This is going to be an interesting week in politics in Quebec but in Alberta too. The Quebec by-elections on Monday are getting lots of attention but they are merely that; by-elections. Likely to be lots of noise by signifying not very much as to indicating the future.
Alberta on the other hand has lots going on – most of which will impact or interest the nation. The next EUB spygate report is due for release this coming week and Premier Stelmach will be responding quickly to the findings. This is pretty consequential stuff. The way the EUB has been handling protesters and participants at “public” hearings in at least 2 instances is more aligned with fascism than citizen sovereign democracies. This needs fixing and I will have a specific post on the EUB from the Privacy Commissioner Report on Monday.
The Royalty Review Report is to be ready Tuesday. Originally this was a Stelmach idea that was commissioned by Dr. Oberg and retrieved by Stelmach who has taken back the lead politically on the initiative. Stelmach has said that he would make the report public as soon as he got it. Good move Mr. Premier. We don’t need these kinds of consultation reports being studied by government before public release. We can all study it concurrently and we do not need the government to have a position first. We need this complex stuff to be handled differently...like more openly.
I know the media will look for the typical short sound-bite responses but that is not good enough any more either. This stuff needs to be analyzed and the outcomes need to be designed to achieve identified and agreed to goals. Citizens need to see such significant reports in the first place not at the end of an internal government review process. This is risky in the current superficial political and media culture we live in - but this is the place to start to change that culture.
The Royalty Review Report authors say they are presenting a package of integrated recommendations that should not be cherry picked but taken or rejected as a whole. Makes sense in terms complex issues like royalties. These are not linear incremental issues but highly integrated and interrelated concerns.
Dr. Oberg has said publicly that the government (meaning him???) reserves the right to pick and choose from the various recommendations. This approach will likely lead to a similar result like what happened in the recent Affordable Housing Task Force report. A package of integrated proposals was presented to government to resolve affordable housing. The politicians in charge accepted and rejected various parts of the whole systems approach and the results were confusion and confrontation.
If the government does not like the Royalty Review Report recommendations or they want to put revised limits or refinements on the issues – they should do so - in public - and then send the job back to the review committee to revisit and report again. Do not deconstruct a whole systems set of recommendations based on pure political ideology and think that will lead to an effective policy design outcome.
This will be an interesting week in politics in Quebec and Alberta – both of which will have an impact on the rest of Canada – but in different ways. Lot to talk about this coming week for sure.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Harper Con's Allegations Against Dion Prove To Be False.
Quick update on the Harper Cons attempt to change the channel on their election campaign Ad-Scheme . Jeff Jedras who blogs as a “A BCer in Toronto” has updated his explanation of the Con allegations that Dion "does it too."
Newspaper reports confirm his analysis of the Cons allegations about Dion’s election campaign. Again – for every citizen who cares about democracy and integrity in government - it is worth a read.
Dion's dealing are proven to be totally above board. The diversionary tactics that have become the trademark of the Harper Cons have proven false once again. These tactics are not honest mistakes. They are character flaws in a political party and the people who run it.
Newspaper reports confirm his analysis of the Cons allegations about Dion’s election campaign. Again – for every citizen who cares about democracy and integrity in government - it is worth a read.
Dion's dealing are proven to be totally above board. The diversionary tactics that have become the trademark of the Harper Cons have proven false once again. These tactics are not honest mistakes. They are character flaws in a political party and the people who run it.
Mayrand of Elections Canada Stands His Ground - Canadians Owe Him Respect
Marc Mayrand, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer will have done enough service to the country to earn the Order of Canada when the veil issue is completed and run its petty political course and our politicians shake their collective heads and do the right thing in the right way (for a change?)
As reported in the Globe and Mail today, a truly astonishing thing happened yesterday in the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee. All parties yesterday pressured the CEO as a bureaucrat to “adapt” the law they passed in order to force voters to show their face before being permitted to vote. This is so wrong at so many levels it boggles the mind as to how the collective ignorance of those Committee members could manifest itself in such a perverse way.
