It should be interesting to see how the next four years goes in Canada. Let’s hope that the predictions about Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda don’t come to pass. Something every government should keep in mind, if it is to survive, is that it must govern according to a real majority of the population and not just its voters. My hope is that any changes the Conservative party does make to Canada are in accordance with the values of Canadians and not what desire them to be.

No, you’re not in a parallel universe: NDP as Official Opposition

In Quebec the Liberals and Conservatives took six seats each, with the Bloc at 4 and the NDP picking up 59 of 75. I expected the NDP to do well tonight, but I did not expect the absolute landslide of support for the NDP or for them to become the Official Opposition. It seems to really have come at the expense of the Bloc Quebecois, and in a major way!

The Bloc was nearly wiped off the electoral map (not a bad thing) only being elected in four seats, compared to their 49 just before the election. Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe failed to be re-elected. Lets hope that is the last we hear of separatists in Quebec. There are provincial elections coming, so who knows?

Liberals: time for a new leader (again)

The Liberals have been plagued by weak leaders so I’m curious who’ll come up next after the drubbing the Liberals took. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff failed in his re-election bid. I wouldn’t have predicted that. I thought the Liberals would slide in support but not the huge fall from 77 to 34 seats.

I noticed Justin Trudeau won his seat. Perhaps a new round of Trudeaumania will be coming for Canada?

Was Ignatieff really the right choice for the Liberals? He never seemed to be a very strong opposition leader and missed many opportunities to attack the Conservative party on some very serious issues. That is the role of the Official Opposition after all, and I think that Ignatieff did fail there.

He was certainly lacking in the likeability department. He’s probably a great guy, but he never really came across as a strong leader and it seems that the Liberal campaign really went downhill after the debate, with the NDP picking up all that support.

Green Party’s first seat

One bright spot in this election was that Green Party leader Elizabeth May got her party’s first seat! That is good news. Perhaps we’ll see that change with more seats in the next election. I’m sure everyone will be keeping an eye on her and the Green Party.

Diversity? What diversity?

If you look at the prairie provinces, once again there’s a distinct lack of political diversity, federally. Alberta has one NDP seat, Saskatchewan one Liberal and Manitoba jumps up to three seats: two NDP and one Liberal. Not much opposition representation for three provinces.

Ending party politics

I am tired of party politics and have said a few times before that I’d like to see political parties abolished. I would prefer a system much like Nunavut’s non-partisan legislature. No political parties and elected officials can vote on issues however they like. No control freaks need apply. Elected officials can also do a better job representing their constituents.

I’m not naive enough to think Canada will ever move to this sort of system, but I can hope. We expect accountability from our politicians, but there is none in political parties at all. Parties all preach openness, but that openness seems to be inversely proportional to their distance from power.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some form of proportional representation so that our Parliament more closely reflects the breakdown of the vote. I’m not going to hold my breath that it’ll happen in the next four years either. It’s much more easily achieved though, and a few years back B.C. nearly got a proportional representation system in the single transferrable vote.

Predictions I hope won’t come true

Here are some of the predictions I had made about what we might see from a Conservative majority. How many will happen?

I predict a Harper majority will:

• bring back the death penalty
• expand the prison system, populate it, privatize it
• ban abortion
• further increase military spending – $30 billion on jets with no engines will be nothing
• bring in more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
• run up the debt & increase the deficit
• privatize healthcare
• squeeze the middle class even further
• kill the CBC
• further turn Canada into a police state (G20 was a warmup)

Other things I would add to the list:

• InSite safe injection site in Vancouver will be shut down
• expanded war on drugs (have to fill those prisons)
• expanded foreign worker programs
• abolish gay marriage, move to limit gay rights
• failure to protect Canadians from Internet company gouging

What will happen? Time will tell. I hope I’m wrong on this list more than I’m right. What do you think?

Interesting foreign view of Canada’s election.

One has to wonder what else we’re going to find out about the design and preparations at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

I’m rather tired of people talking about the science behind nuclear power and about how safe it is. First of all, theoretically, anything can be made safe. Science is irrelevant.

