H is for Hope

One final off the cuff blog before the election tomorrow. And the word is about Hope for a different tomorrow. The hope is that all those who said they would go out to vote will or already have voted and if the polls are correct, or even close, we will have an amazing new vision of Canada. If as many people vote for Jack Layton and the NDP promises the politicians will know that Canadians are ready to embrace a more practical and down to earth type of government that cares about families and the day to day concerns of average Canadians.
Together we cannot be ignored.
There is hope for all Canadians tomorrow night.
Good luck Canada.

Publish Post

E is for Electronic Media

The polls are certainly exciting but as the old adage says “the proof is in the pudding”. Until the votes are cast and counted there is no certainty as to which party is the electorate’s favourite. It’s been many years since the NDP have enjoyed such a surge of popularity and perhaps we can credit some of this to the electronic age. The message of the “minor” parties is getting out at long last. The use of Twitter, Facebook and other electronic media appears to be as successful in this election as it was in the latest Calgary election where Major Nenshi rode the wave right into the major’s seat.

For far too many years the power to sway opinion has been in the hands of the powerful (and greedy) owners of the newspapers, radio and television. To date we have the good fortune to have relatively unmanipulated access to internet, blogs, websites and other electronic media that can be utilized at little or no expense. Thus the smaller parties have an equal chance in getting their messages out to the populace, or at least the electronically savvy populace. Young people are becoming more and more involved in politics as a result and their minds are not affected by the smear campaigns currently on television ads and mainstream editorials.

This is going to be one interesting election come May 2^nd.

Remember to vote as your vote counts and your opinion matters. Vote for yourself.

Z is for Zoomers

When Moses Znaimer took over CARP magazine he changed the name to Zoomer and coined or utilized the name as the senior Boomers. Seniors is an important part of our society and should be an important part of this election campaign. The NDP have made promises to double the pension for seniors.

As we have written before, seniors are our hidden poor. When we say hidden we mean that they are a self respecting and quiet group. Too much so perhaps, but that is the Canadian way. Canadians are not known for making waves. We are generally a placid population. But to overlook the senior votes is becoming more of a mistake with each passing year as the boomers move into their zoomer years. This is the group who regularly vote and this may be one of the reasons why the NDP are gaining on the other parties. Not only the youth are disenchanted with the records of the 2 prominent parties. The seniors are taking a hard look at what is to their best interest.

The NDP are gaining momentum in the polls to the point that the last few days both the Conservatives and the Liberals have begun attacks on Jack Layton. Voting for the NDP will not split the vote in a way that will be detrimental to the voters. It will be detrimental to the other parties but that can only be a good thing for the voters. Don’t be fooled. Don’t blink.

Y is for Youth

Franklin Roosevelt said “Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves-and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” The same can be said for any nation’s people. We note that the percentage of youth going out to vote seems be on the increase. In 2004 37% of youth (18-24) went out to vote, in 2006 it increased to 44%. Currently there is a push by “vote mobs” to get university students out to vote and with the power of Twitter and Facebook there appears to be some success in getting youth engaged in politics.

In the past we have seen youth become engaged when there has been a charismatic leader or when social issues were at the forefront of a campaign. In the USA youth were involved in the Sixties with issues such as the Vietnam War, Civil Rights and Women’s Rights. Recently we saw Barack Obama bring out the youth vote during the 2008 presidential campaign.

This election is focusing a lot on health care and a possible coalition government, topics of little interest to most youth. It will be interesting to see if anything in the next few days can turn the election around and arose the interest of our youth to get out there and exercise their right to vote. The bottom line, voting can turn tides, your votes do count particularly when one looks at the “popular vote”.

Get involved, be informed, exercise the vote your forefathers and foremothers fought so hard to get.

X is for Xenophobia

Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners. We will segue to immigration on this concern.

What are the parties’ stance on immigration? None of the party platforms has one specifically on Immigration at least not easily identified on their platform site. But a recent questionnaire found all 5 parties (including the Green) answered the question “How many more immigrants should Canada admit?”

NDP, Green and Liberals – Somewhat more

Conservatives and Bloc – About the same.

Each had a somewhat different reason for wanting immigration to continue. The Liberals said:

With declining domestic birth rates and an aging population, Canada is already facing critical skills shortages that will reach alarming levels unless we find a sustainable solution.

