I’d like to formally thank Montreal mayor for taking the heat off of Toronto mayor with his 14 fraud charges
Spread the word
Via FB
URGENT: THEY ARE REQUESTING HELP IN MI’KMAG TERRITORY NEW BRUNSWICK. REQUESTING EVERYBODY TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION!! THERE IS ONGOING PEACEFUL PROTESTS AGAINST FRACKING COMPANIES, THE SACRED FIRE HAS BEEN LIT.
“We’ve made our sacred fire. We’re going to stand our ground here.” Seismic trucks won’t pass, says Elsipogtog war chief, calls for help from ALL NATIONS
>http://bit.ly/14vwaG4
THE SACRED FIRE IS LIT EVENT PAGE:
June 14 6:00 am until June 15 at 11:00pm in UTC-03
http://www.facebook.com/events/451969464893759/
They are requesting witness support ASAP!” Cameras on the ground! livestream support! Citizen writers
“Call cell number 902.940.9343 for anyone that can make it to us we have available beds in a house close by the sacred fire, there is lots of food and water on camp as well as toilets i really hope to hear from you all soon. Much love and many blessings Eliza” -From Eliza Knockwood
PHOTO: One of the Native women was arrested as she tried to make a Tobacco circle and knelt down to pray.
»http://ow.ly/m1lxP WATCH THE VIDEO >http://ow.ly/m1lRr ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/19W9xx1
Mi’kmaq community outraged by treatment and arrest of women carrying out sacred duties
»http://bit.ly/12iYoVk
“Ms. Suzanne Patles and Ms. Lorraine Clair, two Mikmaq women recently arrested for conducting ceremonial prayers near SWN’s seismic testing site in Kent County, NB, are calling on all nations and devotions to defend their treaty rights to protect their territorial waters from destruction by Seismic testing and fracking activities. Both ladies are also seeking International oversight of their abusive treatment at the hands of the RCMP in exercising Aboriginal rights and human rights. “
6/6/13 NB Peaceful protesters say RCMP presence was excessive and their use of force was unnecessary.
>http://bit.ly/14jPndX
“A 16-year-old boy from St. Mary’s First Nation was also arrested. He has since been released without charges.
In an email statement, Chief Aaron Sock of Elsipogtog First Nation said: “I am requesting that any demonstrations that take place be done peacefully and lawfully. We must never be afraid to raise our voice to protect our rights and interests, yet we must have the same resolve to do so peacefully.”
PHOTO: Protestors along Highway 126 in New Brunswick Protecting mother Earth & Treaty Rights
>http://ow.ly/m1mSn
FOR MORE INFO AND TO KEEP UPDATED: FOLLOW THESE PAGES!
http://www.facebook.com/events/451969464893759/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/112468105590081/
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyNB
References /resources:
Council Of Canadians is in solidarity with fracking protest in New Brunswick >http://bit.ly/18ExDhx, http://bit.ly/19XPgHv
Even if you can’t make it, you’re in support by sharing this information, Take 10 seconds and SIGN THIS PETITION! ACTION ALERT: Take action to stop fracking in New Brunswick »http://bit.ly/10h3txh - Council Of Canadians
Green Party backs non-violent anti-shale gas protests in N.B David Coon says non-violent protests have a storied history in Canada >http://bit.ly/1bcmssm
Full List of Fracking Substances Used in Canada Still Secret
>http://bit.ly/11HrEEM
Some of the Toxic chemicals in Canada used in fracking includes hydrochloric acid, antifreeze: database (Which has and can leak into the water supply >http://bit.ly/12s4F0Y
Fracking water threat for Lake Ontario feared
“The idea of treating fracking fluid at sewage treatment plants and discharging it into the Great Lakes, that’s a new issue,” >http://bit.ly/o5ryZq
CBC: Fracking causes earthquakes, Two studies confirm
>http://bit.ly/HFoSmf, http://bit.ly/QiL0Fm
Protecting the right to water means banning fracking
>http://bit.ly/ZyxeHx
Worth reminding: study established first “definitive” link to well water contamination from shale ‘fracking
>http://bit.ly/10IBiAL
Scene from the documentary Gasland by Josh Fox ” Do Not Drink This Fracking Water! >http://bit.ly/15niXlB
FULL VERSION: http://bit.ly/12KoIJm
New Brunswick Is Canada’s Next Shale Gas Fracking Battle Front >http://bit.ly/gcCOTO - Desmog Canada
(Photo from June 6 demonstrations, via Warrior Publications) References and Meme by Occupy Canada in full support, everybody be safe! -Derek
Also Via FB
Just got word that Shale Gas Trucks/RCMP are threatening to forcefully push past the sacred fire lit by the elders and women tomorrow, and arrest those conducting peaceful ceremony there. They had the Canadian Army come by today to try to intimidate our people and allies- but the elders and women have vowed that they will not give up or stand down. This means Military’s on standby. They’re calling for support! They need more people out there to fight for the lands and to protect our women. They say there’s plenty of room and places to sleep for out of towners! #Route126 #PleaForHelp
Let’s talk about Bill S-16, lets talk about jailing people unnessacarily
Bill S-16, the bill that seems to take up the majority of the debates these days. What is Bill S-16, you ask. Well I’m glad you asked. Bill S-16, the “tackling contraband tobacco act” is an amendment to the criminal code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).