The relevant factors are engineering and business. This will determine the ultimate safety of any system. It’s a natural inclination for any business to minimize costs. Engineering any system can be an expensive process, and with something like nuclear power, cutting corners can be costly, as we’ve seen.

There have been serious questions about the safety of the GE Mark I reactors, such that three GE nuclear scientists resigned in process. It’s not about science because, theoretically, nuclear power is safe and can be contained.

In GE’s case, it’s about business and engineering. Oh, statistics play a role here too. They probably have a statistician on staff who gave them the odds against the critical events the GE 3 warned against.

Business decisions by GE probably dictated that they weren’t going to toss the Mark I design and start over. Why waste that investment?

The engineering, obviously, was an issue. Other reactor designs are likely much better than GE’s Mark I. The GE 3 obviously were so concerned about it that they went public with their concerns and resigned from GE.

It’s not a science issue at all. As happens in so many cases, there are other issues at play in man-made disasters, but people mistakenly or intentionally obfuscate those issues with the weak appeal to authority argument (science).

I understand the science behind the reactor, containment, cooling, etc. I trust the science. We’ve studied it for 60 years. So what? I also understand people and that’s the problem I have. I don’t trust the people behind these power plants. If they weren’t heavily regulated, we’d have far more problems than we do now, given the propensity of business to spend as little as absolutely required on virtually anything.

Heavy regulation of these types of operations is no guarantee of safety either, but it’s a start. Regulations have required nuclear plants to have multiple redundant systems to ensure that if problems or accidents happen, we don’t see catastrophic failures such as those at each of the Fukushima reactors.

Evidently Japan’s regulation of these plants was inadequate, especially given the level of earthquake and tsunami activity in that part of the world.

I am not against nuclear power. If the plants and waste are managed properly, they can be a safe, albeit expensive, way to generate large amounts of electricity. In our hubris, humans often don’t see the big picture and don’t change until it’s too late. Nuclear power is not something we want 20/20 hindsight on. We need to ensure that we get it right before we go ahead with these plants. I don’t think there is such a thing as over-engineering when it comes to them.

As the world is increasingly looking for clean and reliable sources of energy, nuclear has become an increasingly attractive option. The disaster at Fukushima, if nothing else, should serve as a warning against hubris, and show us the importance of a thorough approach to safety. More nuclear power plants will be built, so let’s make sure we construct them properly. Maybe Mike Holmes should supervise nuclear power plant designs.

There are nearly 500 media organizations who accept wire copy with little or no fact checking.

Collective stupidity is kind of scary, but we’re being subjected to the media’s obvious lack of fact checking with apparently “new video” surfacing from the day of the 9/11 attacks. The video, shot from a helicopter, shows the World Trade Centre before and after the collapse.

Nobody but the media seems to be up in arms about this “new video” and I wonder if there are any fact checkers employed by media organizations these days.

A five second search on YouTube for “9/11 helicopter video” will turn up the same video touted as being new. (I checked as soon as I saw this and it came up. Now the original result is being pushed down.) The post date? February 11, 2010, with a reference in the title of the video that it was released in 2009. I’ve embedded the first video, and you can also see part 2 of the original 9/11 police helicopter video.

In fact, there’s 9/11 helicopter video footage from July 12, 2007 that appears to be the exact same footage as that they’re saying now is new. It’s from July 12, 2007.

Even CBC is running the inaccurate 9/11 helicopter video story, normally a source of pretty good journalism, has run the Associated Press wire copy without verifying that the video is new. They’ve also closed off comments to the story. I expect more from CBC, but I have had some real concerns with them lately.

So, does anyone check facts anymore or search Google just to see what’s going on? Apparently not. No, it’s easier to just post garbage wire copy. It appears nearly 500 media organizations (for now) have picked up the story. What an embarrassment.

