fall for the Liberals’ cries for help. Asking progressive Canadians to vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives is like a fat cat asking the mice to unite with him against the new pit bull. “I know I’ve been trying to eat you for the last twelve years, but come on, my empirical grasp on power is fading – you gotta help me… I mean it’s better for all of us. Here, want some cheese?”

2. Write to your Mayor and City Councillor and ask about your city’s ethical procurement policy: does it have one, and does it plan to enact one? Check out this handy How-To Guide to make your city sweat-free!