The rantings of a former Councilor

For someone who’s no longer an elected official, Mr. Evans has an awful lot of grousing to do about how city council does its job. This may come as a shock to him, but Burnaby runs its elections in a democratic fashion, and in this case, the people (you know, those people YOU were supposed to represent) decided that they wanted a BCA mayor and BCA councilors. It‘s an amazing thought to be sure, allowing citizens to vote for who they want to, even if it doesn’t produce a governing system that Mr. Evans approves of, which would likely require him to be sitting as a member. Perhaps if he and his party spent more time presenting a positive set of ideas to the citizens of Burnaby instead of continually complaining about the election results, there would be members of his party on Council. But, they did not, and the voters decided not to have such people represent them at the municipal level. This should be a lesson to Mr. Evans and those like him, but I suspect that instead, he and others like him will simply continue to criticize a government duly elected by the people, the same people who rejected his style of politics and his lack of solutions to the problems at hand.

Prorogation and the death of a bill

To anyone who wasn't hiding under a rock or living in a cave last year, these words will ring familiar; Prime Minister Stephen Harper has prorogued Parliament. Yes, he's done it again, and once again he prorogues in order to prevent the destruction of his party in the face of his own arrogance and plain stupidity. This time it is due to his party's insistance at lying over the events of Afghanistan, for which the Government SHOULD be held accountable. That's how we were all taught a Parliamentary system worked, that all things became accountable to Parliament. This lesson was apparently missed by Mr. Harper, who seems to think that he can prorogue Parliament whenever the media narrative turns against him.
Let's set aside for the moment the fact that this was a blatant attempt to evade the political fallout of the ongoing torture investigations, which are likely to resume once Parliament resumes anyways, and look at what the Prime Minister has wrought. At this time, there were dozens of government bills and several private member's bills that are now going to have to be re-introduced. Many of these, such as C-311 and C-304, were nearing the end of the legislative process and could soon be accepted as law. This is especially damning for Bill C-311, which has now TWICE been passed at third reading and will be denied royal assent by Harper's proroging of Parliament. This is an absolute waste of our time and money, that we have to debate bills multiple times to satisfy the petty urges of a man who claims to be our leader.
Of course, there is always an ironic side to what Mr. Harper and company do, and this is no exception. Just as recently as six years ago, when Mr. Harper sat on the Opposition benches, he decried the Liberals for doing exactly what he's doing here. Funny how these things are forgotten with a short memory, or perhaps a trip to the other side of the aisle? The hypocrisy would normally be enough to bring caution to a politician, but such things are not for Prime Minister Harper, who seems to believe that such things are beneath him. Speaking of beneath him, apparently living up to his own campaign promises is too much of a challenge for the Prime Minister as well. Many of us will remember that the Prime Minister ran his first two campaigns on the idea of bringing transparancy and accountability to the Federal Government. Hollow words from a man who cares for nothing but power, since he's jettisoned that part of his platform just as readily as he's jettisoned everything else he claimed to believe in.
Perhaps this year, voters will look at what they have brought to themselves; a man with no beliefs he won't eliminate in order to prevent his own short term defeat. This has been the face of Canada for five years now, isn't it about time we return to a Canadian government that reflects Canadian values and a Canadian sense of loyalty to its beliefs?

Christmas updates!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and have a productive, happy New Year everyone!
This is likely to be my last blog until the new year arrives, so I apologize for my recent inactivity and my week off. Its been busy the past few days, I've been putting together a group based out of facebook that will be working year round to end poverty by hosting fundraising drives and demonstrations to obtain greater public and government awareness to the problem. Its my hope that we can start making a difference in the lives of the people who have to live in poverty, because in a nation as rich and powerful as our own, no one should have to worry about where their next meal comes from, and no one should worry about survival.
Down in America, the United States Senate has finally passed a bill that would insure an additiona thirty million citizens and would prevent insurance companies from ending coverage if you actually need to use it. This is a monumental bill, one that does what all politics should do, and that is to help the people that we are supposed to represent. It is not a perfect bill, but what it does is help the least fortunate and give them the safety net they need in order to survive and get back on their feet, the same kind of big, sweeping proposal that Canadians need to fulfill to bring our poor, huddled masses back into society and have them live in dignity.
Merry Christmas everyone, enjoy this special time of year and may glad tidings follow you on your journey throughl life.

Copenhagen's end

The Copenhagen summit has finally ended, and the world powers are touting the new agreement they have created, a so-called breakthrough in world diplomacy that will herald a new beginning in environmental protection in both the developed and developing world. Except that it isn't. All that we have received for our years of negotiations and pleading and bargaining is a committment with no penalties to reduce greenhouse gases by an insufficient amount for a time when the politicians who created the goals will long since have retired from public life. This is insufficient and should not be tolerated, and Canada has only itself to blame. We have known since before the Kyoto Accords that something had to be done in regards to how we produce energy and how we treat the planet we live on. That didn't stop Canadian negotiators from doing their very best to cut off debate and to take a hard line position on targets that would do absolutely nothing for the environment, and it didn't do a single thing to stop Prime Minister Harper and Environment Minister Prentice from threatening to give generous exemptions to the Alberta Oil Sands. Canadians can do better, and ordinary citizens have been doing better in spite of their Federal Government, which has failed to represent the will of the majority. Now more than ever is it important to make a statement on the world stage saying that Canada takes its committments seriously, and that we will not be laggards in any way, shape or form in doing what we know is right for our nation and our world. Recently I said that Bill C-311 has been voted out of committee and into Third Reading, we need to do everything in our power as citizens to pass this bill; lobby your elected officials and Senators to pass a bill that says makes sure Canada does what is necessary to do. No more obstruction, no more pnadering to Oil and Gas, its time for all four parties in Parliament to stand together and get it done. Pass the bill and make it law before its too late.

Urban farming evaporating

There's been a lot of use of the word 'sustainability' in the past, but its mostly been in the abstract in terms of policies that could be enacted by a government once in power. There are sustainable things we can be doing right now, but are actually cutting back on. I'm talking about urban farms, which have been slowly disappearing in the lower mainland. This year the Vancouver Parks Board voted to close down the Stanley Park Farm, which was one of two sustainable farms in Vancouver. The other farm, the UBC farm, is undergoing the process of being certified organic and sustainable, and has been reduced in size. These farms and others like them give British Columbians a chance to enjoy locally grown food that isn't filled with chemicals and other additives.

Liberal Accountability going right off the rails

So the B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the BC Liberals to hand over e-mails regarding their sale of BC Rail and the alleged improprieties of the sale.

It seems clear now that the courts, at least, think there is something to be gained from a more thorough investigation into the Campbell government, and its improperly deleted e-mails. We were told during the May election campaign that there was nothing improper done by the BC Liberals in the sale of BC Rail, yet the judge found there was enough probable cause to ask for these records.

So where are they?

Why is it that Premier Campbell and his codefendants are having such troubles giving the court the documents asked for?

What we’re seeing here is a pattern of events showing the Liberals and their allies do not believe they are constrained by the law.

