Nanny is the New Niquab

Distractionary Politics at its Worst

Am I surprised at how little time it took for a "scandal" to emerge about Justin Trudeau. Um, no. In our current political climate it's more surprising that it took this long.

But this is the best they can come up? Really? He said that he wouldn't accept UCCB because he didn't need it. But now taxpayers are paying for his child care.

Now, I don't spend much time on social media anymore, but I'm told that it was the CBC who originally broke the story. If true, it makes it all the more disappointing the way that this was spun. And believe me, this was spun.

Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

Justin Trudeau Billing Taxpayers for Nannies is Hypocritical, Lisa Raitt says

"Rich" Justin Trudeau Should Pay for His Own Nannies, Rona Ambrose says

Funny thing that none of this hew and cry wants to mention? The Prime Minister has always received an allowance for running his household. This is not new. Each PM then chooses the staff that fits his (or her) family. The staff usually includes maids, groundskeepers, drivers, and yes, child care. No one has said that the Trudeaus are exceeding this budget. So is the expectation that he should use less of the budget than any other Prime Minister would be expected to, so that he can pay for his own children's care, or should he just hire other staff that he deems unnecessary to use up the budget and then pay the nannies out of pocket.

And, let's look at this logically: if between the two nannies, they are covering all day, every day, that is 168 hours per week. Given that would mean they were each working 84 hours per week, I don't think that's possible, but let's just go with it. For the sake of math, let's say that it's half day shift, half night shift. So at the highest reported rate, it would be $15/hr x 84 hrs, and $13/hr x 84 hrs, which comes out to $1260 and $1092, or $2352 per week. That comes to $122,304 per year. Over four years, it's $489,216. Rich or not, that's a lot of money for most families. For taxpayers, it means you would be paying approximately $0.02 of your taxes towards the cost of the nannies over the four-year period.

By contrast, Stephen Harper spent $1.2 million shipping armoured limos for a trip to India in 2012 even after the Indian government offered to provide them.

But the truth is that Justin Trudeau is the second youngest Prime Minister in history, and he has a very young family. Stephen Harper's children were six and nine when he was elected, and would have been in school full-time, making childcare during the day, at least, less of an issue. The truth is, I have no idea who looked after them when they weren't in school, and I don't really care, as for all intents and purposes they seem to have been looked after. It's none of my business. Before that, no Prime Minister had required child care since the early days of Brian Mulroney's tenure. And he got flack for it, too, so he ended up calling the nannies "maids." Personally, I like "special assistant" better.


No one has said if Justin Trudeau did, in fact, donate his Tory UCCB bribe cheque to charity. No one has said that the Trudeaus used taxpayer money for their nannies prior to moving into Rideau Cottage. It isn't likely that they will when they move out (assuming that they even need child care by that point). But Prime Minister of Canada is not a "normal" job by any means, and neither is the (unpaid) job of being spouse of the Prime Minister. The Trudeaus can be called away on a moment's notice, for days at a time. The Prime Minister can be called on at any time day or night in the case of an emergency. And the Trudeau children deserve to have consistent, loving care when their parents can't be with them. We owe them that much.

PS - I have more to say about the REAL issues we should be looking at when it comes to child care, but I'll save that for another post. 

Thoughts on Tom Mulcair's "Hotline Bling" Dance...

This Hour Has 22 Minutes says that we'll get the full video tonight, but even 9 seconds of Tom Mulcair doing Drake's "Hotline Bling" is well... mindblowing? ...disturbing? ...like the first time someone dipped chocolate in peanut butter?

From @RosieBarton to @nationalpost, Canada's been asking where @ThomasMulcair's been. We found him. He found @Drake pic.twitter.com/MIzgdIrTAE

— 22Minutes (@22_Minutes) November 3, 2015

But when I first saw it, my train of thought completely derailed:

1. Wow - that's Tom Mulcair doing "Hotline Bling."
2. Does Tom Mulcair have any idea who Drake is?
   
   
3. Does Drake have any idea who Tom Mulcair is? 
   
4. Is Drake even allowed to vote?
5. If he is, for whom did Drake vote?
6. Am I the only one who rewrites sentences just to avoid misuse of the word "who"?
7. Have I really become that boring that I'm sitting here wondering about the voting habits of a rap star and poor grammar amongst the populace?
8. Did I just use the word "amongst"?
9. And "populace"?
10. Does anyone else EVER use the word "amongst" anymore?
11. Quick! Do something cool! 
12. Umm...
13. Crap. I'm really that boring.
14. Damn you, Tom Mulcair! This is ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

But here: it's Stephen Harper with Justin Bieber.

I don't feel so bad now.

That Time That I Got on the Wrong Side of the Right

This is Ezra Levant.

He looks like such a nice guy, doesn't he? Kind of like your friendly neighbourhood accountant. But instead, he's more like Canada's version of Ann Coulter, only less accurate and less likeable.

He's been a lawyer, a lobbyist, and a political candidate, but he's best known for his work for Sun Media, until their Faux News-wannabe station folded and they dumped his columns. Now he is the emperor of his own internet media domain, so he can spout out as many misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies as he wants to.

I don't follow him. I don't search him out. Almost every word that comes out of his mouth does nothing but enrage me. But I have some rather masochistic tendencies at times, and so once in a while when Facebook decides to taunt me by "suggesting" that I check out one of his posts I do get sucked in.

And of course, since the election was announced, and now that the Liberals have won, he's been especially petulant. He's especially gleeful since the announcement came that the Trudeau family will not move into 24 Sussex Drive, but instead will allow the renovations that The National Capital Commission says need to be done desperately and that Stephen Harper would not allow while he was in residence.

He's even claiming that the renovations will cost not the $10 million originally quoted by the NCC (which everyone agrees has increased since 2008 when the estimate was made) but $150 million dollars.

