Jean Sansum's Site

On thinking over the fact that pets are now filling a new role - that of companion, comforter, family - it occurred to me that with the fragmentation of families and neighbourhoods and the loss of personal contact, pets play the same role that religion offers. It can be a comfort to belong to a group, to have someone (or something) to turn to in times of need, to look to for companionship and comfort. The internet also serves much the same purpose. E-mail, newsletters, blogs, YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter seem like people reaching out for contact and association. Where some turn to their pets for companionship and connection, I turn to the net and my online friends. Where they take their dogs for a walk, I write letters, edit a newsletter, read news groups and their comments, and play games. Books too - old friends that I visit many times, until I've nearly worn the print off the pages. (I've read my Terry Pratchett books so many times that it is a real joy to have a new one to reread, which happened just recently.) It is almost as if the loss of extended families, small towns, and church affiliations has forced us into new channels. We are, after all, social animals. Not many of us are cut out to be hermits, so we reach out to friends and family around the world via the internet, and we adopt pets. Maybe I should get a cat....

An American friend wrote: I am shocked, dismayed and disillusioned by the suspension of Parliament. As I understand it, your PM was facing a no-confidence vote, got permission from the Queen's representative, and put the government into limbo while he considered his strategy. Here I had thought Canada was independent of the Queen, and that its democratic processes were more scrupulously observed than ours.

This is my reply:

You should indeed be shocked by the unscrupulous tactics of our PM. The office of Governor General, while ostensibly representative of the Crown in Canada, is a political appointment, and it was this PM who appointed our GG to her post. So she was very open to arm-twisting, which is what went on in private.

It came about thus: Our PM proposed to eliminate the $1.75 each party receives from the public purse, which would have resulted in the virtual destruction of the opposing parties, whose finances are in disarray. But the Conservatives get most of their financial support from BB (big business to you), and are not reliant on the this source of funds, so they would have been unaffected by the measure. He proposed canceling this fund in the name of saving money, while anticipating that this would effectively destroy the opposition, leaving the neo-cons a clear field for years to come.

In addition to that, he proposed to take away the right to strike of civil servants; he was going to roll back the equal pay provisions in government (why should those uppity women get the same pay as men doing the same job?); and he claimed the government has no money to engage in infrastructure repair or other measures to alleviate the distress of those who have lost their jobs, and will do so in future.

What did he expect the opposition to do? Vote for their own destruction? But he was mightily surprised when they turned on him, proposed to co-operate with each other, and to form an alternative to his government. They threatened to bring the government down, which is why he recalled the GG from her foreign tour to persuade her to abrogate Parliament, to give him time to repair his fences and appeal to the Canadian people with a series of high-priced scare tactics. He has learned well from his models in the GOP that fear works, and is trumpeting that because the opposition includes a representatives of the "separatists" in English ("sovereignists" in his French speech), a coalition will surely destroy Canada.

This is in spite of his having courted the Quebecois to try to gather enough support during the last election to win a majority government. They were no threat at that time; now they are the enemy within, just waiting to break up Canada.

In recent years the Quebecois have made no moves to form their own country, and have voted against such proposals a number of times, but if he pokes them long enough, they will decide that they don't need this kind of prejudice against them in their own country, and will indeed consider leaving. So if Canada does break up, it will be thanks to Mr. Harper, who is risking national unity in order to hang onto his precarious position as prime minister.

He did not dare face the vote of non-confidence, and so pressured the GG to give him breathing space. Now we will be subjected to zillions of dollars worth of Conservative propaganda before Parliament comes into session again, all railing against the "opportunism" and "grab for power" and "immorality" and "reckless behaviour" of the opposition, who dare to oppose him.

Unfortunately, as was proven in the US, fear tactics work.

The stirring election in the United States has resulted in the election of a new leader with a mandate to effect great changes. President-elect Obama has a daunting task in the face of the economic disaster, the expenditure of vast sums of borrowed money on an unjustified war, the erosion of personal rights and liberties, and the threat of climate change. Expectations are high and people are filled with hope of change after eight years of the Republicans' disastrous reign.