Considering it’s the 10^th anniversary of 9/11 this year, it’s no wonder the panic pump is being primed. 2012 end of the world shows will be replaced by fearmongering 9/11 propaganda. Quick. Is there a flag somewhere that I can wave around, while singing the national anthem?

We saw enough cheerleading during and after 9/11, I had hoped we might see some serious journalism on the topic (not the obvious tripe we’re seeing). I’m not sure I can take much more “chilling video.”

It was pretty good. I had the opportunity to meet a few MLAs (Dave Taylor – Alberta Party, Kent Hehr – Liberal Party, and Jonathan Denis – Conservative Party) and chat with people from those parties as well. I was surprised I didn’t meet anyone from the Wild Rose Party, but I didn’t meet everyone there either.

What I so often discover from casual, in-person discussions about politics is that our differences usually aren’t that far apart.

I prefer these types of discussions to online political discussions. The trolls usually don’t come out to these events, preferring the perceived anonymity they possess behind their computer screens and pseudonyms.

What’s in a name?

I had fun prodding a few of the Alberta Liberals in the room. We got onto the topic of changing the name of the provincial Liberal party, which apparently has little connection to the federal party.

I still find it odd that the Alberta Liberal party is so stuck on keeping the name, when it’s so obvious that it’s the biggest impediment to their political success in this province right now (leaving aside the issues of ineffective leadership).

The provincial Conservatives love to bring up the 1980s National Energy Program, signed by Conservative premier Peter Lougheed. When the NEP is mentioned, there’s a collective knee-jerk around the province, and it’s never good for the Liberals, despite the fact the provincial Liberals probably had absolutely nothing to do with it. The truth has nothing to do with the issue.

The rationale I heard was that the Alberta Liberals are worried their stream of donations would dry up if they were to change their name. I countered that it would likely increase as they tapped new sources of donations.

I have to respect the Alberta Liberals for manning the helm of their swamped ship to the bitter end, but a touch of Machiavellian sensibility wouldn’t hurt. Would a name change mean a complete abandonment of their principles? Absolutely not. Why would it?

I heard something interesting too, that nobody has ever presented a motion at a party convention to change the party name. About time it happened, but it won’t be me doing it. So, what should the name be?

The Prairie Party

I thought this would make sense, because the Alberta Liberals, according to what I heard, are a truly provincial party with few ties federally. It’s the same in B.C., where the B.C. Liberals are really Conservatives and have few real ties to the federal party.

Albertans, and here I’m stereotyping a little, tend to be quite patriotic about their province, and a name like the Prairie Party could be appreciate by many in the province, particularly rural voters. I have never seen a province where its residents feel so strongly about their home.

My thought is that if you’re truly convinced your principles are worth fighting for and should be adopted here, why would something like a name change be so problematic? It is puzzling. In fact, it’s truly odd, considering so many political parties would be willing to force their mothers to work in a Chinese sweat shop if it meant they could get into power.

In some ways you have to respect that kind of conviction, but in other ways, it’s sort of dumb. Apparently Einstein was quoted as saying “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I also came up with a cute slogan that captures why the name change should happen: change the name and you change the game.

Looking at it practically, a good portion of the voters in the province have grey hair, like it or not. Voter turnout here is pathetically low, but you can count on seniors to get out and do their civic duty. They don’t tend to be swing voters either. They’re loyal and often conservative. They also remember the NEP, rightly or wrongly, so if the Liberals (with that name) expect to form government here, it’s likely not going to be until the baby boomers are dead and gone.

The Saskatchewan Party

I used these guys as a good example for the Alberta Liberals to follow. They formed in 1997 and 10 years later they were in power. There’s so much wrapped up in a name and such a name has broad, subconscious appeal to Saskatchewan residents, obviously.

This is why the Alberta Party has a positive future ahead of it, no matter what their policies, no matter what they do, no matter who the leader is. The party has the right name. It’s all about the brand. That’s not knocking the positive things the Alberta Party is up to, but having the right name gives them a leg up on their competition. Right out of the gate they have an advantage.