Um, what? (Note: there have, in fact, been several proposals put before the governement by the NCC, one of which included razing 24 Sussex and replacing it with a new, working residence like the White House. However, this was only ONE of the proposals put forward, and highly unlikely, IMO.)

And don't get me started on his campaign to get Calgary International Airport renamed in honour of Stephen Harper. Honestly, I could care less about the name of an airport, I just find the whole thing rather amusing.

But the truth is, I find him, and his band of Con-bots terribly frustrating. And I vented on Twitter. Probably not the smartest move, but hey - freedom of speech, right???

Then that last tweet caught his attention (despite that fact that he wasn't actually tagged in it.) He then decided to use me as an example, and retweeted it, with a comment.

Now, I'm a big girl, and I can take that. Would probably have gone to bed with a smirk on my face, thinking of all of the irony of that statement. Except here's the thing: Ezra Levant knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that tweet. It was like a Bat Signal to his 33,000 or so Con-bots to go on the attack, and they took up the task with all of the vigour of a Conservative making cuts to social services on Christmas morning.

Most of them simply accused me of not understanding freedom of speech (oh, the irony...)

Many honestly thought I wanted to go to Petsmart, buy a dog muzzle and put it on him (note to these people: you might want to look up the word "hyperbole.")

But a good portion of them went on a personal attack. I was accused of being a bad mother. I was accused of being stupid. Someone even thought it was insult to call me a single mother (which I'm not, but I think this was the most offensive of all, simply for the fact that they did think it was an insult.) And some people actually took the time to go through at least a year's worth of my tweets, looking for things to use to insult me. Because my taste in music totally has anything to do with my opinions of Ezra Levant. To these people, all I can really say is, GET A LIFE.

For the most part, I simply blocked them. In a few instances, I couldn't help from responding, but I'm sure that eventually those people will get blocked too. Because it's not that I don't prefer to debate, Ezra. I just simply can't have a battle of wits with opponents who are unarmed. So go ahead, gloat in your victory because the Socialist Leftie didn't fight back. With the Liberals in power I understand that you need to take your victories where you can get them.

This Election Might Be the Death of Me

The statement above is what I posted as my Facebook status a little while ago. And I honestly mean it.

Canada, you're scaring me to death.

I was blindly naive, I suppose, when this election campaign began. I truly believed that the majority of Canadians were adamant that the Conservatives needed to go, and we would soon be rid of Harper and his cronies. I knew that vote splitting was a possibility on the Left, but it still seemed a sure thing that we would have a new Prime Minister on October 20th.

Now I'm not so sure. I'm obsessed with polls - I read one that says the Conservatives are in 3rd, and I start to relax, then a few minutes later I see one where they're close to a majority and I start to lose it a little bit. I know, I know: looking at the polls is like reading the comments on the internet (just don't do it) but I can't help it.

Lately, this has not been the Canada I want to see, and it's not the Canada I want for my kids. Right now, my kids are caring, loving, accepting people. They don't care where you're from, what - if any - religion you believe in, or what your sexual orientation is: they care that you're a nice person.

If Canada elects another Conservative government, what kind of a message are we sending them?

• Scientific fact is less important than money, and political loyalty.
• It's okay to take money away from social programs and infrastructure and use it to kill innocent people in other countries in the name of "safety."
• The environment will be okay, so we don't need to worry. (Is it just me, or is the Conservative take on the environment the equivalent of "and the budget will balance itself"?)
• People don't matter if they weren't born here. Unless they're rich. And even if they were born here, if they don't look a certain way, practice the right religion, and have the right sexual orientation, they don't matter, either. Actually, they don't matter even if they were born here, they look the right way, practice the right religion and have the right sexual orientation unless they're rich. Or to simplify: people only matter if they're rich.
• The Bogeyman is around every corner. Your next door neighbour could be a suicide bomber, especially if they're Muslim. They only way we can possibly be safe is if we give up all of our rights and freedoms.
• First Nations peoples don't actually exist. They are a figment of your imagination, and so there is absolutely no need to wonder why these imaginary women keep disappearing.
• You should be happy with the job you have, no matter how many hours your boss demands, or how low your pay is. 
• A growth in part-time, minimum wage jobs is something to celebrate. Don't pay any attention to the drop in actual career jobs that, you know, pay a living wage. 
• Keeping up with the cost of living is for wusses.
• And if you don't have a job, it's your own fault.
• Health care is a luxury.
• So is education.
• If you want infrastructure investment, you should have elected the "right" candidate.

What have I missed?

Please Canada, if you're thinking of voting Conservative, think very hard before you cast your ballot. This is NOT the Progressive Conservative party of old: that party is long gone. What we have left is the Reform Party in Tory clothing. And shouldn't it tell us something that even Alberta - the birthplace of the travesty that is our current ruling party - has now rejected them?

The future of Canada depends on all of us.  Please don't screw it up.

Dear Justin: A Response to Your Fundraising Emails

Dear Justin,

I got your email today. And the one from a Toronto MP. I got one from your wife a day or so ago. Oh, and the ones from the National Party Director and the Senior Director of Fundraising. Each and every one has made me feel very special that I'm worthy of so much attention that you'd send me at least one per day.  I mean, you guys have so much to do - how on earth do you find time to send me so many emails???

I especially like the ones where you remind me that I haven't yet donated to the Liberal party. Seeing that $0 is an excellent reminder of my negligence.

But here's the thing: as much as I'd like to donate, I'd also like to ensure that there's food on the table for my kids, and maybe even manage the mortgage payment, to keep the house where that table sits. And right now, that's a bit of a challenge.