What does it say about a government that only forces its members to resign when they’re apprehended for their wrongdoings, instead of resigning prior to the arrest and avoiding conflicts of interest?

If our government doesn’t have belief in their good faith on a sale bid, how can we trust them to follow through for British Columbia’s interests at any other time? How can we trust them if they continue to act in a manner that flouts the law and the public trust?

The people of British Columbia deserve full disclosure about the BC Rail sale

No more taxes!

The new harmonized sales tax proposed by the BC Liberals, to be put in place for July 1, 2010 is easily the best way to destroy our recovering economy.

On paper, the harmonized tax looks as though it won’t change the cost of any goods as you currently purchase them.

This is untrue.

The harmonized sales tax forces consumers to pay what was previously the goods and service tax on goods that was not previously taxed, thus increasing the price of things such as “non-essential” groceries, as determined by the government.

First and foremost, how do the BC Liberals intend on paying for the tax rebates promised by switching to the harmonized sales tax? The BC Liberal website claims that there will be yet another low income tax credit, just as there is with the carbon tax. It claims that there will be rebates on all new housing projects, as well as rebates for municipalities, churches and other qualifying non-profit organizations. The Liberals state the harmonized sales tax will remove over $2 billion in costs from B.C. businesses. With the Canadian government only giving the province

$1.6 billion to cover the transition to the new harmonized tax, where will the money be found to cover the costs of the rebates, as there is no new government income being created, if you ask the BC Liberals.

So how does the government propose that the taxpayers pay for their own rebates? It seems that there is no answer provided. Make no mistake, this inability to answer where the money to pay for the tax shift is problematic, and could undermine the economic recovery we currently have in place.

Why do we suddenly need to switch to this new harmonized sales tax?

Ever since Premier Gordon Campbell won his first term in government, the BC Liberals have been trumpeting how British Columbia is the best place on earth. There’s no disputing that from me, but if British Columbia is such an attractive place to live and set up businesses, why is the government so interested in suddenly fiddling with the tax system that made us the best place on earth, especially at such a critical moment when the economy is beginning to experience positive growth again.

What do they hope to gain by changing how we pay taxes?

This is just another choice made by the BC Liberals. A choice to protect and help their friends in big business instead of helping the middle class of British Columbia.

No help for B.C. families, just B.C. CEOs.

Say no to the harmonized sales tax.

September Budget Panned

Sorry, I know, its not even close to September anymore, I forgot to add it here.

The British Columbia budget has been unveiled, hoping to spread enough love to citizens and to distract from the furor of the Harmonized Sales Tax.

It’s unfortunate events are not unfolding as the BC Liberals would have preferred they turn out. The budget is a disaster for hardworking, everyday British Columbians; too many benefits for big businesses, not enough help for the working families that make up so much of our province.

We have a budget that cuts payments to our health care system and to our culture and arts, but has money available to give prisoners flatscreen televisions. We have been told income taxes will be cut again to make certain that the HST is revenue neutral, so why is it a family of four will actually pay more in taxes, before factoring in the increased costs of goods and services.

Even for those who are getting a tax ‘reduction’ thanks to the HST will end up paying more; a retired couple making $30,000 a year will actually pay $238 dollars less in taxes, but that will be a small comfort to them when the goods they purchase eat up those savings and more.

The HST will condemn working families and lower income British Columbians to a lower standard of living, just so the BC Liberals can kickback more money to their corporate owners.

This budget will sound the death knell of the middle class, with increased taxes and no new services to show for it. It makes one wonder just what our tax money is being used for, if not for the services that the BC Liberals slashed repeatedly.

US Senate CLEAR Act

Full Text here: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/copenhagen2009/climate_cantwell_bill.pdf

The bill in question is the newest attempt to provide a hard cap on carbon reductions, culminating in what is being called a 'cap and dividend' system, as opposed to the already know and understood 'cap and trade' scheme of carbon emission reduction.
The main difference between cap and trade and cap and dividend is that three quarters of all government revenue from carbon share auctions would be returned to the citizens in the form of a monthly dividend cheque. Independant analysis indicates that these dividends could reach as high as twelve hundred dollars a month per qualifying individual. The remaining twenty-five percent of the proceeds would be held in a government trust which could be used to finance targetted infrastructure upgrades meant to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and act as a form of economic stimulus.
This is the kind of proposal that we should be getting behind and focusing on for ourselves in the NDP. It most assuredly accomplishes our progressive aims to lower carbon emissions in a safe, economically viable method, and its almost impossible to tar this as a cap and tax regime, considering that the vast majority of people will receive some kind of rebate without having to pay any initial fee. Furthermore, this type of policy, with its reinvestments in the community, gives the party a chance to put some actions to our rhetoric on standing up for middle and working class British Columbians.
The most important part of this bill would be what is done with the money from the carbon share auctions; if the NDP were to champion such a bill it would be necessary to focus on the rebates that would be given to individuals, which could be far higher than rebates from the carbon tax.

Child Labour, far from slavery?

The newest reports on child labour have been released this week, and the information is truly startling.

Questions have to be asked of our BC Liberal government as to why they’ve allowed things to become as bad as they are for today’s youth.

Child labour has become more accepted, as youths require more money to do the things they enjoy, and to support their families in these tough economic times.

So why is it that the government refuses to enact means to protect our most vulnerable workers.

I would like to ask Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this relates to their cabinet portfolios.

First:

Why do you support a law that allows youths from 12 to 14 to work if they have written parental consent, when more than 58 per cent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer?

Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld?

Second:

For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada.

How are you working to end child poverty in B.C.?

Finally:

Why does the government not create legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in?

British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work.

How can this government claim to care about youth and put them first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people?

Federal NDP bills move forward

There's a reason why New Democratic Party polling numbers have been climbing higher and higher in recent weeks and months; its because the NDP is getting things done in Parliament instead of playing partisan games with our country. Just this week, two NDP private members' bills have move through Parliament. Bill C-304, a housing act sponsored by Libby Davies (Vancouver East) passed through committee. Once again, the bill proceeded through the House without support from the governing Conservative Party. Ensuring affordable housing for Canadians wasn't the only goal the NDP got closer to accomplishing this week; bill C-311, the party's bill that would cap greenhouse gases and reduce emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and an astonishing 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, goals that are backed by leading scientists around the world. Bill C-311 also made it through committee this week, with absolutely no amendments attached to it, leaving the bill ready for Third Reading, where it should pass and become Canadian law.
Congratulations to Jack Layton and the Federal NDP team for fighting for Canadians and Canadian values!