If we are to attract much-needed skilled labour and professionals from around the world, we must: invest in our immigration system to ensure it can deal with increasing demand; encourage skilled immigrants to make Canada their home and realize that welcoming their immediate families is a vital part of making Canada an attractive and viable destination. [p. 3]Source: Alan Tonks Report (Summer 2008)The editors question the purpose of immigration to acquire “skilled labour” but rather to acquire “cheap labour”. What we see is that most of our industries have now been shipped to other countries where labour is cheaper. For example, even our technical labour such as engineering and design work is being sent to Korean and Thailand and our call centres are now in India. Canadians at home are not skilled enough to answer telephone queries? We have almost no (grand scale) manufacturing left in Canada and even are auto industry has been disseminated.

The true fact is that while immigrants may have skills from their country when they come to Canada they are essentially “cheap labour” and are working for minimum wage in restaurants, shops, taxi cabs and so forth. Let’s not kid ourselves, we all see it. There are qualified engineers, doctors, nurses and other professionals from around the world who are working as janitors in Canada. Bringing cheap labour to Canada benefits no one but the businesses hiring the cheap labour. It is essential an exploitation of individuals desperate for a better life being lured to Canada under false pretences. At the same time it keeps the minimum wage down which impacts the rest of Canadians.

Canada’s top 5 exports (in 2010) were:

#1 Petroleum products 64 billion $
#2 Passenger vehicles (cars & Vans) 37 billion $
#3 Car parts & accessories 16 Billion $
#4 Aluminum products 8 billion $
#5 Lumber 7 billion $
Fastest growing exports
#1 Sugar 43 million; #2 Zinc 1.4 billion; #3 Precious Metals 700 million; #4 Oil drilling equipment 1 billion; #5 Copper 2 billion

W is for Welfare

Welfare is a sensitive topic both for the people who are on “welfare” or social assistance, and for the people who feel they are paying for it. What we find interesting is that while the media and others sling around words like “abusing the system” we have never discovered a statistic that actually puts a figure to the number of individuals who may be abusing the system. We find this particularly interesting when we are inundated with all kinds of statistics, from polls taken for who will vote what to how many people will die of cancer in a single minute. And yet for something which seems to be so much on every one’s mind there is not a single statistic mentioned about how many people are abusing the system. Could it be because if we knew there were 12,000 people out of 36 million plus people we would realize that in proportion there are relatively few actually misusing the welfare system?

You see our point.

Welfare, or social assistance, was implemented to help people in need. The latest complete information is this: In 2005 there was a total of 1,679,800 on social assistance of which 500,000 were children. Therefore taking 1.1 million people out of a population of 32,359,000 is about 2.9% of the population that were getting assistance (excluding the children, for this purpose). Out of that 2.9% of the population what percent would be abusing the system? Even if we said it was 50% (which is extremely high and very unlikely) we would be looking at 1.4% of the population. Is that anything to get distraught about when good is being accomplished? Families are being cared for to some extent.

If we embraced the Scandinavian model we could eliminate poverty in this country in less than 20 years. We encourage readers to view the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model

V is for Vision

We have frequently heard “vision” as part of our politicians’ speech but have you ever thought it was a vision worthy of the word? We watched Barack Obama’s speeches during his campaign and while he spoke about Change and the Audacity of Hope we felt he did not present a solid case for these promises.

If we had the opportunity to ask our candidates one question it would be this “What is your number one priority for Canada?” and we want to hear only one answer. We do NOT want to hear about balanced budgets. We do NOT want to hear about $1,000 scholarship funds. We do NOT want to hear about nebulous family tax breaks some years down the road. The answer, the only ACCEPTABLE any voter OUGHT to want to hear is “Canadians”. We have yet to hear that simple response to a question never posed.

We are supposed to be living in a democracy which means, and we quote:

· Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

Our Vision of Canada and our government is that each and every one of its citizens is cared for “and no man (or woman, or child) is left behind”.

U is for Utopia

Utopia was a world conceived originally by Plato in his Republic and then built upon by Sir Thomas More in 1516 with his book of the same name. Human nature being what it is however leads the editors to the belief that Utopia will always be outside our grasp. Nevertheless there is no need to relinquish the possibility of making our country and our world a better place.