There’s been some public bickering about parties merging, but the Alberta Party would be crazy to do it, if it meant adopting the Liberal Party name. If anything, the Liberals should merge with the Alberta Party and adopt their name.

The one thing the Liberals could do to counter the Alberta Party brand is to come up with one which symbolizes Alberta, and that’s the Prairie Party. I’m not going to launch into some poetic description of how the name represents the province, it just does.

The real question is, how long are the Liberals going to sit on the sidelines of Alberta politics as other parties pass them by? My prediction is that the Alberta Party will form the official opposition not after this election, but the election after that (sorry Wild Rose Party). Perhaps when the Alberta Liberals are down to their last member in the Legislature, they’ll consider a name change, but by then it will be too late.

Bev Oda and Roy Orbison

When I saw the picture in The National Post I instantly realized that Canada’s embattled Minister for International Co-operation, Bev Oda, is Roy Orbison reincarnated. The minister is having a few difficulties because she apparently lied to Parliament about adding NOT to a document. At first I thought maybe she looked like Yoko Ono, but a tune from the Travelling Wilburys popped into my head and I knew.

I’m sure Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being serenaded by Bev right now. She’s singing “Handle Me with Care.” Or, is she singing, “I’ll be your Yoko Ono”?

The resemblance is amazing. After Bev’s done in Parliament, she can work on a revival of the Travelling Wilburys. Hope her guitar work is up to snuff and she’s got a good falsetto.

I knew that Ralph Klein was a little kooky, but I had no idea politics here would be every bit as interesting as the province I had left.

With the recent resignation of Premier Ed Stelmach and now Liberal Party leader David Swann, I wonder if the leaders of political parties are taking their queues from British Columbia. I had a sense of déjà vu when I heard Swann was quitting.

It actually made me laugh because it’s like B.C. politics where recently a tremendously unpopular Premier Gordon Campbell resigned and the leader of the NDP opposition Carole James quit shortly after that.

Sales taxes & lessons from B.C.

If that isn’t weird enough, I read yesterday that former Alberta finance minister Jim Dinning (and former Alberta Conservative leadership hopeful) is in B.C. to chair a panel to help explain why the HST is the best choice for B.C. (don’t ask B.C. residents what they think). Adding to the weirdness is the fact that Dinning may take a run at the Conservative leadership in Alberta, against now former finance minister Ted Morton (who quit the day after Stelmach did, so he could announce his candidacy).

The Alberta Conservatives have already floated the trial balloon of a provincial sales tax, so it would be interesting to see how Dinning’s recommendations to B.C. residents might play out.

For those who don’t know what’s happened in B.C., after the last provincial election, the B.C. Liberals sprung the HST on an unsuspecting population after promising not to. Canadians aren’t known for mass revolt, but that is the best way to describe the HST protests and recall petitions that are not done yet. It may have been good for businesses on paper but it’s been a wallet-sucking tax on B.C. citizens. I understand many businesses are suffering because of decreased revenues now.

Even weirder was former premier and Socred party leader Bill Van Der Zalm leading the charge to eliminate the HST. Alberta Conservatives should learn a few things from B.C., if they forget what happened to the Alberta Social Credit party. The B.C. Socreds had the same thing happen to them when the NDP trounced them in 1991 and they were finally wiped out in 1996 with the election of a Liberal government.

In a land without a sales tax, something Albertans are quite proud of, there might be riots at West Edmonton Mall should a government impose one. In an era of budget deficits, I’m sure Prime Minister Stephen Harper is dangling the carrot (bribe) of billions of dollars should Alberta saddle Alberta residents with an HST. I’m sure the government would indicate it would not be an HST, but you know it would be.

Oil & gas royalties will be cut, again

Also in this era of deficits, governments seem to think it’s a great time to shift the burden of taxation to individuals and away from corporations, saying it will “create jobs.” Economists seem to know there’s always multiples associated with government and business spending in terms of how many jobs may be created or the economic effects of tax cuts (or increases). MPs and MLAs claim that this isn’t that case and they’re not sure how many jobs will be created, but we are assured they will be. Let’s just hope those jobs aren’t created overseas, as is so often the case these days.

