No matter how the pollsters slice and dice it, two-thirds of Canadian voters do not want a Tory government. The same might be said, in greater or lesser proportions, about a Liberal, NDP or Green government.

That said, a centre-left coalition of Liberals, New Dems and Greens could probably find enough common ground to meet many of the political objectives of most Canadians. It wouldn’t be ideal, but it would be preferable to another Harper government, propped up by the Liberals — which is what we face now.

Here are five reasons why we should support a centre-left coalition:

1. A centre-left coalition would more accurately reflect the political will of the majority of Canadians who have rejected Harper and his neocons.

2. In the event that Harper gets enough seats to form a minority government, a centre-left coalition would keep him from doing so.

3. In the event that Dion gets enough seats to form a minority government, it would prevent him from playing Parliamentary footsies with the Tories and moving to the right.

4. It would give the NDP a chance to show what they could do in government at the federal level and perhaps improve their chances in future elections. The same could hold true for the Greens if they manage to get someone elected.

5. It would provide an opportunity to replace our outmoded “first past the post” electoral system with some form of proportional representation. This, in turn, would improve the prospects for democracy in Canada over the long term.

Where would the Bloc Québècois fit in this scheme? That would be up to the Bloc. I suspect they would maintain their independence and represent their constituents as they saw fit. That includes getting rid of Harper, which should mean they wouldn’t oppose a centre-left coalition until it became popular in Quebec.

Thoughts?

Does Stephen Harper rate a blue sweater or an orange jumpsuit? Canadians who haven’t heard the controversial interview between Harper and author Tom Zytaruk should review it carefully. You can hear it here.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada it is a crime to offer a bribe to a Member of Parliament. Those found guilty could face 14 years in prison. This, then, is serious offence.

Presumably, any law-abiding party leader who was aware that a bribe was going to be offered would insist that his or her party officials abide by the law.

Is our current Prime Minister law-abiding? Listen to this segment of a discussion between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk about “financial considerations” offered to then terminally ill MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote against a Liberal budget.

The quality of the recording isn’t great. Turn up your speakers, and read along below.

Then ask yourself some questions:

• Why didn’t Harper tell his officials to obey the law? He is, after all, a self-proclaimed “law ‘n order” guy with a reputation for controlling what his underlings do and say.
• Does Harper understand the law? Oh wait, he’s the guy who legislated fixed election dates and then called an early election.
• Do we want a Prime Minister who would countenance what amounts to a bribe to a dying MP for his vote? Does this make him an accessory?
• Wouldn’t an orange jumpsuit be more appropriate attire for our PM than a fuzzy blue sweater?

Here’s what’s on the tape between author Tom Zytaruk and Harper, recorded after Cadman’s death in 2005.

Zytaruk: “I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?”

Harper: “I don’t know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?”

Zytaruk: “This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book.”

Harper: “Um, I don’t know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that’s not, you know, I mean, I, that’s not going to change.”

Zytaruk: “You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn’t even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?”

Harper: “No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don’t press him. I mean, you have this theory that it’s, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that’s what you’re saying, make that case but don’t press it. I don’t think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that’s where he stood and respected that.”

Zytaruk: “Thank you for that. And when (inaudible).”

Harper: “But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”

Zytaruk: “Oh, OK.”

Harper: “OK? That’s my understanding of what they were talking about.”

Zytaruk: “But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren’t big on the idea in the first place?”

Harper: “Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view …”

Zytaruk: “Oh, okay. So, it’s not like, he’s like, (inaudible).”

Harper: “I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going.”

Zytaruk: “Well, thank you very much.”

• CBC: Timeline – The Chuck Cadman Bribe Controversey
• Toronto Star: Tape not altered as Harper claimed . . .

On Oct. 6, Tory Joy Smith ducked a townhall meeting in Kildonan-St. Paul that was sponsored by the Council of Women of Winnipeg, Peace Alliance Winnipeg, the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba and University Women’s Club of Winnipeg.

The reluctance of Tories to attend election forums isn’t limited to Winnipeg. Harpocracy.ca lists 104 (and counting) election forums where Tories have not attended.

This confirms speculation that Stephen Harper keeps his MPs on a tight leash and dovetails nicely with his reported policy of carefully managed, invitation-only public appearances.

It also betrays Harper’s mistrust of his candidates, fear of the electorate and contempt for Canadians. No wonder his support is so deservedly declining.

