Get out and Vote

In addition to my writing/editing duties at Milton Today Magazine I've taken up producing as well.  My work as a Producer can mean anything from contacting political candidates, to being in the field with reporters and cameramen.  This last Tuesday I was out with a cameraman shooting videos for our debate.  We were outside a well-known grocery store, trying to get people to ask a question of Halton's candidates in the federal election.  There were people who actually told us they didn't vote and weren't following the election.

I was shocked.  But in a way I understood- four federal elections in the last seven years is a bit much. And I can understand the cynicism and the general jaded feelings going around out there; I have at times felt them myself.  But being jaded, and cynical are no excuses for not voting.  A vote is the most valuable tool we have in a democracy.  It can be used to effect change- don't like what Harper's doing about corporate taxes? Here's your chance; vote Liberal.  Don't like the Liberal platform? There's always the NDP, or Conservatives.  Don't like any of the choices? Spoil your ballot, or register an abstention.  It's up to you, it's your choice- all you have to do is make it.  You have the choice; and isn't that one of the many selling  points of Canada?  If you don't vote how can you complain about what's happening afterwards?


Think about what's happening in the middle east.  Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Around the world they're fighting for the right to vote, and some are dying just so they can vote.  And here we are about to vote in the fourth election in seven years- why not be thankful that we have a choice; and that we can take the 15 minutes to go down to our local polling station and mark an X beside the individual of our choice. 

Advance Polls opened today, and are open tomorrow and Monday from noon-8pm.  Three chances to get out on vote.  Or you can get out and vote on election day.  I've been pretty obvious about my choice; but what's right for me, probably isn't right for you. All that matters is that you get out and vote.

We can do better than that

I watched the English Language debate last week, as I'm sure a lot of you did. It didn't really change my vote- I was leaning Conservative before the debate, and I'm still leaning that way.  But as I was watching it, I had the overwhelming thought that we can do better.

It was essentially four older men in a room, talking (or in Ignatieff's case sometimes lecturing) to each other.  They didn't capture our imaginations with ideas, or catch each other up too much in a lie.  And we can do better than that, because the fact is- the vision of four men in a room doesn't reflect Canada anymore; it hasn't for sometime now.   

The Canada that I know, is full of dynamic, interesting people with creative ideas for addressing our country's problems.  It's full of smart, engaging women who believe they can make a difference.  Look for a moment at our riding; the four major parties are represented by women- Liberal Connie Laurin-Bowie, NDP: Pat Heroux, Conservatives- Lisa Raitt, and Green Party's Judi Remigio.  The New Democratic Party alone, has 123 female candidates running across the country.  And yet  Green Party leader Elizabeth May the only female leader who could reflect the increased numbers of women in politics of all stripes wasn't invited to the debate?? How out-of touch was that?? 

At the same time, Canadians grow tired of the same old way of doing things. We are craving new ideas and a vision for the country.  We grow cynical, and jaded as the same lines are trotted out again, and again- "Coalitions bad, majority good," "Harper doesn't care about health care," "Ignatieff isn't back for you," and so, on.  We grow tired of the political scandals, and the way it appears that the default is to damage control first, and apologize last.   And I'm tired of the negativity- don't tell me what the Harper Conservatives won't do, tell us what Ignatieff Liberals will do.  The debate brought home to me that we can do better than the choices we have.  We just have to demand it.

Why Elizabeth May Should be in the Debate

In a controversial decision made by the broadcast consortium responsible for the leaders debate The Green Party's Elizabeth May has been excluded once again.  I think it's the wrong decision.

The Green Party don't have an MP in the House of Commons.  But they do run candidates in all 308 ridings across the country. The Bloc Quebecios run candidates in only Quebec's 75 ridings, want to separate from Canada, and yet Gilles Duceppe is sitting at the table.  Doesn't she deserve a seat at the table on that alone?

The media (and I include myself in that) have a responsibiltiy to see Canadians make an informed decision on voting day no matter what our own personal biases may be.  Elizabeth May represents a valid point-of-view, with policies some Canadians believe in and do vote for; don't these people deserve a chance at being heard? The precedent has already been set, she was allowed to debate the last time out.  What's the harm in having her debate this time?

We complain there are no women in politics.  We ask ourselves why, and try to find different ways to encourage their participation.  And yet when a well-spoken woman who happens to be a party leader comes along, representing a party that increases its popular vote every election she isn't allowed to debate her fellow leaders?  There's something wrong with this picture.  Let her debate.  Let her make the Green Party's case before the people of Canada.  It can only help democracy.  

What about coalitions?

Here we are three days into an election campaign that nobody wants, and one that nobody will admit to causing.  All parties are jumping on the idea of "coalition" as if it's a dirty word.  Ignatieff is saying point-blank he isn't going to enter into one, and Harper is saying he's lying.  Adding to the mix is the Bloc Québecois's Gilles Duceppe saying more or less that Harper's a hypocrite who would've entered into one with him, and Layton in 2004 to bring Martin down... and he has the letter to prove it.

I wonder though, what is so bad about a coalition? It seems to be a perfectly valid way of governing.  Israel governs itself as a coalition.  The United Kingdom- -the mother of all Parliamentary democracies is being governed right now by a coalition.  In the United States, the Democratic President has to get along with Republican House to pass his agenda. everywhere governments have to get along with each other, so why not here?