Provincial Split Personalities

Recently in the BC Provincial NDP, there has been a spirited backroom debate about where the party should be headed, between moderates who currently hold most of the power and believe we need to chart a more centrist course, and the progressive activists who believe the party has departed too far from its roots to properly engage the masses. Much ink from far more well known bloggers and journalists has already been spilled on the topic, so I shall be brief in my own dissertation.
I would count myself among the progressives. The fact is that if we in the NDP pursue Liberal-lite policies, the electorate is simply going to vote for a real Liberal instead of one of us pretending to be one of them. We need to stick back to our roots and support those who have always been part of the bedrock of our party. Furthermore, our attempt to shift rightward hasn't been entirely matched by our policies; we're now stuck in a situation in which we say one thing, but our policy priorities don't reflect it, and it makes the party look confused. We cannot be the party of balanced budgets AND the party of all the social security programs we champion AND be the party that lowers taxes, the three are simply incompatible with each other, short of manufacturing money and causing inflation catastrophes. The party should focus instead on being the party of zero unemployment. We can solve so many of the provinces problems if we simply sit back and end unemployment, both our province's fiscal fortunes and our citizens' well-being can be improved in this manner.
Specifically, through public works projects, perhaps capital works designed to construct low income housing in major urban and rural areas, unemployed and underemployed persons can be given paying jobs that not only would take them off the employment insurance rolls, but would also cause them to be taxpaying citizens again, doubly helping the financial statements of the BC Government. Furthermore, by focusing this kind of stimulus on infrastructure and programs devoted to the worse off in society, we give these people a chance to climb out of poverty.
Such a program would, after an initial infusion of government dollars, begin to pay for itself through the taxes paid by the newly employed and the savings that would be created from employment insurance, and other government programs that would no longer be needed to support these persons. This kind of program that thinks big and has long term benefits has been sorely lacking from the NDP policy platform, and is completely consistant with the tenets of the party to support the average British Columbian. The fact that such a program would cost less over time due to the benefits of having people work is simply a side effect that our party's centrists can latch onto as a basis for funding such a building program.

Revolving door health care facilities

Fraser Valley residents must be shaking their heads. Not even a year after the new adolescent psychiatric facility opened its doors to new patients, the BC government was closing its doors, citing a lack of qualified staff and faulty equipment as the reason for the closure. This is disappointing, since it was only months ago before the provincial election that this same government was touting the facility as a means of reducing the demand for the Surrey location that provides similar care functions. The government spent a long time explaining how this facility was absolutely necessary to ensure timely treatment of adolescents and children who require psychiatric care. I would love for this government to tell me that in the intervening half year, children and teenagers with debilitating mental diseases had miraculously been remedied of things that have no cure, but that is not a feasible conclusion. What is a feasible conclusion is that this was more showboating and out of touch legislating from the BC Liberals, who clearly don’t understand the issues.
The Honourable Kevin Falcon, our Minister of Health, claims that there simply wasn’t enough money or staff to fund the building, even though the Ministry itself obtained a twenty percent increase in funding since the last budget year. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the public why a specialized care unit in such high demand did not get the funding and personnel required to fulfill its mandate; it seems only logical to me, a simple voter, that if the Abbotsford location meant so much to the health of the people there and it meant so much to the BC Liberals, that they would do what it took to keep the location open. Obviously, they have not, and they will not, because for the BC Liberals, this isn’t about who’s going to go without needed care, its about saving money without regards to the consequences of their actions.
When the health of our fellow citizens, especially youths, is in danger, I would expect that our government would do its job and make sure that things are done to provide the absolute best care possible. Minister Falcon and the rest of the BC Liberal caucus, stop playing politics with the health of Fraser Valley youths and reopen this facility.

Passing grades for failing our children

Forty-nine percent, not usually a number to extol as a record achievement. Someone should inform BC Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development Moira Stilwell that a forty-nine percent graduation rate of our aboriginal students is not acceptable, particularly since this is being lauded as a record high completion rate. In our school system, forty-nine percent would receive an "F" grade. Why does Minister Stilwell believe that the forty-nine percent success rate would be anything other than a failure of her government to significantly improve the education system and its ability to help aboriginal students succeed.
Of course, a caveat must be added that the report considers completion to be the graduation of a student from high school within six years, which is still longer than should be necessary to graduate.
The reality here is that in the two years prior to this 'record high' of aboriginal scholastic achievement, the rates of completion were at forty-seven and forty-eight percent; this is hardly the big improvement that the BC Government would have you believe it is.
How can this government come to the people and express pride that for fifty-one percent of aboriginal students, high school will take more than six years to complete? What kind of reality do we live in, where such dismal numbers are considered good news?
All that we have here is another gross example of how far removed from society this Government is, and how unprepared the BC Liberals are to actually do something in the interests of the people they claim to represent in the Legislature.
The education system is supposed to be a right, to give youths the knowledge and tools needed to succeed in an increasingly knowledge based economy. Instead, its becoming a prison sentence, forcing aboriginal students to spend years longer to learn the same material of their peers, and it should not be accepted as pleasing information to anyone, least of all the Government, who has an opportunity to end this travesty.

A lament for no affordable housing

As the laws currently stand, there is no national plan for affordable housing in Canada.
Every other first-world country in the world has a strategy of some manner to reduce homelessness and poverty, except for Canada.
Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, would provide Canadians with the housing they need to start building up from poverty and the social safety nets they have had to rely on.
This private member’s bill has passed second reading and is now in committee. We have a bill here that would ensure that every last man, woman and child has a chance to live with a roof over their head and four walls to keep them warm.
Now that it is in committee, every single MP will be needed to pull their weight to pass the bill, since out of the 145 Conservative Members of Parliament, only one voted in favour of ensuring that Canadians could have homes to live in as a right.
I urge everyone to read the bill—it’s easily googled or searched for on the official government web site.
And please, urge your Member of Parliament, no matter what party they are from, to pass this bill and give a chance for our least fortunate to have at least some small measure of dignity, the dignity of a home.

Bill C-311 and the Copenhagen Summit

The global stage is coming, will Canada be prepared? December is the month in which the nations of the world gather to discuss and debate the changes needed to combat climate change. Right now, Canada has no plan. Nothing. Not a single idea in the country on what to do, because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments who don’t care or who pay lip service to this increasingly global issue. There is one bill trying to pass its way through the halls of Parliament though, and its the private member’s bill C-311, sponsored by Jack Layton and the NDP. Bill C-311, otherwise known as the Climate Accountability Act, has already been through the Parliamentary system, save for Royal assent that was withheld before the last election, forcing it back to first reading. Now that there’s a need for the bill and for Canada to show leadership on the world stage, the Liberals and Conservatives are doing everything in their power to stall the bill and prevent Canada from having a chance to act in a responsible, coherant manner in Copenhagen. This is unacceptable. The two supposedly national parties are using the earth and environment as a political tool to try and boost their poll numbers, while Canadians from across the political spectrum are calling for action. Call your MP and your party leaders, its time for Canadians to come together and show that when it comes to protecting the world we live in, political games aren’t acceptable, and to expedite the passage of C-311.