The summery looks like this:
“This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide for minimum penalties of imprisonment for repeat offenders.”
What is the minimum sentence you may ask. According to the MP who is introducing this bill, MP Rick Norlock, the minimum sentence would be 90 days but “it is up to the discretion of the judge to assign longer sentences”. The biggest focus of this bill as argued by Norlock and other Conservative MPs is the safety of Canadians and the protection of small corner store businesses.
The MP has repeatedly pegged contraband tobacco as a taker of business from corner stores and even explicitly looks to First Nations communities as on of the key sources of the “problem”.
Smoking is bad for you. I’m not about to tell you not to do it, that’s your business not mine, but smoking is bad for you. This is a well acknowledged fact. There are warnings on the back of these packages. We’re taught it in schools. It’s bad for you plain and simple. It doesn’t matter what you smoke. In fact, from what my friends who do smoke have told me, there is a difference in taste between certain contraband tobacco (obviously it’s not all the same) and the stuff with the pictures of the people who smoked for decades and had it take its toll.
Why might this be? “Legal” cigarettes have tons and tons of chemical additives to them where as contraband will vary because people don’t necessarily have access to or even want to, put those additives to the tobacco. In purchasing contraband tobacco, the chances you are getting straight tobacco is much higher then non-contraband because non-contraband always has additives to them.
Weather the contraband tobacco is coming from Native Reserves or through the port of Vancouver from China (according to the tobacco companies its 50/50), is irrelevant when people will now go to jail for three months.
Who do you think sell these cigarettes? Just take a wild guess. If you guessed anything other then people in marginalized communities, then I’m going to need you to really think about that. Contraband tobacco is less of a problem as real tobacco and I will tell you why.
At the end of the day who pays the taxes on so called legitimate cigarettes, it’s the small businesses and the customer. The tobacco companies pay minimal taxes in comparison to a taxpayer and the customer, for the profit they get.
Someone who is selling these contraband cigarettes and gets caught and sentenced isn’t going to come out of jail going “wow my life is turned around I’m going to go get a job” because if that does happen, they won’t be able to get a job because they now have a criminal record. Worse yet, someone who sells tobacco on the side of a minimum wage job will likely loose their job when they go to jail and don’t show up to work for three months.
Putting minimum sentences on something that is as harmful as its “legal” counterpart, is useless. This bill is an excuse to jail more people specifically in marginalized communities and if it passes, the only thing we get out of it is a higher commitment to the promises of the Trans Pacific Partnership. This bill is nothing more but the further jailing of people who commit offenses that literally hurt no one. In the trade of goods that break a copyright or fail to pay a fee to become a large business, no one is hurt unless they are being mislead into buying a product because they were told it was something else; which is often not the case in terms of contraband tobacco.
When someone is buying product no one is forcing anyone to do something they don’t want to. No one becomes a victim of violence. It’s a transaction between two people one of whom is choosing to buy a product the other is providing that option. We are jailing people who provide an option to people to buy a product. Meanwhile, we have people committing violent criminal offenses who get away with hurting victims.
If S-16 passes, more people will be jailed. Is that really what we want?
Parliament is On
Electronic Petitions coming to Canadian Parliament
Right now (Wednesday June 12 2013, 6PM), NDP MP Kennedy Stewart is presenting M-428 to the House of Commons. What is M-428 and why should you care? M-428, could change the house for a better.