Perhaps Alberta could take a novel approach of eliminating corporate subsidies (reduced oil and gas royalties) in an attempt to balance its budget. Instead, with the ominous approach of the Wildrose Allliance, we’re seeing a radical shift to the right there and in the Conservative Party. We’re more likely to see the usual dipshit move of cutting social programs to balance the budget. When things get better, the government increases social spending, expecting to be treated like heroes for doing so.

Education isn’t really a Conservative priority

Social spending on education is never seen as an investment in the future, just a line item on the budget. With governments failing to sufficiently invest in post-secondary education, college and university students emerge from their programs with crushing debt and are often unable to find work.

So what does the future hold for Alberta? I’m sure it will continue to be interesting, if a little bizarre (more bizarre than usual). Perhaps I should make some predictions regarding the next election? It’s coming soon too. I already made a bet with a friend that if the new leader of the Alberta Conservatives doesn’t call an election within 30 days of being crowned leader, I’ll buy a membership in the party. Oh, they’d love me at a convention. If an election is called within 30 days, he’ll buy an Alberta Party membership. I am going to win.

Election predictions:

• Alberta Conservative party “wins” the next election with a minority
• Wildrose Alliance official opposition
• Alberta Party comes in third
• NDP stays about the same
• Alberta Liberal party eliminated

Other predictions:

• Raj Sherman joins the Alberta Party
• Conservatives continue to say they’re increasing seniors long term care beds, but aren’t
• More cuts to oil and gas royalties once Ted Morton is premier
• Emergency room waits in Edmonton will continue to kill patients
• Lindsay Blackett puts his foot in his mouth (as Environment minister)

Since things are rolling along so well here, we really should pay them based on merit, like they’re considering for B.C. teachers.

Oh, before we actually pay our MLAs, I think we should just sort out a few little problems before we cut those cheques.

Let Albertans know when you’ve got this short list complete:

• wait times are reasonable in emergency rooms
• required operations are performed quickly in Alberta
• Alberta has no deficit
• there are no homeless people in Alberta
• real wages have increased for Albertans
• there are sufficient long term care beds for seniors
• big business is no longer subsidized
• oil & gas royalties are in line with other countries
• Albertans are protected from gouging by electric & gas utilities
• we see real enforcement of environmental regulations
• A chicken in every pot – oops. Wrong list.

That ought to be enough to keep you busy. Let us know when you’ve got that list done and we’ll add a few more things. Don’t want to overload you.

Stephen Mandel was re-elected as mayor of Edmonton.

While the results of Edmonton’s civic election Monday were disappointing in some respects, they were quite positive in others.

On Monday I talked about my choices for Edmonton city council, mayor and Edmonton Public School Board. Unfortunately only one of my three choices was successful.

It was a tough, bitter and divisive campaign with the Edmonton City Centre Airport being probably the biggest issue of the entire campaign.

Should it have been? I don’t think so. I think taxes, a new arena and the LRT are far bigger issues going forward, but leave it to a special interest group to hijack the entire election for their own purposes. I know we haven’t heard the last of this issue.

City council and the Edmonton Public School Board should also be working together on the issue of school closures.

City Council – Ward 7 Scott McKeen

I actively campaigned for Scott McKeen and unfortunately he fell short. I have to give Scott a lot of credit for his positive campaign, positive vision and putting together a great campaign team in a short period of time.

The incumbent won with 7,138 votes to Scott’s 5,269. My hope is that there will be another run, but only time will tell. I truly believe that Scott McKeen had the best vision for Ward 7 and I think city council could certainly adopt some of his ideas.

His ideas have certainly provoked me to look at my community association in a new light. Thank you for running Scott. It was an honour and a privilege to work with you on your campaign. Good luck in your future endeavours!