There is nothing wrong with a law requiring this requirement for citizens to be identified and to show their faces for voter. Even those in the Muslim community most impacted have seen the need for such accommodation. If only that was what our lawmakers required in the legislation they passed earlier this year then it should be implemented by the CEO and Elections Canada. BUT that is not what the law they passed said! And now the politicians seem to be trying to shift the blame to the bureaucracy and by doing so they abdicate their governance responsibility at the same time. Shame on them! AND REMEMBER WE ELECTED THEM!
Mayrand has put the ball back in the political and lawmakers court by telling them clearly and precisely that “One of the conundrums I have here is I am being asked to change the law that was just adopted by Parliament and was debated at length…I am being asked to change the law and forcing electors to choose between two fundamental rights.” WELL SAID SIR!
Mayrand is single handedly forcing the politicians to face up to the consequences of their sloppy work, fuzzy thinking or policy making cowardice. Politicians too often skirt the hard choices of choosing between competing fundamental rights. That at the end of the day is a big part of their job as ELECTED representatives in a mature and modern democracy. They too often try to duck the heavy political lifting and avoid serious philosophical thought on the major policy issues as they superficially pummel each other in Question Period or the media.
As reported in the Globe and Mail today, a truly astonishing thing happened yesterday in the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee. All parties yesterday pressured the CEO as a bureaucrat to “adapt” the law they passed in order to force voters to show their face before being permitted to vote. This is so wrong at so many levels it boggles the mind as to how the collective ignorance of those Committee members could manifest itself in such a perverse way.
There is nothing wrong with a law requiring this requirement for citizens to be identified and to show their faces for voter. Even those in the Muslim community most impacted have seen the need for such accommodation. If only that was what our lawmakers required in the legislation they passed earlier this year then it should be implemented by the CEO and Elections Canada. BUT that is not what the law they passed said! And now the politicians seem to be trying to shift the blame to the bureaucracy and by doing so they abdicate their governance responsibility at the same time. Shame on them! AND REMEMBER WE ELECTED THEM!
Mayrand has put the ball back in the political and lawmakers court by telling them clearly and precisely that “One of the conundrums I have here is I am being asked to change the law that was just adopted by Parliament and was debated at length…I am being asked to change the law and forcing electors to choose between two fundamental rights.” WELL SAID SIR!
Mayrand is single handedly forcing the politicians to face up to the consequences of their sloppy work, fuzzy thinking or policy making cowardice. Politicians too often skirt the hard choices of choosing between competing fundamental rights. That at the end of the day is a big part of their job as ELECTED representatives in a mature and modern democracy. They too often try to duck the heavy political lifting and avoid serious philosophical thought on the major policy issues as they superficially pummel each other in Question Period or the media.
The first duty of engaged citizenship is to be an informed voter AND be careful who you vote for.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Blogging Tory Dion Allegations Debunked
I promised to post on the allegations of a Blogging Tory on party campaign fund transfers between the Liberal Party of Canada and their leader Stephane Dion in his 2006 election campaign.
The issue has been covered so much better than I would have or could have done by the Blogger “A BCer in Toronto."
I commend you to his insight and analysis.
In summary it proves there is no tempest. No teapot and no hand in any cookie jar.
Proving only one thing – the CPC Blogging Tory blog-machine is merely reflecting the anxiety CPC brain trust and obviously nervous enough to make stuff up and then grab ant the manufactured straw to try and change the channel.
Kind of like the political bullying they are perpetrating on Elections Canada officials and the phony veil threats.
The issue has been covered so much better than I would have or could have done by the Blogger “A BCer in Toronto."
I commend you to his insight and analysis.
In summary it proves there is no tempest. No teapot and no hand in any cookie jar.
Proving only one thing – the CPC Blogging Tory blog-machine is merely reflecting the anxiety CPC brain trust and obviously nervous enough to make stuff up and then grab ant the manufactured straw to try and change the channel.
Kind of like the political bullying they are perpetrating on Elections Canada officials and the phony veil threats.