You see, back at the end of October, my husband's company decided that they no longer needed an IT department in Canada at all. They were just going to run everything remotely from the US. (That was almost as good as when the company he was working for decided that they could outsource all of their tech support to India.) So my husband was laid off from his job. That was challenging, but since I still had a pretty decent job, we knew we could manage if we cut back a bit. Sorry, but the political donations had to be one of those cutbacks.

Then last week, my company decided that my job wasn't really necessary, either, and I was laid off. That kind of stung.

So now, here we are: two university-educated, middle class parents of four children, without a single employed person in the house. One person working and one on EI was a stretch. Two parents both on EI will be a disaster.

It's likely that at least one of us will find work before my small severance package runs out, and we'll be okay. We're pretty resourceful, when it comes right down to it. But I have to say, I'm getting really tired of the constant uncertainty of our lives. I'm tired of food prices going up and up, and housing prices continuing to rise, and insane utility bills, and car insurance that was supposed to go down, but instead just keeps on heading north. I'm tired of all of this happening while people like us struggle to provide a comfortable, secure life for their kids, and people like the boss who just laid me off have three vacation homes. I'm tired of people not caring what happens to everyone else, as long as they get what they want out of life. I'm not asking to be rich: all I want is to pay my bills, keep my house, and maybe someday go on a vacation (it's been seventeen years, so I'm pretty sure our family is due for one soon.) I'd like to know that someday I'll be able to retire and not have to live on cat food. I have no need for three vacation homes.

Is that really so much to ask?

It probably seems like I'm just picking on you, Justin, and for that I'm sorry. The truth is, just before I was laid off I actually did join your party, because I do believe that at the core of it you do have our country's best interests at heart, and I sure don't want to see the Conservatives elected again. But once my family is back on its feet, if I'm going to support you financially, I just want to know that you actually intend to do something about all of this, and that you really do want to see the return of the middle class.

And another thing: in the last election, the Liberals couldn't even be bothered to have a candidate in Oshawa who was actually FROM Oshawa. Instead, they chose this guy as their candidate. Which, to my way of thinking was their way of saying that they knew there wasn't a hope of unseating Colin Carrie, so why bother. If you're expecting support from me, do you think you could at least get a real Oshawa resident as a candidate this time?

Thank you for your time. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep up our daily correspondence. I have resumes to send out.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Hill
Oshawa, ON

GTA Commuters Might Want to Look at This Before Voting

In my last post, I promised a post about the debacle that is the 407 ETR. The highway that was supposed to relieve the congestion of the 401, and offer another route across the top of the city. The tolls were only supposed to be in place until the highway was paid for.

The the Mike Harris Tories decided to lease it to a Spanish company for 99 years, for $3.1 billion dollars. The result? A luxury route for only those who can afford the exorbitant rates that is many times more expensive than any other toll highway in North America.

Take a look:

Child Poverty: Not My Job?

This week, Canada's Federal Minister of Industry, James Moore (Cons., Port Moody - Westwood - Port Coquitlam, BC) made headlines with - for most people who actually have hearts - should be pretty shocking statements. Especially coming ten days before Christmas.

When asked about record-high levels of child poverty in his province his response was, "Is it my job to feed my neighbour's child? I don't think so." He went on to say that Ottawa's strategy for feeding hungry children was job creation, but that really, it was a provincial issue.

At a event on December 13, Moore claimed that "we've never been wealthier as a country than we are right now. Never been wealthier." He then went on to say that the way poverty is defined is different across the country.

Hmm... really? I would say that going to school with no breakfast and/or lunch, or not having a winter coat or boots in areas where it's necessary, or maybe not even having a bed to sleep in, are pretty much across the board when it comes to definitions. Am I off by much?

Where do I start with this?

First off: Ottawa's strategy for dealing with poverty is job creation. Sounds good in theory. Except how many of those jobs are part-time, minimum wage, and/or temporary? The proliferation of these types of jobs in recent years is a clear indication that this government cares more about the QUANTITY of jobs, rather than the QUALITY of those jobs. They want to crow about the number of jobs created, not how many people are now making a living wage. How does that help poverty levels? Oh, and while we're at it, how does cutting 8,000 Canada Post jobs help poverty?

Second: "we've never been wealthier as a country"??? On WHAT planet is that true? Household debt is at record levels. On a personal level, almost everyone I know is struggling in some way or another. New mortgage regulations are making home ownership a dream that's moving further and further away. Retirement? It's now sounding like a pipe dream.

Third: Yes, Mr. Moore. It IS your job. Just as it's my job, and my neighbour's job, and just like it's everyone else's job. Whatever you may - in your pompous world view - think of their parents, children did not ASK to be born, and they sure as hell didn't ask to be born into poverty. They do NOT deserve to go hungry because you want to punish their parents for whatever transgressions you imagine they have committed by being poor.

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Moore, it's about being a decent human being, and not wanting to see your fellow human beings suffer. How is it you can justify letting children go hungry, while your government spends ridiculous amounts of money on travel expenses, and how about that TEN BILLION each year spent on outside consultants? Bet a bunch of kids could be fed on that...

Let Us Eat Cake

Are We Headed for Another French Revolution?

I'm a big reader (in case you haven't guessed by my other site) and although I read a lot of different genres, I love historical fiction. Being the inquisitive mind that I am, what tends to happen is that I obsessively read fiction about a certain era, and then I start researching, because I want to know the truth, or just MORE.

A year or so ago, it was the Tudor era. Lately, it's been the French Revolution.

The more I read, and the more I research, the more it scares me.