Public School Board trustee – Ward B

Unfortunately the candidate I chose for Ward B came in dead last. I really liked Darryl Lagerquist’s platform. I will be keeping an eye on the incumbent for the next three years though. I am not sure how many people who voted for him are aware of his voting to close schools. Perhaps they’ll be more aware in this next school review when he votes to close their school.

I think school closures are a critical issue in Edmonton and one that our new city council should be much more active in combatting. With flawed decision criteria, EPSB can destroy neighbourhoods with their decisions. EPSB can blame the province for flawed criteria, and no doubt the government of Alberta can take a large portion of the blame for crappy legislation and education underfunding.

One of Scott McKeen’s main planks in his platform was halting urban sprawl. School closures are really a direct result of sprawl as development occurs mainly on the outside edges of the city while older schools at the center of Edmonton languish. School closures in older Edmonton neighbourhoods will only accelerate the sprawl as residents evacuate Edmonton’s core looking for newer schools they’re sure won’t close.

Edmonton mayor – Stephen Mandel

Stephen Mandel was re-elected with a handy majority. As I stated before, if there had been another worthy candidate for mayor, I would have voted that way.  Mandel was the best choice this time.

One would hope that Mandel’s resounding victory would put the City Centre Airport to rest, but that’s not going to stop Envision Edmonton from suing the city or newly elected Ward 11 city councilor Kerry Diotte from pushing for an airport plebiscite. If this were Wheel of Fortune, the first three letters I’d choose are: W T F.

It’s time to move forward and make sure the development is all above board and strictly in the best interests of Edmontonians. Perhaps Kerry Diotte and Envision Edmonton didn’t get the message that all the incumbents won in Monday’s election.

Voter turnout was a disappointing 34.3 per cent for 2010, but it was an improvement over the 27.24 per cent voter turnout in 2007.

I feel positive about Edmonton’s future, and the next three years ought to be very interesting.

I haven’t been particularly involved in political debate about the issues facing Edmonton, but I have been active in helping Ward 7 city council candidate Scott McKeen in his campaign. I have to give Scott credit for running a positive campaign, not that there’s been any mudslinging in this ward.

The City Centre Airport issue has emerged as one of the big issues in the campaign, mainly due to the efforts of Envision Edmonton. Should this have been the main issue? In my opinion, no. The decision was made by city council in 2009 to close the airport and it should have been left alone.

US-style attack politics

If you’ve followed the issues on Twitter under the hashtag #yegvotes, you would’ve noticed a very negative tone to the debate, and I will attribute that in large part to Envision Edmonton and its tactics. They have certainly imported American-style attack politics. It’s a rather un-Canadian way of conducting political campaigns and it has backfired on them.

In the last week some of Envision Edmonton’s underhanded  tactics have come to light with the revelation that an Envision Edmonton spokesman and David Dorward mayoral campaign volunteer impersonated a Seattle Times reporter and attempted to interview one local council candidate.

Envision Edmonton also used their approximately 73,000 person failed petition as a phone list to campaign on behalf of pro-airport candidates. I’m sure anyone who had signed that petition hadn’t anticipated ending up on an auto-dialer.

On the doorstep: not negative

Having gone out a couple of days doing doorknocking on Scott McKeen’s behalf, I noticed a rather different tone on the doorstep. I didn’t have a single person upset with me and I heard from other volunteers of only a few people who were quite negative.

It’s easy to sit behind a screen and take potshots at opponents, but very different to debate face-to-face. I wasn’t out on doorsteps to debate anyway, but to get the word out. People did have some questions and I was happy to answer as best I could.

Politics in the age of participation

While social media has played an important role in politics, I think the most important part of any campaign is getting out and meeting people face to face. Scott has done a lot of that and it’s been interesting seeing the campaign from the inside. I’ve helped out on a few campaigns in the past, but never to the extent I have this time.

Working in online marketing, I know the necessity and value of online promotional efforts in a political campaign. Unless you’ve got huge name recognition though, you have to be active and get out of the campaign office to truly succeed. I have much more respect now for any politician who is out campaigning on the doorstep. (Doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily agree with them!)