Commenting on the Tories’ growing notoriety for ducking election forums in today’s Winnipeg Free Press, Marlo Campbell concludes:

It’s disrespectful and remarkably arrogant. If this is how they treat us now, what will they do if they’re re-elected?

Let’s not wait to find out. On Oct. 14, thow these bums out!

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1916165&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Any credit Stephen Harper might have gotten for the historic apology to aboriginal peoples for the destruction of generations in Canada’s infamous Indian residential schools was wiped out by events at Barriere Lake in northern Quebec, on Monday.

Monday’s attack is in the spirit of Harper’s decision, a year ago, to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The lead up to Monday’s busted blockade is familiar: decades of foot-dragging and neglect by federal and Quebec governments in addressing the legitimate claims of aboriginal people. According to the Ottawa Citizen

The Algonquins of Barrière Lake want the Indian and Northern Affairs Department to recognize their traditional council and chief and a federal-provincial treaty that would give them a share of natural resource profits on their land.

The unemployment rate in the community of 650 people, 300 kilometres north of Ottawa, is about 90 per cent.

In 1991, the Barrière Lake Algonquins signed an agreement with Canada and Quebec to sustainably develop its 10,000-square-kilometre territory. Since 1996, the federal government has recognized a minority group and chief that oppose the agreement.

This disgusting episode should be an election issue. Coverage in the mainstream media has been spotty. So, pass it on and make it an issue!

Canada and Quebec use riot police, tear gas, and “pain compliance” on peaceful Algonquin families to avoid negotiations

Kitiganik/Rapid Lake, Algonquin Territory / – Yesterday afternoon (Oct. 6, 2008), the Conservative government and Quebec used riot police, tear gas, and “pain compliance” techniques to end a peaceful blockade erected by Algonquin families from Barriere Lake, rather than negotiate, as requested by the community.

The blockade on Highway 117 in Northern Quebec began at 6:00am Monday, with nearly a hundred community members of all ages and their supporters promising to remain until Canada’s Conservative government and Quebec honoured signed agreements and Barriere Lake’s leadership customs.

Around 4pm, nearly sixty Quebec officers and riot police encircled families after a meal and without warning launched tear gas canisters, one of which hit a child in the chest.

Article continues . . .

Thanks to Beijing York for flagging this ferociously funny franglais flick. No wonder Harper is a shadow of his former self in Quebec.

In case you missed it, here’s an open letter from Premier Danny Williams (Newfoundland and Labrador) that has been making the rounds since he issued it, Oct. 1. In it he quotes Stephen Harper as declaring: “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.” Hmmm. This reminds me of the time Brian Mulroney referred to social programs as a “sacred trust.” Surely this is a coincidence.

Better course for Canada: First step as easy as A-B-C

By DANNY WILLIAMS
Wed. Oct 1 – 6:19 AM

We are quickly approaching the finish line of one of the most important federal election campaigns in the history of Canada. The shape our country takes in the years ahead will be determined by the choice we make right now.

Today, I encourage all Canadians to carefully and deliberately consider who best reflects your core values and ideals, as a leader in this great federation. My place is not to say whom you should vote for; that is clearly your own personal democratic choice. I simply offer my most sincere and honest opinion on voting in this federal election. I am not going to weigh the pros and cons of the various campaign platforms. Every party in every campaign raises ideas that we may agree with strongly or moderately or not at all.

But at the end of the day, it is not ideas that get elected. It is people who get elected. And sometimes, the people who get elected abandon the key ideas that got them into office in the first place. More important than the ideas people espouse is the character of the people espousing them.

And all too often, a broken promise betrays a broken character.

In this campaign, as we decide the future direction of our country, we are called upon to be judges – not of words or of looks, but of character.

During the last two federal election campaigns, Stephen Harper came to my province and made an important promise worth billions of dollars. It was a promise that not everyone agreed with; and clearly Stephen Harper wished that he had never made it. Regardless, it was without question a promise. And he made this promise repeatedly, in writing to me and in campaign literature to voters. It was official Conservative Party of Canada policy – vetted and approved by the leader himself.

In fact, in the very campaign brochure in which he stated this promise, he demonstrated how serious he was about keeping it by quoting a famous Gaelic proverb, which says: “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.” How very ironic those words turned out to be when he betrayed his word and broke his promise.