A really quick, non-historian rundown of the French Revolution:

• Louis XVI (the 16th, for those with Roman numeral issues...) came to power in 1774. He was married to Marie Antoinette, of Austria, and together they had 4 children, two of whom died in early childhood.
• By the end of the 1780s, France was going through a very bad economic time, partly due to its participation in The Seven Years' War, and the American Revolutionary War.
• However, while the common people were struggling to survive, the aristocracy was living as if nothing had happened. Tales of royal excess were legendary, often focused -unfairly or not - on the Queen (we've all heard the "Let them eat cake" story, right?)
• VERY long story short, the people - lead by some lesser nobles (whose motives are more than likely questionable) - decided that they wouldn't take any more, and rebelled. After months of rebellion, The Palace of Versailles was attacked, and the Royal Family forced into a house arrest-type situation at a palace in Paris. They made a rather pathetic attempt to escape France, at which point they were locked down even further. As different factions fought for power in the new republic, the King and Queen - despite being stripped of any power - were considered a threat and were eventually executed. 
• As the rival factions continued their feuds, the "Reign of Terror" began and tens of thousands of people - both nobles and commoners - were executed, mostly by the newfangled guillotine. The unheaval led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and went on for decades. 
• The "rebellion" depicted in Les Miserables actually took place in June, 1832 - nearly 40 years after the executions of Louis XVI and his Queen. During those years, as I mentioned, Napoleon was in charge for 11 years (1804-1815), and the monarchy came and went several times, ending for good in 1848. This all just goes to show that there were DECADES of upheaval before France's current political system was finally settled.
  

So, what's the point of all of this? Why does it scare me? Because the more I read about the French Revolution, the more it starts to sound eerily familiar.

No, we don't have a real monarchy anymore - not in the way that the French did - but instead of the "First Estate" we have "The 1%" (who, incidentally, pay almost no tax in many cases - similar to how the nobility in pre-revolutionary France paid no tax, while the commoners were highly taxed.) Instead of lesser nobles claiming to have the best interests of the people at heart, we have celebrities advocating not voting as a means of rebellion. Instead of the satirical pamphlets handed out on street corners, we have bloggers who can (although not all do) write whatever they want - whether it's true or not with no repercussions (and yes, I see the irony in this statement). Corporations continue to make higher and higher profits, while their workers struggle to figure out how to pay rent and buy food at the same time.

Think that I'm blowing the similarities out of proportion? In just a few hours yesterday, these two news stories appeared in my social media feeds (the Russell Brand video I linked to above has also been posted all over everywhere recently):

• McDonald's Tells Worker She Should Sign Up for Food Stamps
• Palaces-in-the-Making

Every day, there is more and more unrest. Every day there is more division between the "Royalists" (the conservatives) and the "Constitutionalists" (the liberals.) More and more people are wondering aloud how it is fair for the gap between wealthy and poor to keep getting wider. Median income - when adjusted for inflation - is actually LOWER than it was a decade ago. The government in Canada - oh, sorry, The Harper Government - claims that the number of people on Employment Insurance is going down, but they neglect to mention the number of people whose Employment Insurance runs out before they find work, or those forced to take part-time and/or low-wage work. In the US, people are forced out of their homes because of predatory lending practices, and people go bankrupt just trying to pay for life-saving medical treatment for themselves or their families. Meanwhile some CEOs are making 1000x the pay of their average employee.

No matter which "side" you're on, you have to admit that our society is broken. And people are getting angry. What frightens me is to think of the violence that can come of a large group of angry people. In the Women's March on Versailles (the event that led to the Royal Family fleeing their home) there were an estimated 6,000-10,000 people who attacked the palace, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Really, when you think about it, there have been VERY few major societal revolutions that didn't involve violence.

So what does that mean for us? The "Occupy" movement was essentially a peaceful protest. Will people continue to utilize peaceful resistance, or are we looking at a future of angry violence? It seems that those in power have no interest in changing the status quo: corporations are intent on continuing their pursuit of profit for the few at the expense of the many; housing prices are becoming completely unsustainable; there is little in the way of job stability for anyone; people are now considered a disposable commodity (AKA "collateral damage".)

What continues to amaze and sadden me is how the economic issues plaguing us are causing those of us in "the 99%" to turn on each other. We say that younger generations have a sense of entitlement, and no work ethic; we say that the Baby Boomers refuse to give up power and revel in the failures of their own children. We blame everyone but those who are truly to blame.

Before you ask, at this point, no, I don't have a solution. Most of what needs to be done will never happen voluntarily under the current "nobility." They - or maybe we - have succeeded in creating such a gap between our factions that instead of working together, we just create barriers to prevent any real progress. I'm just trying to point out what I'm seeing, and where I'm afraid we're heading, and hoping that someone will be able to come up with a solution before it's too late.

Who's in Charge of this Train, Anyway?

A friend just "recommended" this editorial by Michael Ignatieff on Facebook. My initial thought was to recommend it myself, with my thoughts. Then I decided to post it here, instead. I've noticed lately that I've lost a few FB friends, and although at first this hurt me, I had to wonder if it was due to my political/ideological postings. If that's the case: too bad. I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. Often very strongly.

What I don't understand is why people who disagree with me about these issues are so offended by the idea of society working together for everyone's betterment. Are they afraid for their own standard of living? Do they honestly believe that every poor person is poor because of laziness and/or drug and alcohol abuse? That every New Year's baby born today has EXACTLY the same opportunities for "success" as his/her peers?

I love the analogy in the article: that living in the Great Depression was like riding a train. If you had a job, "it was like being in the heated parlour car in the front of the train, while the unemployed were in the unheated freight cars in the back." I've noticed that those who are so adamantly against government programs to help the poor are usually those who are not only employed, but have been in the same job for a long time; who haven't had to deal with months and months of resumes and applications, and internet job searches; those who don't know that trying to live on $1800 per month (approximately the maximum amount of EI in our area) is nearly impossible for a family who may depend on that income as their sole source of support. For those who have been riding in those unheated freight cars, it is a ride of fear, shame, and despair, made all the more hard by living amongst those who are eating caviar in the parlour car.