Polls show NDP gains everywhere

Its a good time to be a member of the New Democratic Party. Good news for the party has been coming from unexpected quarters, and literally everywhere in Canada. Right here in British Columbia, there are new polls showing the BC NDP in a dominant position against the incumbent BC Liberals. Its a shame that these numbers weren't in time for the election last May, but hopefully they'll hold for the next provincial election in 2013. Once again, this is just more proof that Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals are out of touch with BC citizens and that its time for new leadership in the province. In terms of federal politics, the NDP is trailing the Conservatives, but this was taken from a poll before the last by-elections, and NDP fortunes have improved since then.
Further out in Ontario, the New Democrats there have risen to twenty percent in the polls for the provincial election to be held in 2011, once again representing an improvement on their numbers from the last election.
Prince Edward Island has never been a particularly welcoming place for the NDP, but even there polls are starting to show upward movement, the party now polls at nine percent, a fifty percent increase from their last polling information.
Nova Scotia brings us the greatest news, with provincial polling showing a staggering fifty-three percent of voters supporting the new provincial government led by Darrell Dexter.
Federally in Quebec, the New Democrats are absolutely surging, polling at seventeen percent in the province and in a statistical tie with both the Conservatives and the Liberals in the province. More importantly, the numbers suggest that Quebec voters are warming to Jack Layton and the party, as voters rated Mr. Layton the most honest and most trusted of the Federalist leaders. Nearly thirty percent of Quebec voters also believe that Mr. Layton would be the best Prime Minister, so it looks as though gains in Quebec are on the horizon for the next federal election, at least in Quebec.
All of this says that being right on the major issues of the day is starting to pay off for the NDP; voters are starting to realize that New Democrats at every level of government are not only competant, but that they have the right answers to guide Canada into the future.

Congratulations!

Congratulations are in order for Mr. Fin Donnelly, who has won the New Westminster Coquitlam by-election for the NDP. Well done Mr. Donnelly, bring the BC values we all cherish to Parliament and hold our government accountable to the people, not the special interests!

Early Childhood Development

Early child development in British Columbia
Whereas child poverty in British Columbia remains the highest in Canada
And Whereas poverty creates an unnecessary burden upon the state
And Whereas ensuring all British Columbians should have a minimum standard of living
Let it be resolved that a BC NDP government will create a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will adopt policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression by the state or by corporations
Let it be further resolved that a BC NDP government will devote significant time and funds towards building AND maintaining low income housing for use by homeless persons and recovering addicts
And Let it be finally resolved that a BC NDP government will urge the federal government to work in conjunction with a BC NDP government to provide early childhood education and aid in the elimination of the causes of poverty, which are including but not exclusively limited to drug addiction, mental or physical disability or forced emancipation from the home

Resolution 1; creating a task force devoted to erasing poverty within fifteen years
• This task force should focus mainly upon mitigating those causes which are likely to exacerbate the problems of poverty both within children and within the adult population
• This task force should provide support to the Ministry of Child and Family Development in order to improve the quality of life for lower income families and individuals
Resolution 2; adaptation of policies and ideals that protect lower income citizens from opression
• The BC NDP shall oppose the HST, which disproportionately harms lower income citizens and those on a fixed income, for whom the increasing price of goods will most greatly affect
• The BC NDP shall advocate for an increase of the minimum wage to at least ten dollars per hour, in order to allow wages to increase enough to purchase the absolute needs of a citizen in British Columbia
• The BC NDP shall advocate that wages automatically increase at a level at least comparable to inflation for that budget year, in order to ensure that purchasing power for lower income citizens does not suffer through inflationary effects
• The BC NDP shall advocate for greater tenents rights for renters and shall allow a short grace period on rent payments for those in government subsidized housing
• The BC NDP shall restore funding to aid organizations that work in local communities in order to aid those who are most at need
Resolution 3; devotion of funds for low income housing
• The BC NDP should spend money to provide three thousand rooms of low income housing, spread through the major urban centers of British Columbia
• These low income housing spaces would be owned and operated by the provincial government, and any rent would be paid directly to the provincial government to reduce cost
• These low income housing spaces shall be used specifically for those persons who are either recovering from addiction, or are otherwise forced into a position of poverty and/or homelessness
Resolution 4; cooperation with between the federal and provincial governments regarding a poverty elimination strategy
• Federal and provincial governments can work together to provide housing and daycare programs to impovershed families, so that parents can return to work instead of losing wages watching their children
• Federal and provincial governments can share information from front line workers and prevent overlapping ministries from expending resources outside their jurisdiction

Homelessness and Poverty

Poverty in British Columbia is becoming a persistant black mark against our province. For the past six years, all years of BC Liberal governance, British Columbia has ranked as the province with the highest child poverty rates in Canada. Furthermore, in the city of Burnaby where I so happily reside, 29.2% of all children live in poverty. This is heartbreaking on so many levels and needs to be rectified immediately.
There are so many things that can be done, at local, provincial and national levels of government, and even just by regular people reaching out and lending a hand.
Local governments can pitch in by raising awareness of the issues within the city, and re-zoning buildings to be used for social housing or emergency shelters for those who need help getting back on their feet.
Provincial Government; this is the time to start building up social housing in major cities and in every other city in your provinces. We've all been given an influx of cash from the stimulus package, use this money to construct low cost housing for the most vulnerable in society instead of things that can't help allieviate a problem that the United Nations now calls a national emergency.
The Federal Government need to start putting together a comprehensive plan to tackle the problem in a systematic, uniform method that all the provinces can work with. Canada is now the only industrialized nation without a national plan, and it shows in the statistics regarding our poverty levels.
The three levels of government have to start working together to solve this problem, because its not going to solve itself, and these are lives that are being ruined in poverty instead of contributing to society.
For individuals who want to get involved, stick with non-profit organizations, there are charity groups in every city and town just desperate for more volunteers to help feed those in need. Especially since this is now getting into winter, any kind of donation to charitable organizations is welcome, or even a donation of money if you don't have non-perishable food or warm clothes to donate.
The only societies that have poverty are those that allow poverty to exist. Together as citizens and as government organizations, we can work together and defeat poverty in our lifetimes.

New Westminster By-Election

Everyone please come out to support Fin Donnelly, the NDP candidate in the By-election scheduled for November fourth. Fin has been working hard to protect the interests of regular Canadians, and needs our help to go to Parliament and stand up for the middle class.

After a long break

I'm finally back. The end of summer and the beginning of a new school year has really caught me off guard, so I haven't had a chance to bring the fire and brimstone to the webwaves. However, the Parliamentary and Legislative sessions are back on, so its going to get a lot busier here.

Questions to a Cabinet Minister, or two.