I am not asking my fellow Canadians to work with me to keep the prime minister to this particular promise. That is my battle and, frankly, it is no longer about the promise for I now know it will never be fulfilled. But I feel it is my duty as a leader in this country to caution voters against this man whose promises are so meaningless. Many question my motivation; some even question my right to speak out. But I can assure you that my motivation is genuine concern for my country. And my right to express my concern is what democracy is all about. I am simply standing up for my province as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador elected me to do.

Trust, integrity and dependability: Those are words that absolutely must apply to our country’s leader. The people of Canada deserve no less.

But can those words  – trust, integrity, dependability – be applied to a man who makes promises only to secure votes, then throws his promises to the wind? A man who cuts funding to the programs and sectors that are the core of our society – the arts and culture, students, women, other minority groups? A man whose own party was built on a broken promise? A man who implements fixed election date legislation, then carelessly and with great indifference casts it aside when it suits him? A man who has yet to share with us his vision for rural Canada?

Stephen Harper’s agenda is reflected very clearly in his own words: building a firewall around Alberta; bemoaning the Atlantic Canadian “culture of defeat;” comparing immigrants to people who live in ghettos; opposing monies for child poverty and social spending; telling Americans that Canada is a Northern European welfare state. These are his words. These reflect the true ideology of the man. Let’s not give him the majority he craves to implement this agenda. Let’s keep his power in check.

Putting Canada on a better course for a brighter future is a mission that all of us share. And the first step is as easy as A-B-C.

Anything But Conservative.

Thanks to JanfromtheBruce for reminding us why we should be “stickin’ with the NDP.”

A Liberal-NDP-Green government — could it work? John Ryan, writing in today’s Tyee, thinks so. I’m not convinced one way or another, but I’m open to being convinced. What do folks think?

Dion, Layton, May: Time Has Come to Craft a Coalition

A centre-left government is doable. See Europe.

by John Ryan, The Tyee, October 6, 2008

If the Conservatives do not get a majority in this election, Canada could still get a majority government. This could happen if the Liberals, NDP and the Greens (if they elect any members) formed a coalition. Such a coalition government would reflect the majority of Canadians who do not support the Conservatives. The Conservatives received only 36 per cent of the vote in the last election and, with a slight shift of fortunes, they may get less in the coming election. However, when the substantial majority of over 60 per cent gets split among four other competing parties, the Conservatives — with a minority of the vote — could wind up forming the government. This need not happen.

If for once the Liberals and the NDP set aside partisan politics and acted in the interests of Canada, it would be the beginning of a new era for us. In making this proposal, I am not suggesting a merger of these parties. The parties would remain as they are. They would only have to agree on a certain number of objectives and policies. On this basis they could form a majority government, or even a minority government with more seats than the Conservatives.

Cabinet seats could reflect the proportionate share of MPs from both parties. If the Liberals had 115 MPs and the NDP had 40, the Liberals would compose 75 per cent of the cabinet and the NDP 25 per cent. In such an arrangement, it would seem reasonable if Jack Layton became deputy prime minister.

At this stage, both of these parties need one another if they are to have a role in forming a government. Coalitions occur on a regular basis in Europe and in other parts of the world — but so far, never in Canada, although the NDP and the Liberals did cooperate in the past. And it was at those times that some progressive legislation was passed. It is high time for this to occur again.

READ ON . . .

Winnipeg journalist Lesley Hughes has decided to seek election as an independent in the Manitoba riding of Kildonan-St. Paul.

Unfairly smeared as an anti-Semitic, 911 conspiracy nutbar and dumped by the Liberals as their candidate, one can easily understand why Lesley Hughes might want to run as an independent and show her attackers what she is really made of. If the outpouring of support for Hughes by Winnipeggers is any indication, she will give a good account of herself.

Can she win? Probably not. Tory incumbent, Joy Smith, won by a handy margin last time and lacking the resources the Liberal Party could provide, Hughes is in a poor position to challenge effectively.

With Hughes out of the race, NDP candidate Ross Eadie might have had a chance.

Here is what happened in 2006.

2006 Results

With Hughes in the race as a high profile independent candidate, the anti-Tory vote is fractured.

It’s a pity.

http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1529573193

In about 30 minutes, Lesley Hughes is expected to announce whether she will run as an independent in Winnipeg’s Kildonan-St. Paul riding. Stay tuned.