M-428 is a motion to form a committee to get a study about e-petitions and how it can be used to better parliamentary democracy. While the passing of the motion would not lead directly to an e-petition system akin to ones like whitehouse.gov in the US and the petitions online petitioning system Quebec has, it is a step that will eventually lead to debates that Canadians want (much like whitehouse.gov).
But Kennedy Stewart can’t stand alone on getting this passed. He needs backing to let parliament know this is what Canadians want. He has set up betterpetitions.ca to help Canadians voice their opinions in the house of commons.
Sign his petition to get our petitions heard.
Parliament is on
Bill S-6- First Nations Elections Act
At 2PM- Snaps and Claps Statements by Members
At 2:15 Oral Questions better known as “I can’t answer this question” or Question Period
Then Bill S-16- Contraband Tobacco Act
Followed by Bill C-266-An Act to Establish Pope John Paul II day on April 2. Not like former BC premier Rita Johnston became the first female premier ever on that day in 1991 and should be celebrated as a Canadian or anything like that. Just saying. Celebrating a Canadian who doesn’t represent a single religious denomination makes more sense.
After that, Bill S-10-An Act to Implement the Convention of Cluster Munitions. This bill is in the first time the bill is entering the house. It was debated in the senate. Or at least that’s what we’re told, they don’t allow cameras in the senate.
Parliament will resume debating S-6 after that
Then adjournment
Ontario Sex Education Reform At Risk Again
Recently, the Ontario government planned to update its 15 year old sex ed curriculum. A similar update was planned for 2010 but the McGuinty government backed away from implementing the update. Many Ontarians (and I’m sure sex-ed people across the globe who heard about the new changes) took to twitter for a campaign run by a group called OPHEA to ensure that this time the government does not back away from the changes under the hashtag #OurRightToLearn.
In 2010, a bunch of religious groups deemed it would be wrong to include gender identity and sexual orientation in sex ed curriculum; even if children who have different sexual or gender identities, and may be confused about those identities, may be present at the time of learning. The groups scared the government at the time from passing such a wonderful inclusive change to the curriculum.
But now the change is back and according to OPHEA 87% of parents are happy to see the change. According to a poll Envirionics Research Group, that number is 93%. No matter if you take to tumblr or twitter or polls or Queens Park, it seems that the new sex ed curriculum is a welcome change from an outdated ciscentric heteromantic curriculum.
A lot has changed in 15 years since the curriculum was first introduced and I’m not just talking about the legalization of same sex marriage or the recent federal decision to add gender expression and gender identities under a protected group in cases of hate crimes. Non-cisgendered, non-heterosexual identities have existed forever so it isn’t even the increasingly vocal movement for rights for LGBQT+ communities (even if that support seems to be lacking for non-cis identities) isn’t the only reason for this need to update. I’m talking about technology and research.
We’ve come a long way in terms of protection, treatment and even how we have and see sex. In the past few decades we’ve developed HPV vaccines and ways to deal with HIV/AIDs so people with HIV/AIDs can live normal lives. We’ve developed new methods of birth control and new ways of protection. The acceptance of identities that have always existed isn’t the only long overdue change to Ontarios sex ed curriculum, though it is the biggest. Many former and current Ontario students can attest to how lacking our sex ed curriculum is.
But much like in 2010, this much needed change faces the same opposition from religious bigots. As Ontario residents, we can’t let these people keep LGBQT+ children from feeling safe with their identities in the schools they attend five days a week for several hours a day, any longer. Unknowingly, these people could be hurting their own children by hindering this change, but indefinitely by keeping this updated curriculum out of schools, they are hurting someones child. If we are keeping education out of schools, then what is the point of schools.
These groups who use fear mongering of identities they don’t understand and justify their ignorant hate using what they call “biblical morality” are recirculating the same petition from two years ago to stop future Ontario adults from learning about sexuality and gender. So called “biblical morality” has no place in schools if “biblical morality” is going to hinder the learning of students. The group also plans to call and email Premier Wynne to keep her from passing the bill. They will be countering the #OurRightToLearn campaign on twitter under the hashtag #WeWantASay.
They’ve already had they’re say. They’ve had they’re say for too long and we can’t let them keep this change out of our school any longer. We can’t let these people give the government any reason to back out of this change again.
To make sure Wynnes office has no doubt that the need for this update is real, call her office at 416-325-1941 or send her an email to premier@ontario.ca or tweet to her at @Kathleen_Wynne on Twitter under both hashtags #WeWantASay and #OurRightToLearn.