I guess I just will never understand how it is that people can be so unwilling to give up a little bit of their wealth to make sure that other people have a reasonable standard of living. There is no way out of this mess while some are zealously guarding the proverbial Versailles and the peasants are crying for bread.

I once had someone ask me "Who are you to decide what's a reasonable income for anyone else?" That's not an easy question for me to answer. I suppose I have no right to say that no one NEEDS over a million dollars a year, but to me, that's just plain logic. To say, "I work 20 hours a day for that money, so I should get to keep it" discounts those who are working 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and barely surviving. Are you working harder than the person who's cleaning your office at 2am? The person who's out collecting your trash in -20 degree or 35 degree weather? Are you working harder than the person building the roads for you to drive to your company? The teacher who's educating your children? Who are YOU to say that what you do is worth more than what anyone else contributes to society?

I've been told that this whole "December 21, 2012" thing is more about a societal shift than about the end of the world. I really hope that's true, because until we all realize that we're all in this world together, I don't see us finding those middle cars on the train.

Jack Layton, 1950-2011

I was in a pretty good mood when I got to work last Monday morning. I'd barely sat at my desk and turned on my computer, though, when I got the news: "Jack Layton died."

It shouldn't have been a shock. Anyone who saw his gaunt appearance at his last press conference knew it couldn't be good. People talked about the possibility that he wouldn't return to Parliament Hill in whispers, as if saying it too loudly might cause it to happen.

Maybe in the end, someone spoke about it too loudly after all. Maybe it was just meant to happen this way. Maybe it was just a fluke of nature - a bad hand dealt in the game of life. I suppose in the end, it comes down to what you believe about life, and death.

In the past week, I've been kind of weepy when I thought about it. It's not because of any personal connection: like most Canadians, I didn't know Jack Layton personally; in fact, I never even met the man, or saw him from afar. Although I'm not registered with any particular party, I've always considered myself a Liberal who occasionally votes NDP. I've never lived in his constituency, so I have never had the opportunity to cast a vote for, or against him.

Really, me being weepy about something isn't all that unusual. Don't tell anyone, but the truth is I can get weepy over just about anything - happy or sad. Any strong emotion can elicit tears from me. It's kind of embarrassing.I don't think the subtle melancholy I've felt the past week has been my usual hyper-emotional state, though. There has been something about Jack Layton's passing that has affected me, and made me think about what I really believe in.

The title of this blog has always been tongue-in-cheek. As much as I've considered running for political office, I seriously doubt that my "30 Days of Ben Mulroney" entries are likely to help my cause. Layton's passing, though, does make me think a lot about what I believe.

I believe:

• That everyone should have equal rights - including the right to marry and raise a family.
• That every child deserves the best possible start in life. Sadly, this doesn't always happen at home, so our schools, and our community programs are pivotal, and deserve nothing but the best.
• That healthcare is a right, not a privilege. No one should go bankrupt paying medical bills. Families going through catastrophic illness deserve support.
• In justice, not vengeance.
• That higher education and apprenticeship training should be available to everyone. While it may not be realistic to assume that it could be free, there needs to be a better way of making it accessible, without students going into massive amounts of debt.
• That Canada needs to be at the forefront of finding alternative energy sources, while still keeping costs in line, so that families can afford to pay their utility bills.

In Jack Layton, we saw optimism, and hope for the future of Canada. Not that I'm generally a fan of Stephen Harper anyway, but I just don't see that kind of positive energy from him. He just always seems pissed off and angry. He appears - to me, anyway - like he's looking down on those he claims to represent. Jack Layton never did that. One of the best photos I've seen the past week was of Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow, riding in the Toronto Pride Parade, and looking like they were having a fabulous time.

I want to see Canada have a leader with that kind of vivacity. Not that personality alone makes a leader: you need the brains to back it up; but to see someone leading this country who actually cared what Canadians thought, and what they needed to make their lives better. Isn't that what we need?

As we talked on the day of Jack Layton's death, my husband said, "He was never meant to be Prime Minister." That may be so, but I truly hope that in the next few years of the Harper majority, a leader will emerge who will give Canadians a sense of optimism, and energy. I am so proud to be Canadian. I want the world to be able to see what an amazing country this is, and I want every Canadian to feel the same way.

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful, and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

 RIP Jack.

Election Rant #2: Mid-Afternoon Phone Call

This afternoon I received a phone call that has me... somewhat concerned. It was to do with the election, which is not surprising, given that there is only a week to go.

A very YOUNG girl called here asking if Colin Carrie (our local Conservative candidate) could count on my vote. At the time, because she'd woken me up from a nap and I was worried that she was going to wake up my toddler, I just told her flatly no, that I didn't vote Conservative.

Now that I've had time to think about it though, several thoughts occur to me about this phone call.

A) The call came directly to me, by name (not my husband, and not "Mrs. Hill" which I often get); Dr. Carrie, just because I wrote to you about the potential Quebec violations of the Canada Health Act does NOT make me your supporter. PLEASE take me off your lists! I've already unsubscribed from your preening "Look what I can do!" newsletter.

B) I'm kind of concerned that a girl that young is supporting him. I know some people just SOUND young, but I would be incredibly shocked if this girl was old enough to vote. Is she doing volunteer hours for high school? Does she have ANY idea of the Conservatives' anti-women policies? Is she just there because her parents are going to vote for him?

C) No, no he cannot count on my vote. In fact, I'd suggest exactly the opposite. Oh, wait... I already mentioned that.

Election Rant #1: The Outsider

It suddenly occurred to me this morning, as I was ranting to my husband about an election issue, that I hadn't used this blog in a LONG time, and, coincidentally, that this blog was originally intended for, among other things, my political rants. Hmmm...