The newest reports on child labour have been released today, and the information held within is truly startling. Startling enough that questions have to be asked of our Liberal Government as to why they've allowed things to become as bad as they are for today's youths. Child labour has become more accepted, as youths require more money to do the things they enjoy, and to support their families in these tough economic times, so why is it that the Government refuses to enact means to protect our most vulnerable workers.
So I would like to ask the Honourable Mary Polak, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and the honourable Murray Coell, the Minister of Labour a few questions, since this does relate to their Cabinet portfolios.
First; Why is it that you are supportive of the law that allows youths from the ages of twelve to fourteen to work if they have written parental consent when over fifty-eight percent of those youth report that they have not obtained that consent or given it to their employer? Where is the accountability in creating a law and then doing nothing to ensure it is upheld? Our youth deserve better than to possibly be working without their parents' knowledge or consent.
Second; For the sixth year in a row, British Columbia has stood as the province with the worst child poverty rate in Canada. How are you working to end child poverty in British Columbia, and why have we constantly been ranked as the worst province under your watch? Children should not have to worry about food on their plates or a roof over their heads, but under your governance and guidance, more and more of our youths have to decide between housing and eating everyday, and British Columbians deserve to know why its becoming more of a problem instead of less of one, and what you will do to alter the dismal record your government has created.
Third; The limitations on how long a young person can work in a week are well thought out, but I would like to ask the Honourable Ministers how this is enforced. How does the Government expect British Columbians to believe they can adequately check on the number of hours worked by a youth in a week when they eliminated the only means available to the Government to even know how many youths were in the workforce? Can it please be explained how the Ministers and their staffs are to protect people they do not know are working. Citizens deserve to know how enforcement of youth protections is carried out when the Government cannot possibly be aware of how many youths there are working.
Finally; Why does the Government not legislation outlining what kinds of jobs young people can work in? British Columbia is the only province that does not have any laws or regulations regarding the occupations or tasks that a youth can work. How can this Government claim to care about youths and put youths first when there are no restrictions on the kinds of jobs they perform, including dangerous jobs not suited to younger people.
Thank you Ministers, I hope that you will respond and tell British Columbians that their children are indeed safe in the workplace, and show us how true that statement is with some facts.

Environmental proposal

Many people here have heard of a "carbon tax" which would increase the costs of energy. The idea behind such a tax is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and other carbon producing energy sources, which are a direct cause of global climate change. Instead of a government imposed carbon tax, what would the effects be of a carbon REBATE, whereby corporations and individual homes were give a cash rebate for reducing their annual carbon production? The administration of such a proposal would be challenging, as a baseline annual total would have to be compiled by a government entity before the program could begin. What I'm proposing is that for every ton of carbon dioxide that has been reduced from the baseline numbers, homeowners and businesses could receive a refund of say, $15.00. Theoretically, this would cost the government money, but any reduction in income would be absorbed by consumer purchases of more expensive but environmentally friendly technology. In comparison, the costs of purchasing "greener" appliances would be covered by the rebates being paid to the homes and businesses, resulting in a new micro-economy regarding green tech. As such technologies begin to gain popularity, price would be controlled through competition to ensure greatest number of sales, making the switch manageable for business as well as the government and the consumers. As an incentive, the rebate could increase at certain points when exceptional amounts of reduction have occurred, an example being at one ton per household or thirty tons per business.
EDIT: I got some numbers off of the BC government website, so theoretically this would be the measure in which this policy would proceed, matching the carbon tax and making both revenue neutral to each other.



Liquid Fuels
Gasoline ¢/Litre 2.41 3.62 4.82 6.03 7.24
Diesel ¢/Litre 2.76 4.14 5.52 6.89 8.27
Light Fuel Oil ¢/Litre 2.76 4.14 5.52 6.89 8.27
Heavy Fuel Oil ¢/Litre 3.11 4.67 6.22 7.78 9.33
Aviation Gasoline ¢/Litre 2.45 3.67 4.90 6.12 7.34
Jet Fuel ¢/Litre 2.62 3.93 5.25 6.56 7.87
Kerosene ¢/Litre 2.56 3.84 5.12 6.40 7.68

Gaseous Fuel
Natural Gas ¢/GJ* 49.88 74.82 99.76 124.70 149.64
Propane ¢/Litre 1.53 2.30 3.06 3.83 4.60
Butane ¢/Litre 1.76 2.65 3.53 4.41 5.29
Ethane ¢/Litre 0.98 1.46 1.95 2.44 2.93
Pentane ¢/Litre 1.76 2.65 3.53 4.41 5.29
Coke Oven Gas ¢/GJ* 42.31 63.47 84.62 105.78 126.93
Still Gas ¢/GJ* 51.22 76.83 102.44 128.05 153.66

Solid Fuels
Coal - Canadian Bituminous $/Tonne 20.79 31.18 41.58 51.97 62.36
Coal - Sub-Bituminous $/Tonne 17.72 26.58 35.44 44.30 53.15
Coal - US Bituminous $/Tonne 24.39 36.58 48.78 60.97 73.16
Coke $/Tonne 24.87 37.30 49.74 62.17 74.60
Petroleum Coke ¢/Litre 3.67 5.51 7.34 9.18 11.01
Tires - shredded $/Tonne 23.91 35.87 47.82 59.78 71.73
Tires - whole tires $/Tonne 20.80 31.20 41.60 52.00 62.40

* Gigajoule

If the means to measure these fuels were produced, a proper carbon rebate could be created. Since this is problematic, a pragmatic solution would be to focus specifically on liquid fuels and coal, which are easily tracked and can be rebated easily each year to stack with the carbon tax. This could be done by using the more easily detected CO2e (carbon dioxide equivilant) emissions created by all fuel sources, which would be calculated at the following rates for each of the coming years.

July 1, 2010 - $20 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2011 - $25 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2012 - $30 per tonne of CO2e emissions
July 1, 2013 - $35 per tonne of CO2e emissions

In order for this to be revenue neutral, 1.849 billion dollars in eco-friendly sales have to be purchased, which is returned to the consumer via both lower carbon tax payments and a carbon rebate equal to the amount of CO2e reduced from the previous year's consumption will be sent to each household.

Harmonized sales tax

The new harmonized sales tax proposed by the BC Liberals, to be put in place for July 1st 2010 is easily the best way to destroy our recovering economy. On paper, the harmonized tax looks as though it won't change the cost of any goods as you currently purchase them. This is untrue. The harmonized sales tax forces consumers to pay what was previously the goods and service tax on goods that was not previously taxed, thus increasing the price of things such as "non-essential" groceries, as determined by the government.
First and foremost, how do the BC Liberals intend on paying for the tax rebates promised by switching to the harmonized sales tax? The BC Liberal website claims that there will be yet another low income tax credit, just as there is with the carbon tax. It claims that there will be rebates on all new housing projects, as well as rebates municipalities, churches and other qualifying non-profit organizations. The BC Liberals state that the harmonized sales tax will remove over 2 billion dollars in costs from BC businesses. With the Canadian Government only giving the province 1.6 billion dollars to cover the transition to the new harmonized tax, where will the money be found to cover the costs of the rebates, as there is no new government income being created, if you ask the BC Liberals. So how does the government propose that the taxpayers pay for their own rebates? It seems that there is no answer given to that by the BC Liberals. Make no mistake, this inability to answer where the money to pay for the tax shift is problematic, and could undermine the economic recovery we currently have in place.
Why do we suddenly need to switch over to this new harmonized sales tax? Ever since Premier Campbell won his first term in government, the BC Liberals have been trumpeting how British Columbia is the best place on earth. There's no disputing that from me, but if British Columbia is such an attractive place to live and set up businesses, why is the government so interested in suddenly fiddling with the tax system that made us the best place on earth, especially at such a critical moment when the economy is beginning to experience positive growth again. What do the BC Liberals hope to gain by changing how we pay taxes?
But there doesn't need to be an answer given, this is just another choice made by the BC Liberals. A choice to protect and help their friends in big business instead of helping the middle class of British Columbia. No help for BC families, just BC CEOs.
Say no to the harmonized sales tax.