Let Kathleen Wynne know we think this change is great and long overdue. Even if you just tweet her “please let the new curriculum pass. thank you for bringing sex ed into the 21st century! #WeWantASay #OurRightToLearn” Our positivity and voices will speak louder then the bigots who oppose an inclusive educated society.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
Political Parties and the Senate
The senates been filled with scandal recently. I’m not going to explain it, there are explanations somewhere in my “cdnpoli” tag if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Get on the bus children. We’re going to look at senate reform or more specifically the different opinions politicians are putting forward.
NDP-“Roll Up the Red Carpet”
The New Democratic Party proposes we abolish the senate entirely. They even have a campaign called “Roll up the Red Carpet” about it.
The Green Party
The Green Party proposes Canada have a referendum on the option to elect senators and change the system so each province and territory has direct representation rather then the fractured system we have now. This has already been adopted as official Green Party platform.
The Conservatives
For all the Conservatives like to repeatedly blame the Liberals for what happens in the senate, the Conservative party has appointed 51 senators verses the previous Liberal government appointed two less senators driving them in at 49. However, the Conservative government has made multiple attempts to reform the senate so senators must be elected in the province they represent and give senators a fixed term that last nine years instead of ending at the age of 70 regardless of how old you are when you are appointed. For example Patrick Brazeau is appointed to the senate until 2049 unless senate reform happens. That’s how the senate currently works.
The Conservatives repeatedly introduced Bill C-7 the senate reform bill and the supreme court is currently looking at senate reform options. The last time the senate reform bill was introduced was in 2011. Given the scandals of recent weeks, you would think the Conservatives would realize it is in their best interest to remind Canadians of these attempts or schedule a resurfacing of the bill after the supreme court makes its ruling on senate reform. There hasn’t been any reminder that this bill is has been introduced many times by the Conservatives and that they are awaiting a supreme court decision on the matter of senate reform. It’s very unlike the Harper government to not boast about something they did, especially when they can turn it on opposition parties and say “they wouldn’t support senate reform in 2011”. There has been zero mention of the bill or the supreme court in press conferences about the scandals. This gives sparks to skepticism about weather or not the Conservatives really want senate reform. Given the bill and recent statements, the Conservative position is unclear as to weather or not the Conservatives wish to reform or abolish the senate. They are certainly waiting for a supreme court decision, as reforming the senate requires constitutional amendments. The Conservative position on senate reform really looks like they’re just waiting for things to blow over.
The Liberal Party- One of these things is not like the others! one of these things is not the same!
Justin Trudeau has remained unwavering on his stance on the senate and senate reform even before the scandal on the leadership campaign trail. He believes the senate should be transparent. His stance has been to paraphrase “appoint better senators”.
The country is in outrage over three different senate scandals and all the other parties are proposing we change the way the outdated senate works entirely or scrap it all together, the Liberal party is saying lets not put these provisions/get rid of the chamber, they’re saying appoint better people. Instead of putting the heat on the senate which is outdated and serves no one except politicians in themselves, they’re saying politicians should appoint better people who have little legislative power and make large amounts of money.
They’re not even proposing that senators be elected. Promise financial transparency all you want, but at the end of the day, cameras aren’t allowed in senate debates unless its a specific hearing; if your not proposing change to that, you’re not proposing transparency. Some peg this stance as the Liberals not listening but there’s no way they’re that politically unsavvy to commit political suicide by coming out and saying the broken system isn’t broken at a time when half the country is beginning to realize how actually pointless the senate is.
And maybe it’s my inner conspiracy theorist who chooses to believe we’re missing something to this stance or maybe I’m just as distrusting of neo-liberals as I am of conservatives, but I think there are seats in the senate that the Liberal party have promised to people if they get elected. That’s the only reason anyone would come out and say “we shouldn’t abolish or reform the senate, we should just appoint more responsible people”. If they say “senators should be elected” they can no longer promise seats. If they promise transparency past financial statements which for anyone but the conservatives would be an easily accessible thing, they’d have to do a lot more justification of why we should keep the senate. There’s no reason why any politician, especially at a time like this, should have a stance that isn’t changing the senate in someway. This is entirely speculation, but somewhere on the campaign trail, someone was promised a senate seat and the only way to fullfill that promise not having senate reform.
The Harper government is slashing funding to several major aboriginal political organizations - including the Assembly of First Nations - a surprise move that the group’s national chief says flies in the face of the government’s stated intention to work with First Nations.