So here's the rant of the day:

I am a Liberal. Not an official member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although I am now seriously considering it, just so that I can yell at whomever came up with this hairbrained idea. But I live in an area that is very much NOT Liberal. The last several elections have had a Conservative win the riding. You would think, given the GM plant, that it would be an NDP area, but I haven't seen much of that. However, back in the days of the Chretien government, my riding was Liberal. It seems that it's kind of a "go with the majority" kind of area.

The last several elections, both provincial and federal, the Liberal Party has run the same candidate, over and over and OVER again. Said candidate, Louise Parks, was a councilwoman on the City Council for many years, until she lost the mayoral election this past year. Said candidate is also a very polarizing figure: you either love her or hate her. I've tended towards the latter, and I believe that the majority of the city feels the same way. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just the feeling that, rather than working for the electorate, she's working for her own political ambitions. Realistically (and somewhat cynically) I think most politicians may be that way, but most of them hide it a little better.

Anyway, the Liberals have dumped Louise Parks this time. Originally, when I saw a lawn sign showing another name, James Morton, I rejoiced in that they had listened to my rants (although, since I never expressed my dismay to the local party leaders, I wonder if they've been bugging my house or something...)

But then I saw our local paper, listing the candidates and their backgrounds, and I knew that the Liberals haven't got a snowball's chance in the eternal fires of winning this riding. The Liberal Party, Oshawa riding, have decided that rather than finding a local candidate, they should put forward a Toronto lawyer who lives in Thornhill, but has "signed a lease" in Oshawa. In other words, they think they've brought in a ringer.

Pardon my language, but WHAT THE FUCK?

They honestly don't believe that there is a single qualified person anywhere in the city of Oshawa who could put up a fight for this Parliamentary seat? I believe that Whitby tried this in the last election, and it failed miserably. Oshawa people, if they actually read the news, will NOT be happy about a person who knows NOTHING about Oshawa being brought in to potentially represent their interests. Oshawa is a totally different kind of city - truthfully, it's one of the things that I like about it. Despite being a part of the GTA, it isn't Pickering, or Ajax, or Whitby, and it sure as Hell isn't Thornhill.

I will say that I'm sure he's perfectly qualified to be an MP. Reading about him on the website I'm not totally unimpressed, I'm just frustrated to be backing another sure loss. 

Nice going, Liberals.

Why Do I Care?

I haven't lived within the boundaries of Metro Toronto since 1998. The last Toronto election I voted in was also the FIRST Metro Toronto election after the "megacity" was created. Since then our family has moved around, but for the most part we've been within the boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area (some "greater" than others).

So you might wonder why I care about who was elected Mayor of Toronto. Here are a few reasons:

1. I may not live there anymore, but I really do love Toronto. I love wandering around downtown. I love Queen West and the Beaches (wait, the Beach?). I love the entertainment district and all of the mega-musicals put on by Mirvish Productions and Dancap, among others. I love the smaller theatres like Passe Muraille, the Factory, Soulpepper and CanStage. I love the fact that I can walk all over downtown Toronto in the middle of winter without a coat using the PATH system. I love watching baseball games at SkyDome (I will never admit that it's no longer called SkyDome, so don't even try to make me.) I love the Toronto Islands. Most of all, I love the people - well, most of them, anyway. So I don't want to see a loudmouth politician screw up "my" city. I also don't want any Lastman-sized international embarrassments (African cannibals, anyone? How does that compare to wanting someone's wife to be go over to Iran and be raped? Hmmm...)
2. The truth is, what happens in Toronto affects the whole province to a certain extent, most notably the 905 area (for those not familiar with Toronto, this is a horseshoe-shaped area outside of Toronto thus called because of their "905" area codes.) If not a majority, then a lot of 905-ers are commuters. We may start our mornings in Oshawa, Pickering or Mississauga, but we spend our days firmly in the 416. Gridlock and public transit are issues that don't just affect Toronto residents. 
3. Again, because so many 905-ers work in Toronto, if you mess up the economy of Toronto, you mess up the economy of a much wider area. Even if you don't take into account the commuters, products and services are regularly traded amongst the cities of south-central Ontario. The economy of the country's largest city has a ripple effect across the whole area, at minimum.
4. I was talking to someone last night who works in social services in Toronto. The look on his face when told Rob Ford was elected said it all. Outside of the Great Depression, this may be the worst thing to ever happen to the poor, under-privileged, and mentally and physically-challenged people in Toronto's history.
5. Why is it that the right wing is so against funding for arts organizations? My guess is that most of them can't read a book or have the attention span to sit through a play, but that's just my (somewhat biased) opinion. Arts organizations in Toronto are surely quaking today. Hopefully many of them have been making plans based on this possibility, because they can be sure sure to lose most, if not all, of their funding if Ford gets his way. It amazes me how people think this is such a huge waste of their tax dollars. Do you know how much Toronto currently spends per capita on the arts? THIRTEEN DOLLARS. Yes, that's right: $13 of your hard-earned money goes to support the arts. How much do you spend on coffee in a week? Or on take-out meals? Or anything else. You can't afford $13 per year to support thousands of artists and workers in arts organizations that bring in millions of dollars to Toronto's economy not only through ticket sales, but through hotels and restaurants as well? An article in the Star says that Pantalone and Smitherman both hoped to raise that spending to $25 per year. San Francisco, to compare one city to another, spends $86 per year on the arts. Yet Toronto, for example, is the third-largest centre for English-speaking theatre in world, behind only New York City and London.
6. Toronto will host World Pride Day in 2014, just a few months before the next mayoral election. Can anyone picture Rob Ford riding on a float in the Pride parade? Me neither. With the cuts that he surely wants to make to their funding, the entire experience will likely be embarrassing. However, I have faith in the Pride Week organizers, and I'm sure they'll find a way to get around the whole "bigoted mayor" thing.