We are frustrated when we find our political leaders use Australia or New Zealand as examples to strive towards whether it be in the field of health care or taxation models. What makes them believe that these disasters are a path to follow? It’s like making the same mistake as our educational system did when they decided to substitute basic arithmetic for “new math”. We can see how well that has worked in society. Have you ever had a cashier stand stupefied because she couldn’t add $10.00 to $19.23? Twice in the last little while! Bless my soul! We digress.

It would behove our leaders to take a much closer look at Scandinavia, Finland, The Netherlands or Germany as countries with high success rates in satisfying their citizens on most levels. Indeed, Denmark is frequently sited as being the country with the happiest people in the world. Now there is something to strive towards.

Not to be daunted English is an official language in Denmark so there is no need to be worried that our leaders wouldn’t be able to understand the language. That they wouldn’t understand the concepts is another matter but we would ask the question – “if they don’t comprehend the concept should they be our leader?”

T is for Taxation

It seems that everyone the world over complains about paying taxes but we complain just as much about the things we are NOT getting from our taxes. Insufficient health care is number one concern right now across the country but there are other deficiencies as well. There isn’t enough money spent on education. Our children are the future of this country and it behoves us to provide them with an education that will make them happy and productive citizens. Post secondary education should be affordable and available to those who want it and have the potential to continue onwards to a profession.

Our infrastructure is not only behind our growth but also behind Europe in providing adequate service to the population. Alberta has the most gravel roads of any province in the country and yet it is the richest province by far. Premier Getty was able to have his constituency’s gravel roads paved while he was governing the province but did other rural areas get some grants for paving their roads? Not only are vehicles damaged underneath and windshields cracked incessantly but there are also more accidents on rural roads caused unnecessarily because the roads are ill kept. I would far sooner see another road paved than fund a museum, zoo or stadium. Roads are essential, the other facilities are luxuries and should be secondary to prime need. If one individual lives 20 miles from the nearest paved road it is incumbent on our system to provide safe, paved roads for that taxpayer before we spend an equal sum on a skating rink for wannabee hockey players.

A large percentage of our seniors live below the poverty line. Most of these seniors were productive taxpayers through their entire lives but were unable to save for their retirement for one reason or another. Our taxes ought to be able to fund seniors with pensions to keep them in line with middle income levels. As previously noted the average combined pension is about $12,000. To have a modest living a minimum should be $24,000. I anticipate the question “whose going to pay for it?” We all are but wouldn’t you rather have your tax dollar go to pensions than fund a war in Afghanistan, or fund airplanes without motors, or provide gravytrain pensions for useless political hacks? Not to mention why are the pension fund coffers so low? The baby boomers have put money into these funds since 1963 and if the fund had been segregated and managed prudently there ought to be huge surpluses in the CPP. Instead our government has used these monies to fund other areas of the government and has thus loss untold billions. Shameful.

Taxation is here to stay but it is the duty of our government to use the tax dollars wisely and for the benefit of ALL its taxpayers. As yourself which government is most likely to use the funds to the ultimate good of the largest majority of the population?

S is for Socialism

When most people hear the world “socialism” they immediately equate it with communism. In its infant stage in the early 1800’s this may have been true but the evolution of democratic socialism more nearly resembles capitalism with a social conscience. Exemplary examples of democratic socialism are the Scandinavian countries where capitalism thrives despite corporations being required to pay high taxes. The philosophy is that no corporation’s interests are held higher than the individual’s greater good.

Quite simply what this means is that corporations and individuals are taxed on what we may perceive as the high side but the result is significant social benefits distributed to persons equally. This includes high quality health care (inclusive of pharmaceuticals), senior pensions at a level commensurate with a similar standard of living to when they were working, post secondary education is free, infrastructure is developed with urban growth rates and unemployment and social services are also at a level where individuals may live in dignity. The individual rights are respected above the rights of corporations and yet these countries are thriving.