Canadian Diplomats Stage Walk out
Canadian diplomats at 12 embassies sent a message to parliament to keep Prime Minister Stephen Harper grounded. 200 diplomats walked out of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade headquarters located at the Lester B Person Building in Ottawa well another 200 walked out of key missions abroad.
The walk out targets by a series of trade missions including an 8 day trip to Europe and a G-8 meeting on June 17 and 18, where Harper is scheduled to attend.
“It’s clear we need to bring pressure at the political level so job action measures and walkouts are intended to target the government’s highest priority international files and all cabinet travel abroad, including that of the Prime Minister.” said Tim Edwards, president of the Professional Association for Foreign Service Officers
The Professional Association of Foreign Service Officer represents about 1,350 foreign service officers and has staged a fairly low-key offensive in its two-month strike until now. It staged a walkout earlier this month of some four dozen foreign service officers working in Canada’s missions in Africa — Ghana, Pretoria, Johannesburg, Harare and Nairobi — and slowed processing of visas in Mexico City.
In a Global interview with Laura Stone, I am quoted as saying that Stephen Harper is “not Canadian.” Having lunch with a reporter on virtually no sleep is a high risk proposition, but I didn’t say anything I didn’t mean. The issue is this: unlike any prime minister in our history — Liberal or Conservative — Mr. Harper reflects a political culture foreign to Canada. What makes me say Mr. Harper has strayed from those traditional Canadian values and style of governance? Well, here’s a short list.
The linked above article is interesting. For a number of reasons.
Authored by Elizabeth May, a well loved Canadian MP from the emerging Green Party, she is currently the only MP in Parliament other then the newly independent Brent Rathgeber without any loyalty to the NDP, Liberal, Conservative or Bloc party. May brings forth a brief mention to a largely unknown but hardly surprising participation of Harper heading to the other side of the boarder to take part in a Young Republican camp. To anyone who remembers the Ignatieff attack ads the Harper government waged, this points out Harpers hypocrisy as the whole attack campaign relied on the phrase “Just Visiting” and “Not Canadian” in an attempt to make it seem as if Ignatieff had only come back to Canada from the US because he could gain political power.
No one is saying Harper isn’t a citizen, what is being said is that his politics are not Canadian.
Mays accusation that Harpers politics aren’t Canadian is nothing new. There is definitely much truth to that accusation. These are the values we tend to think of as not Canadian in recent time. But as much as politicians in the opposition parties and a growing amount of MPs in the Conservative Party would like to distance themselves from Harpers frivolous statements, corrupt politics riddled with scandal and hypocrisy, to say Harpers politics isn’t Canadian is inaccurate and only serves to distances Parliament from the actions the Canadian Parliament is doing and does.
Anything that happens in Canadian Parliament is Canadian. Regardless of weather or not the politics behind it would be considered to fit into what Canadians like to believe Canadian values are, policy changes to Canadian law will always be Canadian as long as they are in Canada.
To say Harpers politics are not Canadian and to suggest that the politics are coming from the other side of the boarder does nothing more then boost the ego in of the Canadian identity, no matter how much truth it holds. Harpers government is terrible. His party is crumbling. Harper pressed the self-destruct button on the Conservative party a long time ago when he drained parliament of what ever dignity could be taken in a government who calls themselves Canadian but still pays allegiance to a queen in another country. He spoke in sessions of Parliament and promoted a colonial agenda that went largely uncalled unless it was an opposition calling it “Conservative” values. It is a much better to frame the governments actions as exclusively the Harper governments. To call it colonialism means admitting the entire Parliament is built on colonialism and a fair majority of Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum, would like to remain thinking of Canada as a country that always was a homogenous mass; not a country that took up the name “Canada” resulting in the destruction of sovereign Indigenous Nations.
Harpers government isn’t not Canadian. The actions the Harper government makes effects Canada. Conservatives attacking First Nations communities is as historically “Canadian” as it gets. The Conservative agenda is full of the colonialism that created the country we call “Canada” today. The same colonialism we have spent 200 years trying to distance ourselves from while making no attempt to undo. MPs may want to think this Conservative government does not harbor traditional Canadian values because those ideas are harmful and they are embarrassing to Canada, but anything that bill/act/motion that passes in Canadian parliament is etched into our legislation forever until challenged and changed.