I am not completely terrified of Rob Ford as mayor - just yet. I admittedly do not know much about those who have been elected as councillors, and so I don't know how much of his mandate he will really be able to pass. It could be - as many have speculated - that we'll have gridlock until the next election. Not that four years of a stalemate is a good thing, either, as we've seen in our years of minority federal governments, but at least it may mitigate the damage Ford will likely do. With any sort of luck, we can all just look back on the Rob Ford experience in four years as an amusing anecdote, and let the grownups go back to running the city.

New Rules for Canada's Wireless Companies

I've been skeptical of cell phones for a long time. For one, I somehow always seem to get one where the reception is so bad that I'm constantly yelling to be heard, and saying, "What? What?? WHAT DID YOU SAY?!? Oh, forget it..."

Second is the cost of long-distance. I live in the GTA. It's a fact of life that the majority of us are commuters. The reasons, to my way of thinking, for having a cell phone are a) in case you have to call CAA on the side of the 401; and b) to call home to see if dinner will be ready and if you need to pick up garbage bags and arugula from the grocery store. So what good does a $20 per month plan do me if I double that easily in long distance charges? On my land line, I pay less than $30 per month for unlimited long distance anywhere in North America (in case, you know, I need to call someone in Arkansas.) On my cell, it's $0.35 per MINUTE. As in, for a five minute conversation, I just blew $1.75. Do that five times per week and you're looking at $8.75. Multiply that by 4 weeks per month and you've got $35. Plus HST. For 100 minutes of long distance. Hmmm...

Then, of course, there are those mysterious "System Access Fees" and the like. Basically a way of screwing over naive customers who think that they're REALLY paying on $30 per month for their cell phone plan. "Sure it's only $30, but the 'GOVERNMENT' makes us add that fee on." Uh-huh.

So yes, I am not a fan of cell phones. I have the most basic plan I can get with my crappy, horrible reception cell phone.

But truthfully, I want a better phone. I want a better plan. I want to be able to waste time on Twitter and Facebook ANY TIME THAT I WANT! I see all of these Tweets from UberTwitter and Tweetdeck, and I think, "That should be ME!" I have a random thought while out driving, and think "I have to remember to Tweet this - WHEN I get to a computer." It's not fair, people!

I have been with my cell phone carrier for over two years now of a three-year contract. I am eligible for a new phone. I buoyantly went into the store and drooled over the shiny, colourful screens and QWERTY keyboards, ready to fork over a much smaller sum than I would have paid six months ago for a new phone. Except then I was told I had to sign ANOTHER three-year contract to get it. And I don't want to do that.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that the Canadian government is making an attempt to rein in the major cell phone companies. However, rather than being accused of being heavy-handed, they're doing, well, not a lot. Don't hold your breath unless you have the lung capacity of David Blaine or something.

The government has encouraged "self-regulation" in the industry. The companies have adopted a Code of Conduct and are funding an "independent" Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services. Woo hoo. That will work about s well as the doctors who work for the insurance companies in the US, I'm betting.

Quebec, on the other hand, is escaping my wrath this time: they're actually DOING something. They're restricting companies from being able to charge HUGE cancellation fees for ending a contract early. They will be limited to charging the amount of discounts for inexpensive phones given to the customer. If you didn't receive a cheap phone as an incentive, the limit for termination is $50. Contracts also can't be changed mid-stream without giving the customer 30 days notice, and allowing them to terminate the contract without penalty.

The wireless whiners, though, are complaining bitterly, and threatening not to bring the latest phones into Quebec.

You can read more about the changes here.

Shout Out Louder!

Today is Shout the F**k Up Day, according to a group on Facebook. I think it's about time. Today, as well as being Mother's Day (happy Mother's Day to meeeeeeee...) is also the 50th anniversary of the FDA approving "the pill" for use as birth control. It's ironic the way that the current government has been working to take away women's rights.

Conservatives deny it's happening. They say we shouldn't be funding abortion in other countries anyway, citing laws in many of these countries make abortion illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not illegal in ALL of the countries that the G8 is trying to help.

Funding cuts are affecting everyone, they say, not just women's groups, and if new rules created by this government make it easier to deny funding to certain groups, that's just a coincidence. If the Toronto Pride Parade loses it's funding, it's because it's such a big event that it can stand on its own two feet. The Calgary Stampede (which has been around since 1886, by the way) obviously can't.

What does the Pride parade have to do with women's rights? Truthfully, it has everything to do with women's rights now, because the Tories are just showing again that if you're not a white, middle- or upper-class man, they just don't care about you.

The claim this week is that this government has done more to promote safety than any other, and apparently that's what women care about. We don't care about abortion rights at home or abroad, they told us. We don't care about groups promoting women's equality, or protecting women from violence. Isn't it good that they told us that? Because obviously we don't know what we care about without Stephen Harper telling us. And the claim about safety? This is the same government that's trying to dismantle the gun registry, despite a coalition of police officers and chiefs telling them that they want and need it.

Stephen Harper, you do NOT speak for me, and you have no idea what I care about, but I will not STFU just to avoid further backlash. I will use every last breath that I have to keep shouting the f**k up. I am a mother, a daughter and a woman, and there is nothing "fringe" about that.

Stephen Harper Can Bite Me

Okay, not my most eloquent title, but in this case, fitting.

Harper is making Canada a laughingstock amongst the G8 right now. We are the ONLY country that is putting a caveat on what our money can be used for in terms of maternal health in the Third World. Now he's actually got the gall to say that the majority of Canadians don't support allowing abortion funding.