BC Rail emails required

So, the BC Supreme Court has ordered the BC Liberals to hand over emails regarding their sale of BC Rail and the alleged improprieties of the sale. It seems clear now that the courts, at least, think there is something to be gained from a more thorough investigation into the Campbell government, and its improperly deleted emails. We were told during the May election campaign that there was nothing improper done by the BC Liberals in the sale of BC Rail, yet the sitting Justice found there was enough probable cause to ask for these records. So where are they Premier Campbell? Why is it that you and your co-defendants are having such troubles giving the court all the documents that have been asked for?
What we're seeing here is a pattern of events showing Premier Campbell and his BC Liberal allies do not believe they is constrained by the law, and that it should have no bearing upon them being allowed to keep their jobs as public servants. What does it say about a government that only forces its members to resign when they're apprehended for their wrongdoings, instead of resigning prior to the arrest and avoiding conflicts of interest? It tells me that Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals cannot be trusted on matters of integrity such as the sale of a crown company. If our government doesn’t have belief in their good faith on a sale bid, how can we trust them to follow through for British Columbia’s interests at any other time? How can we trust the BC Liberals if they continue to act in a manner that flaunts the law and the public trust?
The people of British Columbia deserve full disclosure about the BC Rail sale Premier Campbell; you didn't give it to the People when BC New Democrats asked you before, will you do so now that both the NDP and the courts require it?

further thoughts on energy and the environment

The problem isn't just our unhealthy reliance on petroleum products and the insane gorging of oil we have as a society. Its about the psychology behind it; we all see the issue and its a smaller number each day that claims its a falsehood that we're too dependant on oil or that climates are indeed changing. The problem is that people don't think that anything they do will have any kind of impact on the issue.

When governments talk about the issue and even when scientists talk about the math involved, its always at a national or global scale. They present numbers that, to the vast majority of people, are too large to properly comprehend; people think that against a backdrop of such vast use of oil, what will their small contribution mean in the grand scheme of things? Its this intentional shrinking of personal impact that allows our society to forever expand its grasp on oil and increase the amount of energy wasted per year or even per day.
What needs to be done is to show the personal impact. We need to stop talking about it as a global issue because no one cares about something unless they think it directly affects them. So instead of all this well-intentioned but useless ranting about how billions of tons of CO2 is released by America each year, we need to talk about how each individual citizen releases THOUSANDS of tons of CO2 each year, and then people will see that "oh, I'm doing THAT much and causing THAT much of an issue?"

That change of mindset will make people more open to the ideas that we do infact need to embrace in order to save our planet. Things like a carbon tax (which I oppose on economic grounds), cap and trade policies and a marked shift to renewable energy can only be done once the population comprehends how much good can be done for such a little change in their personal finances and lifestyle. Look at the history of recycling; once people realized that they would infact be saving money by recycling, it became something everyone wanted to do instead of something that was forced upon the population by a vengeful government bent on psychotic control. Similar solutions have to be proposed in order to combat this environmental challenge; small changes that cumulatively can have a large effect on the environment.

Of course, that isn't to say that we should completely back off making major changes at a state/provincial/national/global level. Its pretty clear to anyone with sensory appendages that we are running out of oil, and that the climates of our respective homes have changed somewhat from even a decade ago. Something has to be done, but it should be in tandem with local projects and coordinated through a completely non-ideological organization.
Something I've proposed in the past (and is sadly incompatible with painting every roof white) is to have greenspace on the roof of each building. Not only does having a small garden upon each roof provide environmental benefits such as increased carbon dioxide capture by the plants and subsequent release of oxygen needed to not die, but these gardens can, if properly maintained, reduce the need for importation of food from outside sources and make the food we eat more local, which will reduce the cost of the food and provide economic benefits for those that work in that field.
Another thing I've proposed in the past is creating a "greenbelt" around each population area. This greenbelt would be one hundred meters (or about 100 yards for you yanks) deep and would completely surround each populated area, making exception for roads leading out of the city or town. The depth of the greebelt would increase by fifty meters for every one hundred thousand citizens, so a city with a population of one million would have a greenbelt of 600 meters, and so on. This greenbelt would be considered protected government property and could only be used in ways consistant with the governing principles of the national parks for that country. Naturally, the purpose of this greenbelt would be to capture carbon emissions from the city, preventing htem from entering the atmosphere and adding to the current climate change predicament.

**deep breath** Well, that's about all I've got, if any of you survived and read it all, kudos to you and please send feedback regarding my two proposals.

Policy: Youth/Education

Early Life - Working parents have to make a choice between earning a living for their family and caring for young children. This is unacceptable, as more families are pushed to the brink and forced to cut back on saving to survive until the next paycheque. Under my plan, we would transfer the money obtained by restoring government worker wages to their pre-Campbell levels, and use the money to open up 10,000 daycare positions for preschool children, as well as keeping these spots open for after school care. Preschool would become more available under my program, with government subsidies being available for those who are unable to enroll their child.
Primary/Secondary Schooling - From the very beginning of their school careers, children are taught that the only way to be considered a success by the system is through excellence in scholastic studies. But we don't live in a society of lawyers and doctors. Too little attention is paid to the trades in our schools, as everyone is gently nudged in the direction of becoming another scholar for the universities to mold. What I suggest is a three-pronged approach to the issue; we need more classes in our schools that encourage young people to take an interest in trades, greater awareness as to the personal benefits of the trades must become available, and funding must increase for those students who do wish to become tradespeople. Right now, there is a widespread gap in the number of trades classes a student can take in secondary school, but a vast array of academic classes that may not suit that student. There is almost no information from local trade schools, but we have advertisements from universities half a world away. Worst of all is that there is no support money no scholarships, no bursaries, no anything for lower-income students who wish to pursue a trade. If elected, I will change that and make the trades an equal to academics in our school systems.
Post-Secondary Schooling - Eight years ago, the BC government ended a province-wide tuition freeze for post-secondary schooling. Since then, tuition rates have doubled, financially crippling some students and preventing others from pursuing a higher education. Eliminating this freeze prevents upward social mobility, and prevents the strong academics of some of our students from being recognized and nurtured. If elected, I will reinstate the tuition freeze at levels left by the previous NDP government. I will also replace the federal Millennium excellence scholarships and the current loan system with a new program.
This program will allow all students to apply and obtain loans from the government, to be paid back in full 10 within ten years of graduation, with interest attached. These loans, however, will be forgiven if a student maintains a 90% class average through each semester of their degree.