Things that happen in parliament do not just go away when a new government is elected. It stays. Our history is our present and weather you like it or not the decisions Harper is making is changing what we can and can’t call “Canadian”. When Harper is gone the changes made by Bill C-38 and C-45 is still going to be in place. When Harper is gone, we will still have the consequences of no longer having the research funding that was cut. We will still have a commitment to meet the terms of the Trans Pacific Partnership and all the other trade agreements signed during the Conservatives time. Our lakes will remain unprotected because Harper said it was and he wrote it in our legislation. The government is leaving a legacy for the next government to build off of or clean up. Whatever happens in Parliament is Canadian and becomes our history. Becomes our values.
I don’t like Harper. You don’t like Harper. I don’t know anyone who likes Harper. But the changes he’s making effects Canada and those changes are no less Canadian just because those changes are an embarrassment to Canadian. Do not distance Harper from Canada. This is the government in power. Talk about how we need to stop the changes or undo them when Harpers time is over. But do not call them “not Canadian” only because it’s damaging Canada and the last thing this country needs is more things to sweep under the rug.
Canadian values become Harpers values when they become values that dictate Canadian legislation.
Colonialism vs Nagotiation
A single governing body only makes sense in the context of a colonial capitalist system. For one group or one person to stay in power they must convince a majority of the population, that there is a clear benefit to the most people. Clear benefit does not have to be that everything will work one hundred per cent. When we are given a list of choices and are unable to add our own or work outside what the system has provided us, an entity can gain power on the conditions that what they are proposing will work better then the other given alternatives.
To gain power in a democracy, an idea has to be proposed that will work just well enough for the majority of the population. If functionality is a spectrum, then to create an idea that will work just enough for 50% of the population that people will not be void of that function, will always provide a guaranteed appeal regardless of what the other parties are proposing. In democracy we are often left with the choice of good is bad compared to worse because we can not go to our community to escape the choice that does not fit our needs. To promise better marine safety efficiency is not in the benefit of a government when much of the country’s population does not live near a body water of water. Regardless of weather or not a minority relies on that body of water for economic gains, a government proposing more marine services will not appeal to the majority of a country and that’s where we’re left with bad is good compared to worse.
To the minority who rely on bodies of water for economic gain, they are left to choose between options that may work in other areas when there is no option for much needed marine services and no guarantee that a government will listen or an they will have the opportunity to negotiate those service. Showing the people who make those decisions the struggles of the fishing or boating industry without those marine services is made especially challenging when those people are at the other end of the country where means of economic gain is so radically different. At the end of the day, those people who do understand and see the struggle, will have a hard time convincing others who do not understand the struggle that there is enough of a benefit to a majority of a population to provide those marine services.
Having to barter with a governing body who aims to please enough of a majority for their own gain, is a hindrance to survival economic or otherwise, when the playing fields on which the barter happens to have needs that are so diverse.
Federal governing bodies exist to impose rules for the entire country which only need to function on some level for enough of the countries population to keep them in power. An overarching approach of rules for the development of the country is not practical when the needs of the communities that make the country and the physical landscapes differ so much from one to the other.
Unless the rules are incredibly vague that it becomes necessary to create a set of committees to define the exceptions in the cases of each individual transaction, it is very hard to have a single set of rules for the terms of allocating funds across Canada or any other country for that matter.
Canada’s House of Commons like any democratic house, is made up of a series of representatives who promote what is best to suite the needs of their constituents. When not enough Members of Parliament find a given solution to fill the needs of their community, there is no incentive for that Member to be in favor of the resolution at play. This is why the needs of the Arctic Territories, Maritime Provinces, Northern communities varying from province to province, are frequently overlooked. For areas where there is not one metropolitan urban area, it is not beneficial to a coalition of politicians to attempt to make the incredibly hard task of appealing to what is best for those communities. If the idea does not register at all on the functionality scale for those in a large center it is not beneficial to politicians to propose it.
This is how the present the Federal Liberal Party in Canada stayed in power for so long, and kept what was left of their power when they were decimated in the 2011 election when the present Conservatives government took a majority.
The Liberal Party puts forward a political agenda that appeals to a enough of the population of Toronto and Greater Metropolitan Area which surrounds Toronto, which make up a large amount of the seats in parliament. In previous elections they also managed to appeal to Quebec, but in the election in which they lost the most seats in Parliament, they had not appealed to enough Quebec voters in those ridings to to maintain support.