Bite me. Abortion is legal in this country. Abortion is federally funded. Women in this country have access to safe, legal abortions. What gives us the right to deny women in situations that are MUCH worse the same right? The fact is that in most of these countries, pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. If a woman even survives a pregnancy, there may not be enough food to support another mouth in the family. Rape is a common occurrence in many of these places.

Do you know what is considered an abortion in sub-Saharan Africa? Try drinking turpentine or bleach. Impaling themselves. Jumping off roofs.

A woman desperate not to continue a pregnancy will do anything to achieve this goal. It's just pathetic that Harper is crowing about saving women's lives while he's allowing so many to remain at risk. Bev Oda should be ashamed of herself. I'm just disgusted.

Copy of an Email Sent to Colin Carrie, MP for Oshawa

Dear Dr. Carrie,

I have recently become aware of changes that the province of Quebec is making to its healthcare system. As an Ontario resident this usually wouldn't be an issue to me, however in this particular case I am outraged that these changes are being allowed by the Federal government, and worried that the silent approval being given to them will be taken as a sign by the other provinces that going against the Canada Health Act is acceptable.

Quebec is planning to charge a $25 user fee for each doctor's visit, as I'm sure that you're aware. To my knowledge, not a single Federal politician has spoken out against this, despite it being contrary to the Canada Health Act. The Act says quite straightforwardly:

User charges
19. (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province. 

So how is this now acceptable? As you are a medical professional I'm especially bothered by your apparent lack of concern. I understand that the health system in Canada is under great stress, but user fees are simply not the answer. $25 may not seem like very much to some people, but there are so many people in Canada for whom this would be completely out of reach. Even for families such as mine, with four children, if all four children were sick at the same time we would be looking at a $100 bill for a few minutes in urgent care.

Our family lived in the United States for a year, and we have experienced their healthcare system. It is one of the reasons that we returned to Canada, and why I would hesitate to live there again. Even with employer-provided insurance and a relatively healthy family we found healthcare costs to be difficult.

In my experience, user fees do tend to make you think before you go to the doctor, which may be a good thing at first glance, however, if a user fee presents a financial difficulty you may end up avoiding an office visit when one is warranted, possibly leading to a worse medical problem down the road. To me this doesn't make sense: isn't it better to deal with problems at the start and avoid a larger bill to medicare later on? As a wellness practitioner, I would think that you would see the value in regular office visits for preventative care, as well, which might be avoided if they present a financial problem.

I hope that the Conservative Party will speak out against Quebec's planned user fees, and enforce the Canada Health Act. The vast majority of Canadians treasure our national healthcare system and do not want to see it destroyed.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Hill


NOTE: This letter was also cc's to Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Health Leona Aqlukkaq. To find an email address for your own MP, you can look here. I urge you to write a similar letter if you don't want to see Quebec allowed to go against the Canada Health Act.

ARGH!

This is probably why as much as I'd like to, I'll never get into politics.

Yesterday on Climbing Up the Slide I wrote about the new changes to the sex ed curriculum in Ontario. If you didn't read the article, I'm fully in support of them.

What I'm not in support of is wishy-washy politicians who fold at the first sign of protest. A few hours after I wrote my post Dalton McGuinty decided that there hadn't been enough consultation with parents, and that apparently the Catholic bishops hadn't been consulted, and so the changes are "on hold."

You believe in something enough to publicly announce it, then stick to your damned guns! Yes, you may run the risk of alienating some voters, but face it: the ones you're going to alienate wouldn't have voted for you anyway.

I know I'm obnoxiously opinionated. Heck, that's the whole point of this blog. One thing about me is that I'm not easily swayed from my opinions. Not to the point that I won't even consider the other side, but I'm not going to change just because someone tells me (even repeatedly) that I'm wrong. Maybe I wouldn't make a good politician just for that very reason, but then again, maybe I'd make a damned good one.

I'm not sure which to be more upset about...

So hopefully some of my readers can help me decide. Karla Homolka - the shedevil of St. Catharines, is apparently eligible not for parole, but for a pardon - this year.

That's Part One of my outrage tonight.

Part Two of tonight's outrage? That Stephen Harper is blaming this on previous "soft on crime" governments.

May I point something out, Sir?

You have been in power for four years. In all of that time, you never noticed that there were problems with the pardon system? It took the media pointing out that Canada's flawed pardon system had allowed a nasty pedophile asswipe to be legally forgiven, and that one of the country's most infamous serial killers could be pardoned this year (and apparently 99% of those who apply for a pardon receive one - WHAT???) before he realized that there was a PROBLEM???

The one thing I truly hate about politics is the amount of time (and money) wasted on blaming previous governments for problems. You know what? The general population doesn't care who caused the problem, they just want you to fix it.

I swear, if that woman gets pardoned... grrrrr... I don't even know what the appropriate response is to this. I wonder if there will be a response from the French and Mahaffy families.


 

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on Quebec...

...but seriously? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-muslim-woman-ordered-to-unveil-or-leave-french-course/article1530874/

I can understand that in government security situations, your face needs to be seen. If you're presenting your photo ID, the person looking kind of needs to be able to see your face. It's pretty simple that way.

And I'm not a big proponent of veiling women. In fact, I'm generally pretty outspoken about it, however, the fact remains that this is a free country, and if she chooses to wear a veil, well, that's her choice. If she feels that forcing her to remove it is embarrassing to her modesty, then what's the harm? This was an immigrant integration course - the whole point is to help these people integrate into Quebec society. Easing them into it, not throwing them to the wolves. Not handing them a French-English dictionary and a bowl of poutine and putting them down in the middle of Old Quebec City.

What security risk was this woman posing by wearing her veil in class? The teacher didn't object. Her classmates didn't object. Where is the logic in this?