This coalition idea has worked in the past.  MacDonald had to work with Cartier.  Pearson had to work with Diefenbaker, and Trudeau had to work with people to get his agenda passed too.  Cooperation in this form is a proud Canadian tradition.  In a way a coalition makes sense, is closer to what most Canadians believe- Liberal social beliefs with a Conservative way (smaller steps toward a larger vision) of getting there.

Whatever happens, the word is out there.  Canadians are discussing the concept, and no accusations and arguments among the leaders is going take it out of the discussion.  I think quite the opposite- if Harper and Ignatieff keep arguing about it, it could send voters running for a third or fourth choice.  Let's change the channel and talk about something else.

The Mayor's Breakfast

I'm declaring a bias.  I think Ted Chudleigh is a good man, and has done a good job representing the voters.  He's been yelling long, and loud about the hospital- and is widely seen, and known in the riding.  I think he will win the next provincial election.   As a member of the press, he's been available and willing to answer my questions in a direct way.

This past Tuesday was Mayor's Breakfast- an annual gathering of business leaders, and politicians to hear about the year that was in Milton.  Attending was MPP Ted Chudleigh MP Lisa Raitt, Mayor Gord Krantz, and a special guest Minister Bob Chairelli of Infrastructure who made a few remarks.  He was introduced by the Mayor, and then proceeded to blast Mr. Hudak over the PC's stance on infrastructure funding.  He was free to make them, but was it the right forum?

I don't think it was.  He was there to celebrate the completion of the Arts Centre- a project that was completed despite our MPP being a member of the opposition- and our Federal MP being a Conservative.  Such cooperation is rare in this atmosphere and should be celebrated when it happens. Besides isn't there some kind of unwritten code about government members (in this case a Liberal) coming into a riding and slagging the MPP (a Progressive Conservative) when he's sitting right in front of the podium or vice versa?

I don't think it was because it was in front of a business audience- the only other politician who spoke was Mayor Krantz.  Usually when politicians are campaigning in that atmosphere it's more an argument saying what they'll do to improve business, and the economy- arguing for votes.  This wasn't; it was more of a rant against Mr. Hudak, and Mr. Chudleigh.  And when it came down to spelling out what the Liberals would do for infrastructure he pointed to a "10-point plan"  that they think is"visionary and forward thinking."  I'm pretty sure they meant the Places to Grow legislation, but then again the Minister wasn't specific.

I was talking to a friend afterwards, and he pointed out a double standard.  Let's face it, if it was the other way around- the PC's would've been completely blasted by the Liberals.  And he's right.  But so far Tim Hudak has done nothing to define himself in a positive way, so this early negativity could stick- and be so memorable the PC's will again be sitting in opposition on October 7, 2011.

I feel like I should challenge our provincial politicians.  You are better than petty bickering- both sides have ideas, and different visions for governing Ontario.  Let's have an election based on those instead of bickering.  Who knows you might actually interest a few voters.

St. Paul's: I Didn't Want to Be Right

I hate being right about this one.  I have covered it for the newspaper, doing an article on the fire itself, and at least one on the fall-out.  I made no secret that based on evidence, and people I'd spoken with I thought it was arson.  I never thought I'd be right.  I wanted it to be an easily explainable electrical fire.  Because in this case, being right meant that someone would want to set fire to a house of worship something I found at the time to be inconceivable, and even now I have trouble getting my head around it.

I am familiar with the history of the fight.  St Paul's is as they say "a house divided."  There's one group within the congregation wanting to completely demolish the church, and put in its place a life-lease condo, with space for worship.  Another wants to save the building, no matter what it costs.  That somebody in either of these factions set fire to the place- a house of worship- a place of serenity, peace, hope and charity is just...

Un-Christian.  Churches were never supposed to make money.  They're supposed to be places of charity, of gathering.  They're supposed to spread the word of God, to be kind, and promote the spirit of generosity.  They're supposed provide a type of sanctuary for people to get away from it all, and leave with a better understanding of themselves.  Instead St. Paul's has been a place of bitter, divisive conflict that may in the end cost Milton a landmark.

If you know anything about what happened the night of June, 30, 2010 please call Detective Constable Colin Grierson of Halton Regional Police's Fraud Squad at: 905-465-8744.   

Dalton McGuinty and the self-fulfilling prophecy

I'm not the biggest fan of Dalton McGuinty.  My opinion is based mostly on his politics, and his government's general conduct, than any personal dislike- I have met the  man and found him to be a far more charismatic guy in person, than on television.  Yesterday he started hinting at his eventual retirement even if he wins this October's provincial election, a fact which probably put a smile on the face of many Progressive Conservatives everywhere- and quite a few Ontarians including myself.

Even though I'm not a fan, I don't think it should end like this. The way he's talking of his eventual departure makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy; and it does his party no favours. Barring any major catastrophe on the P.C.'s part, the Liberals are probably going to lose this October's election.  But let's say for the sake of argument they win, and McGuinty is looking at another 4 year term as Premier (in the case of a majority).  And as he's hinting he steps down within a couple of years; two years for his successor to get their feet wet before having to fight another election- it makes total sense from the Liberals point-of-view. 

There's another possible outcome: what if he wins with a minority? The same scenario applies- but look at the consequences.  A minority as we see on the federal scene is under the constant threat of an election.  If McGuinty leaves after that two year period, there could be a new election.  Are we willing to have a minority on the federal, and provincial levels?

The Liberal Party is already facing an uphill battle they probably won't win.  McGuinty should either resign now, and let the new leader begin the eventual makeover that will eventually happen.  Or he  should've kept his mouth shut and tried to rally his troops. As the saying goes, the captain should always go down with the ship.