The Liberal Party itself had been fractured by Paul Martians departure and his cabinet which lacked very little potential for good leadership. Good leadership was not found in Stefan Dion but he was able to appeal to the core voter population in Quebec and the Greater Toronto Area.
Dion successor Micheal Ignattief failed to captivate the Quebec support the party had traditionally relied on to give them enough additional seats from the Toronto Area to have a presence in parliament. As a result, the New Democratic Party were the closest thing to viable choice for Quebec voters as the Conservative party platform is not appealing to Canada’s Francophone population or the middle class urban population.
However, this vote split between the NDP and Liberals, would not have kept the present Conservative government from gaining a majority from the minority it had in the election previous. Had the NDP taken the entire core voter population from the Liberal Party, that’s still not enough seats to keep the Conservative government from having a majority in a minority government, which gives them less power, but power none the less.
The Conservative government appeals to the Canadian population with tax cuts; a way out of paying for a system the federal government imposes across the country, regardless of functionality for specific communities. Tax cuts appeal to two populations of voters, both populations are voters who do not or can not rely on government funded programs.
Tax cuts appeal to many of those who are financially well off because they do not rely as heavily on as many government funded programs as middle class or economically disadvantaged families, and the programs they do rely on, are ones they have ample access to, are not in danger of being cut and if cut, would effect the whole country.
The other population tax cuts appeal to, are those who can not access the system. To these communities, they are still paying for services they have to go to great lengths to access, if at all. To someone who has to travel thirty minutes to a hospital, hearing they will no longer pay tax on gas or a toll on a road is the next greatest thing they can hear when promise for high speed rail transit or more funding to provinces to build closer hospitals isn’t an option.
If you are someone where there are no job opportunities where you are living, hearing there will be jobs sounds incredibly enticing when no one is promising the infrastructure to create jobs in those neighborhoods or affordable tools to get a job. When you rely on fishing for your income, hearing you will no longer have to pay taxes on your boat sounds almost as good as the boost in coast guard services but that is not a promise on the table.
Tax cuts work for all the people who live in areas where they are part of the majority of communities where it takes specific and careful planning to allocate funds for services to function in the best possible way. These are people in the Arctic and the Maritimes and the isolated urban areas where services is all around but still not accessible to them. These are the people who live on First Nations Reserves in remote communities where it costs more to ship a product than the cost of the product itself and the rural communities where sometimes work is seasonal or sometimes it relies on tourism or sometimes work is a long commute. These are the people in the exburbs who commute an hour and may or may not want to use the transit system that may or may not exist and may or may not be lacking. These are the people in the suburbs who think they don’t need public services because what they are deprived of they can pay for and what they aren’t deprived of isn’t at stake.
This is why promising tax cuts works. The best promise you can make to someone is that you are going to fix the problem that keeps them from accessing the services they pay for. The second best promise you can make to those people is that they will no longer have to pay for the services they can’t access.
It’s not a lack of education that makes tax cuts appealing, it’s a lack of beneficial alternative. Voting for tax cuts is voting to escape a system that you are forced to participate in and has a minimal benefit to you. The fact you can not negotiate your terms so your not stuck with a system that fails you, is colonialism.
The best promise you can make to anyone regardless of what it is they need, is that they will be able to go to a city hall or a community leader or a group or some entity with resources and negotiate for the things they need for their daily lives to live. That they will be able to operate for the better on a community level. That communities will be able to function as themselves and rely on each other.
But that promise can’t be made when you have a government that is supposed to cover everyone and everyone lives in a system where compromises are made for them regardless of benefit to them. The government can promise so much and those promises will never meet everyones needs because those needs are different.
Peoples needs are not the problem. The problem is there is no viable way to take the time to negotiate those needs with the large governing bodies in power. The people who in the community who one can negotiate with, are also looking to negotiate needs and while you can work it out, time and effort needs to be put into to create the relationship to negotiate those needs. Forming those relationships is the most practical option one has to fit the needs of the many variables of the individual. This is best done by creating a series of strong relationships with the people closest who are willing to spend the energy or resources with you to support the immediate community to meet the needs of as many people as possible, in the immediate area. We often refer to the practice of direct action to meet the needs of a group of people. Direct action creates an alternative to the system which is not working.
Negotiating ones needs at a community level and working as a community, is not only the best option, it is the only option. It is not possible to negotiate those needs at a federal level, however, in a colonial system, getting those resources is made a challenge when the government imposes rules that force you to rely on them for those needs.