• 
  
  The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with heavy state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy. Although sensitive to global business cycles, the economy of Norway has shown robust growth since the start of the industrial era. Shipping has long been a support of Norway's export sector, but much of Norway's economic growth has been fueled by an abundance of natural resources, including petroleum exploration and production, hydroelectric power, and fisheries. Agriculture and traditional heavy manufacturing have suffered relative decline compared to services and oil-related industries, and the public sector is among the largest in the world as a percentage of the overall gross domestic product. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system.


• 
  
  Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state, ranks as having the world's highest level of income equality. Denmark has frequently ranked as the happiest and least corrupt country in the world. Denmark has been a member of the European Union since 1973, although it has not joined the Eurozone. Denmark is a founding member of NATO and the OECD. Denmark is also a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).


• 
  
  Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy of government and a highly developed economy. In 2010, it ranked fourth in the world in The Economist's Democracy Index and ninth in the United Nations' Human Development Index. In 2010, Sweden had the fastest economic growth and highest innovation in the European Union, while the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the second most competitive country in the world. Sweden is recognized as an industrial and technological leader in several fields.^[

As you can see, these countries are strong forward thinking countries. Socialism benefits society as a whole providing all individuals with a dignity that is certainly not illustrated in the United States. Homelessness is unheard of in any of the Scandinavian countries and poverty does not exist at all. What is there to be afraid of by having compassion for your fellow man? The United States has more churches per capital than any country in the world and yet does not live by the Golden Rule “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. In other words, by paying taxes that will support persons you may think of as derelicts you will eventually be raising up society as a whole. Forward thinking is a good thing.

R is for Remembrance

Ask yourself this question. If you knew there would be no accountability for your actions and the treasury was open to you, what would you do? If you found a bag of money in some ditch, would you keep it or would you take it to the police station?

If the same government has been in power for over 40 years do you think it would be untarnished or is there a possibility of corruption? What has been happening in Lybia these 30 years with Qaddafi in power? What would you see if you looked into the Alberta account books?

Doesn’t it make sense that we should shake up our political parties once in a while so they do not become complaisant? Remember, if you continue to do what you’ve always done you will continue to get what you’ve always got. Wake up Alberta. Wake up Canada. Voters have a responsibility to use their best judgment on what is right for them and their country.

Don’t have a selective memory. Remember the scandals, the questionable behaviours, remember when our politicians gave themselves exorbitant raises and pensions and how little went to the ordinary senior citizens. Remember when the roof fell in on our school with our children inside? Remember the patronage appointments, the stacked Senate. Remember when the Reform Party promised to abolish the Senate (and remember how many Reform MPs said they wouldn’t take the pension and all but one of them signed up for the pension as soon as they became eligible?) Remember all the promises, the denials, and then be responsible about how you vote on Election Day. Make our politicians accountable! Remember, remember, remember.

Q is for Quebec

So what does the rest of Canada think about Quebec? There are many who wish to see Quebec remain as part of Canada but at what cost? For the last 45 odd years Quebec has threatened to leave Canada and the cost to the rest of the country has been extremely expensive. More than 60% of our federal tax dollar goes to Quebec and yet Quebec does not have 60% of the population. Why is that? Simply, the political parties, especially the Liberals have tried to buy favour in Quebec by, essentially, “paying them off”.

Does anyone in the rest of Canada truly believe that Quebec would ever leave this gravy train? Have you noticed in the last decade they have begun to use the term “sovereign association” in place of “separation”. Again, this can only mean that they will not be governed by the laws of the rest of Canada but they will gladly grab as much of the tax dollar as they possibly can get away with.

Next time Quebec calls for a separatist referendum it would be incumbent on the rest of Canada to hold their own referendum on whether we want to keep Quebec in. It might be a rather daunting result for Quebec. Let’s call their bluff and get this over and done with once and for all.

P is for Parliament

The Parliamentary process is basically simple.

Parliamentary procedure is the body of rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings. It is part of the common law originating primarily in the practices of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, from which it derives its name. At its heart is the rule of the majority with respect for the minority. Its object is to allow deliberation upon questions of interest to the organization and to arrive at the sense or the will of the assembly upon these questions.

There has been a lot of debate, arguments and concerns regarding a possible coalition government but let us be clear. A Coalition government is a legal form of government and has been used in Canada both nationally and at the provincial level. A coalition government includes members of different political parties and normally appears during crises such as war or political breakdown.