Policy: Energy

River rights: Independant power projects are an important part of the British Columbia economy, and a moratorium on these vital projects would stagnate our already endangered fiscal position. However; British Columbians gain nothing when their jobs and their natural resources are shipped out of province, which is why I support local businesses being given preference for the rights to IPPs, all other aspects of the bids being equal. Local businesses, with roots in our communities and employing our people to promote our values and economy, can power our way through the recession and into a new bull economy, while protecting the natural resources we hold dear.
Renewable Energy: British Columbians are proud to have such a strong tradition of renewable energy providing for our needs. We proudly say that almost all of our electrical needs are provided by renewable, carbon neutral hydro-electricity. But in order to keep our edge in energy technology, we must expand into new, promising areas of research. The expanding energy needs of our province has begun to make hydro-electricity less efficient, as more rivers must be dammed to provide new energy sources. These rivers can no longer be used for salmon spawning, and entire stocks of pacific salmon die without replenishing their numbers.
If elected, I will work hard to ensure that more is done the ensure that any new hydro dam is built in rivers that will not affect salmon spawning grounds, and to push for renewed interest in geothermal energy to provide where hydro-electricity is not feasible.
Lowering Carbon Emissions: Like most British Columbians, I'm concerned about the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted in the air. I believe the best way, the way that will cost everyday people the least amount of money, is to instigate a cap and trade system on industries as opposed to a straight carbon tax. The carbon tax we have lived with for the past year has done nothing to curb emissions, it has simply strained the pocketbooks of the most vulnerable in society in an already dangerous economic time. Meanwhile, businesses continue to enjoy record profits by passing the costs of the tax onto the consumers.
This is why I support a cap and trade system, whereby businesses and industries will be forced to purchase permits to emit a set amount of greenhouse gas. Under my plan, the allowable amount of permits would decrease by 2.5% of the 1990 levels each year, ensuring that our carbon footprint stays minimal and that new energy sources are used that are pollutant-free.

Bullying in schools

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2400.html April 9th
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517470,00.html April 22nd
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/08/florida.school.assault/index.html May 8th

Quite a little record we've set for ourselves here. In literally 30 days, we've managed to ignore bullying to the point where one child is raped and two others commit suicide. We've managed to tell ourselves that its not really that bad, that its always some other school district in some other area of the country, that nothing like this ever would happen where we teach, administrate and live. Well, you're wrong. Three times now, the youth victim and his parents demanded that something be done, and three times nothing was done because the bullying was homophobic in nature, and thus no one wanted to be involved in protecting "the fag child". But do you know what the sad part about this was? These children never identified themselves as gay, these were healthy, heterosexual young men with a life of potential waiting for them, and now two o them are dead and one will be changed for life. These people, who are legally bound to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of their child charges, should be sued and fired for their gross neglect. We have seen time and time again that staff and students alike would rather ignore the issue or blame the victim rather than act and potentially save a life.
Its time to take a stand. Starting today, I will be collecting letters to send to every state legislator, congressperson, member of provincial legislator and member of parliament in North America. It is my goal that by shedding light on these disgusting acts, we can rally support and make sure that this never happens to another child again. I'm asking you, the reader of this, and anyone else you know, to please help me by writing a short letter that will be sent to these important people. It can be anything, personal experiences from bullying, your own impassioned pleas, just something, anything, something we can share to show the solidarity of our beliefs that this cannot continue and that the life of a child is the MOST important thing in the world, and must be safeguarded as such.
Thank you all, God bless and when you come home at night and begin to complain about the horrors of your mundane life, think of the people above, and others like them, who no longer have that power.

Money in Politics

With all the recent elections and the money involved in running campaigns, I began to wonder just what it was we were spending all this money on, especially in the middle of a world-wide recession. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdyEPGiM7o. This strikes me as a monumental waste of money, and as vaguely undemocratic.

Our society is based around government for the people, by the people. In Canada, parties are only allowed to spend so much nationally and per riding, which allows all political parties to have an equal voice in each area of the country, meaning that voters are able to decide based on the merits of each candidate. Third party groups are also heavily restricted in order to ensure this equality in each view getting aired.
In America though, there aren't as many limits, the living proof being in the above video clip and the campaign of Barack Obama, who saturated an entire country with his policies and his positions for two years during both the primary and general election campaigns. Between President Obama, Senator McCain and Secretary of State Clinton, over one BILLION dollars was raised and spent to run advertisements, affix lawn signs and generally spread their messages to voters in order to persuade the electorate to vote for them. This kind of extreme spending prevents other points of view from being disseminated, and thus the voters don't get the whole story and cannot really make an objective decision on which person best reflects their views.

Perhaps this difference between the American and Canadian systems of election advertising is due to the systems of governance that each country has chosen to partake. Canada's multi party parliamentary system almost requires that people be allowed to see all options clearly and equally, as cooperation between the parties is more likely and outright majorities in Parliament are less common. Whereas in the American two-party system, there is a greater need for one party to reduce the other into a deep minority status, as it is guaranteed that at each level of Congress, there will be one party that controls a 50%+1 majority in each house, and larger majorities mean that less compromise with the opposition is required.

We have a choice; to allow freedom for ALL views to be heard, or to allow third parties and the wealthy to control who hears what information.

Blood banks lack blood, sanity

It seems that equality is not yet something that we can all take for a given, at least not when it comes to giving the gift of life.
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.

Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.

Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.

As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?

Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm

Educational discourse

The system of education that we currently reside in is a farce. Students are sent through the system, obstentably to learn the skills necessary to survive in the working world. And yet we don’t, not really. We get taught how to prepare for university, that golden hall in which we shall all meet our professional fate and become the automatons we were destined to be. The problem is that its not working, people still drop out of our “free” education system and admission rates to university and college is going down, not up. The reason? Because there’s no flexibility in our system. Our system of education is completely designed so that everyone gets the same education, so that there can be no complaints of differential treatment between different people. But its become a hindrance, not a benefit. We need to accept that there really is a difference in the skills and interests of our students, and thus the high schools need to start offering more courses that exist outside the typical realm of academia. In a perfect world, we could all become lawyers or doctors or whatever we thought we would be when we were little kids, but in reality there needs to be people who build houses or fix cars or pick up the garbage or any other thing like that which precious few people in the world ever wish to be. There needs to be more incentive for people to want to enter the trades and to inform our young people that university is not the only way to a future of wealth.
The best way to start this is right in the schools. Courses need to be added to the technical and artistic parts of the system, and rather than being expelled to the fringe as “elective” courses, it should be required that people take at least one course from both tech education and home economics. Also important is the financial incentive; many people who do want to take a trade and learn that trade are unable to because there is no way to finance their training. Rather than obsessing over getting scholarships to university bound academic students, schools and governments should actively aid young people who do wish to be carpenters or mechanics or any other labour intensive career.
This isn’t to say that I want to abandon financing for university students. Quite the contrary, I believe that governments should ensure that anyone who wishes to go to a post secondary institute be given the funding needed, as people with university degrees earn more money and thus pay more taxes, and are also less likely to be on government welfare due to their specialized skills. Once again, too many people are being left behind due to an inability to pay for their future, and thus people who otherwise have the necessary skills are stuck in life doing something that is a waste of their potential.
There have been estimates made that it would cost less to finance every single student going to university than it would to continue funding our engagement in Afghanistan. It seems like a small price to pay for future success and material wealth in Canada.