Here in Canada I've pretty well lost hope for change after too many of us voted for the status quo in the recent futile election. I had hoped for a much stronger opposition to curb the excesses of the Harper government, but strategic voting did not have the desired result. Now all I can hope for is co-operation among the opposition members to ensure that Harper's vision of a smaller federal government with few social responsibilities does not prevail.

I remember the great Depression, and I do not want to see Canadians go through that again. Given Harper's philosophy, I have small hope that he will initiate major infrastructure improvements to repair what has long been neglected and to give employment to the people who have lost their jobs, or will shortly do so.

I remember all too clearly my family of four living on $20 a month, and my father working for $1 a day in the "relief camps". We were told there was no money, but as soon as war was declared, suddenly it appeared. Servicemen were recruited; uniforms and weapons were supplied; ships were built and armed; factories hummed and manufacturers were busy again. Money was readily available for purposes of war where it had not been accessible for the welfare of the population.

Men joined the armed forces all across the country - not solely because of patriotism or desire to serve their country, but because there were no jobs. High school boys joined up practically en masse, and no doubt the "hobos" who had been riding the rails in a vain search for work in other parts of the country also joined.

My fear is that this could recur. There will be no money for infrastructure, but plenty to fight an unwinnable war in a far-off country, and to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic. Men and women will be needed to fill the ranks in the military, which will solve part of the unemployment problem.

And oh yes, and there will be money to build more prisons to house the growing number of offenders, many of whom will be desperate people who have lost their jobs and their homes in the financial melt-down. Perhaps that is Harper's plan to solve unemployment? After all, jobs will be created in building and staffing prisons and enforcing the draconian laws.

We've not heard any of Harper's plans to prepare for the coming depression or slow-down beyond "staying the course" (whatever that is), and "buying low". Perhaps these other plans are in the works?

Gentlemen,

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country! Never has this been more evident than now, when we are faced with the neo-conservative agenda of reducing the national government to the role of controlling only the military, law enforcement, and banking; and deep integration with the United States, an empire which is disintegrating.

Please forget the differences in your platforms that divide your parties and combine to fight this right-wing government intent on the destruction of our Canadian values and traditions! You owe it to the disenfranchised who represent 62% of the electorate to lay aside your differences and truly represent the voters who trusted you to look out for their welfare.

This is your opportunity to go down in history as true statesmen, willing to sacrifice personal ambitions for the good of the country we all love. Please come together with all the power of your convictions to fight this truly terrifying attack on Canada!

http://greenpolitics.ca/2008/10/05/time-for-a-coalition-of-the-opposition

This site recommends an idea that offers a solution to the problem of a fragmented opposition which cannot effectively defeat government motions that do not represent a majority opinion: Let the opposition parties which represent more than 60% of the voters form a coalition government.

This would be unprecedented in Canada, but works in Europe. Why not here? We should not be stuck in the past, adhering to old ways because that is the way we have always done it! Let us go into the uncertain future with new solutions to tackle the economic and environmental problems that face us.

The present system of government consists of a number of political parties facing each other, squabbling like a bunch of kids on a playground, hurling insults, and ignoring everyone else's ideas - no matter how worthy - because they did not think of them first. This is not what they were elected to do, which was to represent the interests of the voters who put them there: to help find  solutions to vital problems of health, environment, employment, education, an aging workforce, childcare and eldercare. This is no way to run a small business, let alone the business of a nation.

But first things first: let's vote strategically to defeat the Conservatives, who have been leading us in directions the majority of us do not want to go. Go to http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/ to find if your riding is closely contested, and if it is, check out how to vote strategically to ensure ABC - anything but the Conservatives.

Next, if the opposition parties represent more than 60% of the electorate, let us urge them to put aside their personal ambitions and unite to form a government to solve those pressing problems. Let us appeal to their patriotism, their promises to serve Canada to the best of their abilities, their hope to go down in history as great leaders who dared to take the initiative to cooperatively decide what is best for the country. Let us remind them that united they stand; divided, they fall.

Lastly, with these two objectives obtained, let us insist that the old first-past-the-post form of government be abandoned. We would not be pioneering a new idea - other countries have successfully collaborated to let their governments represent the majority of their citizens. Adversarial government is so 19th century!