Imperial Tobacco Offers an Unsafe Alternaive to Cigarettes As An Exercise in Corporate Social Responsibility
Imperial Tobacco has chosen lucky Edmonton for the launch of test marketing of a new nicotine product “SNUS.” This is a chewing tobacco alternative that that replaces smoking and does not involve “chewing or spitting.” How charming.
Reader of this blog will know I have written on tobacco control often. I have worked in the area professionally helping get a smoking ban in Alberta legislated…something that is still in process.
The CEO of Imperial Tobacco was dong the run of the Edmonton Editorial Boards yesterday and is quoted as admitting the product is not completely safe but his justification for knowingly incurring risk by using it is – wait for it: “SNUS is the first real product we’re able to bring onto the market where there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that this product is significantly less risky.” (EMPAHSIS ADDED)
And the rational the CEO uses for Imperial Tobacco doing this is – wait for it: it is part of the company’s strategy to become a better corporate citizen by offering a product that research SUGGESTS poses lower risk than smoking.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
He is also quoted as saying “harm reduction is what responsible companies do.” This is a company offering an unproven product positioning it as a safer alternative to another deadly product it legally sells under the guise of a public health campaign and call this corporate social responsibility.
The company refers to studies showing SNUS users experience significant smoking declines and anecdotal evidence (TRANSLATED AS MEANING GOSSIP) that SNUS is effective in keeping smokers from returning to cigarettes. They admit that the researcher have noted they did not placebo-based controlled confirmation studies that prove this. Spare us the hype and hypocrisy.
Sweden is offered as the shining example of the positive impacts noting only 13% of men smoke and 22% use SNUS. So the rational conclusion from this is that 35% of the male population of Sweden are nicotine users – and this is progress? There is the added bonus of SNUS studies showing a 100% increase in pancreatic cancer in non-smoking construction workers and it raises blood pressure and it is admittedly addictive.
The launch initiative in Edmonton is a test marketing effort to see how people respond to the purchase of the product – NOT the health implications of the product. If it is a product that is a “gateway product out of smoking” you would expect the company to be researching the positive health impacts on lung cancer and other diseases and health issues associate with the product. That would be some serious examples of a meaningful corporate social responsibility effort.
This entire idea is like Kafka meets Alice in Wonderland.
Reader of this blog will know I have written on tobacco control often. I have worked in the area professionally helping get a smoking ban in Alberta legislated…something that is still in process.
The CEO of Imperial Tobacco was dong the run of the Edmonton Editorial Boards yesterday and is quoted as admitting the product is not completely safe but his justification for knowingly incurring risk by using it is – wait for it: “SNUS is the first real product we’re able to bring onto the market where there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that this product is significantly less risky.” (EMPAHSIS ADDED)
And the rational the CEO uses for Imperial Tobacco doing this is – wait for it: it is part of the company’s strategy to become a better corporate citizen by offering a product that research SUGGESTS poses lower risk than smoking.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
He is also quoted as saying “harm reduction is what responsible companies do.” This is a company offering an unproven product positioning it as a safer alternative to another deadly product it legally sells under the guise of a public health campaign and call this corporate social responsibility.
The company refers to studies showing SNUS users experience significant smoking declines and anecdotal evidence (TRANSLATED AS MEANING GOSSIP) that SNUS is effective in keeping smokers from returning to cigarettes. They admit that the researcher have noted they did not placebo-based controlled confirmation studies that prove this. Spare us the hype and hypocrisy.
Sweden is offered as the shining example of the positive impacts noting only 13% of men smoke and 22% use SNUS. So the rational conclusion from this is that 35% of the male population of Sweden are nicotine users – and this is progress? There is the added bonus of SNUS studies showing a 100% increase in pancreatic cancer in non-smoking construction workers and it raises blood pressure and it is admittedly addictive.
The launch initiative in Edmonton is a test marketing effort to see how people respond to the purchase of the product – NOT the health implications of the product. If it is a product that is a “gateway product out of smoking” you would expect the company to be researching the positive health impacts on lung cancer and other diseases and health issues associate with the product. That would be some serious examples of a meaningful corporate social responsibility effort.
This entire idea is like Kafka meets Alice in Wonderland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)