· The fluidity of party lines, the predominance of patronage, and the novelty of responsible government led to several experimental coalition arrangements in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada in the 1840s and 1850s. The best known were in 1854 and 1864 (the GREAT COALITION) in the Province of Canada.

· At the national level, the only coalition has been Sir Robert BORDEN'S 1917 UNION GOVERNMENT. At the provincial level coalitions have occurred in western Canada. Manitoba Liberals and Progressives combined in 1931, and in 1940 all the province's parties joined a nonpartisan administration formed to meet wartime demands. In BC a wartime coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives held off the challenge of the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION.

Watching the debate tonight it was clear that all parties are attempting to distance themselves from past attempts at a coalition government and a possible future coalition government. We feel that a coalition government could be an effective government for the country, particularly if it would avoid yet another election. Whether a government is elected as a minority and working with another party to stay in power, or whether the 3 with a lesser majority form a government to topple the “minority” government is simply semantics. Frequently governments are formed and yet the “popular” vote would have caused a different outcome.

While we don’t feel there were any clear winners in the debate Prime Minister Harper certainly was not effective with his constant denials of information that is already proved true to the public. It seems certain that Mr. Harper is not living in the real world and giving him a majority government will prove the real disaster for Canada. Mr. Ignatieff reiterated again and again that Harper and his government have been found in contempt of Parliament. Only imagine what may happen if he won a majority.

O is for Obfuscate

It’s meaning: Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.

This is not only Mr. Harper’s theme through the election but through his whole administration. There is nothing clear or above board in his government. The promises on the campaign trail are not candid. Certainly he is saying he will improve this or that, but always with the proviso “when the deficit is cleared up” and let’s face it, the deficit will never be cleared up.

That’s all we have to say about this subject. For tonight.

N is for NDP

A little history is warranted here.

The NDP evolved from the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) which grew from populist, agrarian and democratic socialist roots into a modern social-democratic party. The federal party has broadened to include concerns of the New Left, and advocates issues such as gay rights, international peace, and environmental stewardship.

In 1956, after the birth of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) by a merger of two previous labour congresses, negotiations began between the CLC and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) to bring about an alliance between organized labour and the political left in Canada. In 1958 a joint CCF-CLC committee, the National Committee for the New Party (NCNP), was formed to create a "new" social-democratic political party, with ten members from each group. The NCNP spent the next three years laying down the foundations of the New Party. In 1961, at the end of a five-day long Founding Convention which established its principles, policies and structures, the New Democratic Party was born and Tommy Douglas, the long-time CCF Premier of Saskatchewan, was elected its first leader.^[7] In 1960, before the NDP was founded, one candidate, Walter Pitman, won a by-election under the New Party banner.

The influence of organized labour on the party is still reflected in the party's conventions as affiliated trade unions send delegates on a formula based on their number of members.

The NDP has never formed the federal government, but has at times wielded influence during federal minority governments, such as in the recent 40th Parliament as well as the preceding 39th and (particularly) the 38th Parliaments of 2004-2008. The NDP also enjoyed considerable influence during the earlier minority Liberal governments of Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, due to being a large enough group to decide outcomes when the others are split. The NDP elected a record 43 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the election of 1988.

New Democrats today advocate, among other things:

· Gender equality and equal rights for LGBT residents

· Improving environmental protection through government regulations

· National water safety standards

· Increasing corporate taxes

· Reducing poverty in Canada

· Aggressive human rights protection

· Expanding funding for public transportation

· Expanding public health care, including dental and prescription drug coverage

· Social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assist their re-entry to the work force

· Abolishing the unelected Senate of Canada and ensuring more proportional representation

· Workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to pace the cost of living

· Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rights

· A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action

· Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

· One wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs

M is for Minority Governments

There have been 11 minority governments in Canada, 13 if you count the ones replaced in between governments. Of the minority governments the most productive were those led by Lester B. Pearson when he worked with the NDP and brought in many of the social safety net programs now in existence notably the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Health System. Interestingly while the various Liberal minority governments worked effectively with the NDP the Conservative minority governments have refused to work with any of the opposition parties during their brief stints as minority governments. One wonders what the principle is that holds the Conservative government back from working with other elected members of parliament to become an effective government? The Conservative government has made no real contributions to the Canadian social programs and the current administration’s promises are only dependent on clearing the deficit, and one can be virtually certain that by the time that is done the promises will be obsolete and forgotten. Quite pitiful.