Energy Policy (mine)

We're facing an energy crisis. Not just Canada, not just North America. The whole world is facing an energy crisis in the face of climate change and the increasing price of fossil fuels. But what is being done? In America, China and India, the three biggest producers of carbon emissions, efforts are either being stonewalled by the legislative process or is simply non-existant. This is unacceptable, as the costs both financially and in terms of damage to our environment and our health is becoming too high, and cannot be paid for at our rate of consumption indefinately.

Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.

Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.

Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?

Afghanistan; Vietnam redux?

So its time to talk about everyone's favourite war that no one likes to talk about. I mean Afghanistan. Recently, Fox News decided to pay tribute to Canada and its service in protecting the world from terrorism with THIS poorly received, ignorantly created and downright meanspirited segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKlFT58Zwc

Thankfully, the host of the show in question has made a public apology and rescinded those comments, which were timed to coincide with the return of four dead Canadian soldiers to their homeland. While the nation has moved on and accepted the apology for such a crass attack on our people, the segment has become the catalyst for (more) Canadians to question our involvement in Afghanistan.

So, why are we there exactly? Most of our forces are in the Kandahar region, one of the most violent and vicious in the nation. Our purpose has been both to provide security for the Afghani populace, a task that grows ever more impossible with every attack by the Taliban Insurgency, and our other mission is to provide humanitarian aid and begin, for lack of better term, modernizing the nation through improved infrastructure and greater equality between the sexes. In this, we are also hampered by the Taliban attacks, but NATO forces are beginning to see obvious success in their efforts. This is where the debate is centered; is the improvement of life for Afghani citizens worth the lives of Canadian soldiers and aid workers?

I say it is; we have long claimed in Canada that we are a peacekeeping nation. What peace will there be in Afghanistan if our soldiers and aid workers leave and all our progress is erased? We'd be condemning a nation to civil war as the current government and the Taliban fight for supremacy. Millions of innocent people would have their lives ruined or simply be killed; as a peacekeeping nation we should abhor the idea of it and proudly stand to prevent such an event. I realize that the death toll has become unnerving to many Canadians, I'm one of them too. But we have to look at more than just ourselves; we need to look at how our actions would affect not just ourselves, but a whole nation and even a whole region of the world. A stable Afghanistan could bring peace to a whole war-torn region of the earth, how can we as a peacekeeping nation afford to stand aside and say that we've grown too squemish to protect something like that?

Dirty Fuel

Lets have a look at the oil sands, one of the crowning jewels of the Alberta Oil Industry. According to the oilsands website (how corporate), oilsands are "naturally occurring mixtures of sand or clay, water and a thick, heavy substance called bitumen." The mixture is removed from the earth in two different ways, either through traditional drilling or bi in situ (in place) drilling. This mixture is separated with hot water to free the bitumen, which can then be sold on the market as a form of crude oil.

There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.

First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.

A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.

Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.

Opting out of Common Sense

So, we have a bit of Canadian Content for once, its good to finally comment on things happening within my own country, gives me perspective into how bizarre we all can act and that silliness has no nationality. http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=1434770&sponsor=Compliments%20of%20TD%20Waterhouse

This really is silly, and I'm not even talking about the same-sex protections clause. You mean to tell me that in this day and age, people can still remove their children from a provincially certified, secular, part of an educational curriculum because it clashes with one's religion? This is not acceptable; schools are provided to teach ALL students the necessary facts to make them productive human beings, no parent has the right to remove their child from that situation because of their own beliefs, especially here since it is removing the child from important facts about life. The example mentioned in the article, of preventing children from learning about sexual education, is simply shocking. In the United States, states that do not teach sexual education or use abstinence-only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with both Alaska and Texas topping the list. Why, exactly, would something of this importance be something that could be forbidden to a child because of their parents religion?

This is more than just bad politicking, this is an attempt to harm our children and contribute to our increasing health care costs with unwanted pregnancies, increased abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted infections due to plain lack of knowledge. Alberta has a chance here to prevent that, but the Culture Minister seems to want no part in the fight to protect our youth and keep our education system free of outside influences.

Proposition eight and Vermont

Earlier this week, the Vermont State Senate voted almost unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage in their state, shedding some positive news in an otherwise grim year for the movement towards equality in America and Abroad. The full article can be found here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-23-vermont-marriage_N.htm and the below are my thoughts on the issue.

I think its disappointing that something like marriage has become so cheap and commercial, that its become something that people can take ownership of instead of it being a celebration of two people's feelings for one another. We've taken the most beautiful of emotion in the whole world and stolen it from each other, simply because they're different...and that's sad that as a society, this is acceptable.

Keith Olbermann said it best when he said that this isn't about yelling or politics, its about the human heart. And its sad that something so beautiful has become something that can polarize a world and split people. And for what? Because some people don't want us to have the same chance at permanence and happiness in this life.

I'm sorry if I sound upset or anything, but I cannot understand why this is something that can be voted on, that can be challenged. What is being defended by preventing same-sex marriage, what is so terrible about two people who want to share their love with the world that they would commit to that love in a ceremony and contract? I keep hearing that America is the greatest country in the world, where everyone is equal and its the "land of opportunity"; so where is it? In a world as barren and devoid of love as the one we have, why, why are we still living in a place where people can take away that love because a religion tells people this is wrong. How does your conscience abide this decision to ban love between people, how does your HEART not cry out when you extinguish love so that your own love can feel just a little bit more important?

As I finish this rant, I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to think about one thing. Think of the people you love in your life, the people who you call family, that you call inseparable from your life and tell me, why should any of them be denied that special right to share their love, to express their love, and to be celebrated for their love? Because its not just some nameless person who gets hurt by taking away same sex marriages; its someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew, somebody's mother, father, uncle, aunt who's been condemned to a life without love, because that's what society tells us is right.

I leave as my final comment Kieth Olbermann's special commentary on proposition 8, from whom I receive my inspiration to write this last rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

What is right about Gay Marriage

Marriage, it’s supposed to be a term that evokes a sense of merriment and wonder. A term we use to describe the union of two people who love each other. Yet, when this word is used to describe that very same union of two people who are of the same gender, displaying this same happiness to the world, the word takes on a negative, divisive connotation. It is about rights, about dignity, and about equality; and it crushes me to know that there are people who oppose this concept that is cherished by those oppressing the few who cannot yet achieve this union.

Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.

To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.

It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.

It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?

We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.

Welcome

Welcome to my Blog, Working Solutions.
This is just my place to comment on politics of the day, from any part of the globe, and post my criticisms, comments and changes I would make. Anything I criticize will most definately have my own ideas added after as a counter-proposal. I should be posting at least twice a month, though I'll try to go weekly with it.
This work is my own and does not represent the beliefs or wishes of anyone else, if you have issues with my political and personal beliefs, then perhaps reading this blog is not for you.
As always, I welcome comments from my readers regarding things I've posted; either the actual posts or my critiques are fair game for comment, just try to keep any comments tasteful and avoid any unneeded swearing or personal attacks.
Without further adieu, I'll start adding my stuff.