Many voters are grumbling about the fact that they are going into a third election in 5 years, but let’s look at who is really the one causing the failure of this government. Prime Minister Harper flatly refuses to gain the support of any of the other opposition parties with any sort of concessions. The only reason his government has held up as long as it has is because the other parties have been reluctant to bring Canada to another election but enough is enough. There appear to be too many concessions to large corporations and not enough consideration to the majority of taxpayers and voters. The offerings are niggardly at best. In fact, considering the extraordinary amount of raises of the past few years to MPs and the insulting eight cents per month seniors were given (that was the same year the MPs got an additional $16,000 to $60,000 per year).

L is for Liberal

Liberals do have a positive legacy and of the two parties that have run this country for the last 150 years the Liberals have brought in the most in progressive change, albeit frequently at the behest of pressure from our NDP (or predecessor, the CCF) friends.

Between 1921 and 1948, they introduced several measures that led to the creation of Canada's social safety net. Bowing to popular pressure, they introduced the mother's allowance, a monthly payment to all mothers with young children. They also reluctantly introduced old age pensions when J. S. Woodsworth required it in exchange for his Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party's support of King's minority government.

Later, Lester B. Pearson introduced universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, Canada Student Loans, and the Canada Assistance Plan (which provided funding for provincial welfare programs).

During the 2011 election the Liberal party's policies include:

· Introduction of a family care plan for Canadians supporting ill family members

· Pension plan reform

· Additional investment in higher education

· Deficit reduction and spending restraint

· Maintain corporate tax rates at 2010 levels

· Restoration of the long-form census

· Quadruple renewable energy production, including wind, solar and biomass energy sources

· Introduce a national food policy to support Canadian farmers

Food for thought.

K is for Kneejerk Reactions

The Globe and Mail had an article in the paper yesterday discussing the Liberals Red Book likening it to Trudeauism. It’s like throwing a live bomb into Alberta since Trudeau is a name not appreciated well in this province. Kneejerk Reaction. Some of the promises quoted didn’t seem too threatening or concern worthy.

What concerns us is the continuing “scandals” that are cropping up in Prime Minister Harper’s government. This week there were more revelations on his aide Carson’s criminal convictions which leads one to wonder what sort of security checks go on in the Prime Minister’s office. There have been a number of questionable activities going on in this government’s inner circle that should definitely raise ethical concerns.

Referencing past articles, investigate, and make your own judgments without kneejerk reactions of the moment. One should make solid decisions and look for all the facts as they are obtainable.

J is for Judgment

As discussed in the previous blog, one should Investigate the various parties, priorites and results. One should then use one’s own best Judgment in making a decision about what is going to be best for you and your family in the long run.

Judging the records of past governments can be a very simple thing, or more involved, depending on one’s approach. Very simply, in the last 2 years have you, the Voter found yourself in better circumstances with the Harper method of governing. More involved, has the country found itself stronger with the decisions made by Harper? Have we seen a transparent and open method of governing? How is our economy fairing? Are people making fair wages and getting the support of their Labour Standard Boards to ensure fair hours, fair benefits and fair conditions in the work place?

What about the escalating costs of pharmaceuticals? Are this reasonable costs for an individual to bear? How many schools are either closing down or are in serious disrepair because of cutbacks? Many schools in Alberta were in poor condition even though the province was running at a surplus for almost a decade. How is that possible?

And what ever happend to our Heritage Fund here in Alberta? That is a mystery. Compare its coffers to those of Norway or Alaska. Something doesn’t add up. Where did the money go?

Judgment, not suspicion. Investigate. Find out what is going on with our political parties and how accountable are they really? The only way you, the Voter, can make the accountable is by voting on Election Day and showing your approval or disapproval. Remember Ontario in 1992 voted NDP to show their disapproval of their previous governments. Remember when Ralph Klein, the underdog became major of Calgary. Voters showed disapproval of the status quo and MADE THEIR VOICES HEARD.

This is your opportuntity to Judge your government. Make it count.