With a well-coordinated campaign, social media and good Internet marketing such as search engine optimization and pay per click advertising can really supplement a political campaign.

Issues in Edmonton

I think the important issues in this election weren’t really talked about much, having been sidetracked by the airport issue. The next council has a number of important issues facing the city:

• Transportation – Don’t get me started on transportation: snow clearing, the Anthony Henday, $300 million interchanges, LRT, Edmonton Police Service guarding road construction and more. Edmonton is continuing to grow and needs a robust transportation infrastructure. Taking out half of a major commuter road (Stony Plain Road) to have in-road LRT is ludicrous and won’t make the transportation situation better, it’ll make it worse. This last council seemed to be in a rush to get it going in hopes of having it for their 2017 world’s fair bid. I could write a book on this one.
• Prediction: Current LRT model will get pushed ahead and Edmontonians will balk at the price tag.
• Taxes – Probably the main issue that upsets people: increasing property taxes. Edmonton has consistently seen fairly hefty property tax increases in recent years and I don’t know that the new city council has much more room to increase taxes. The city has lots of big ideas it wants to pursue, but taxpayers are tired of the increasing bite out of their wallets.
• Prediction: Council may get away with one more big increase, but after that they’ll be in line with inflation. (Hey, I can be hopeful.)
• Downtown arena – Oilers owner Daryl Katz is trying to convince the city of the need for a downtown arena mainly financed by taxpayers. This issue, I’m predicting, will be another contentious one. Edmonton’s taxpayers are eager for some relief and likely not too impressed with the idea of a massive transfer of their tax dollars to a private business. In the unlikely event that a slate of Envision Edmonton candidates make it to council, I’m predicting they wouldn’t send the issue to a plebiscite.
• Prediction: Council turns down Katz & he moves the Oilers to Hamilton.
• City Centre Airport: I said it before that Envision Edmonton wouldn’t take no for an answer, and I was right. They’re taking the city to court and I’m sure we won’t hear the end of it.
• Prediction: The million or so tax dollars the city takes in every year from business at the City Centre Airport will be eaten up in legal fees for at least the next five years. I bet Edmontonians never envisioned that.

Who did I vote for?

Well, I haven’t voted yet, but here’s the plan:

Edmonton city council Ward 7:Scott McKeen. I like Scott, and I like what he stands for, which is why I helped him on his campaign. This former Edmonton Journal columnist knows Edmonton and I firmly believe he’ll do a great job for Ward 7 and for the city.

Edmonton mayor: Stephen Mandel. To be honest, I’m not happy with ANY of the mayoral candidates, but Mandel is the best of the bunch, unfortunately. Dorward, aside from the Envision Edmonton BS, just isn’t leadership material from a mayoral perspective. I don’t like settling for a candidate, but in this case I am. Consider it more of a strategic vote. Also not fond of that.

Edmonton Public School Board Trustee Ward B: Darryl Lagerquist. I’m not happy with the fact that the incumbent Ken Shipka doesn’t have much to say about anything and he’s voted to close schools. I think Lagerquist is the best option. Closing schools just isn’t an option and I think trustees need to have the balls to take on the real culprit: the Alberta government.

Truth and reconciliation

Envision Edmonton has added a decidedly hostile tone to the political debate in Edmonton lately, and I’m hoping that is something that will change. Perhaps we should have a big Tweetup and a group hug and just move on. I have found that people who will attack me online really won’t do it face to face. I’m perfectly prepared for a fist fight, but would prefer a rational discussion over a few beers. : )

All kidding aside, I think it’s better for issues that have been dealt with to be put aside, fences mended, apologies made (on both sides), lawsuits dropped and everyone should look forward to the future.

If we want to conduct our politics like they do south of the border, expect the same results. The US is a disaster right now (economically and politically) and it’s hardly a good example to follow. Canadians, generally, are a more respectful and thoughtful bunch and politics by consensus has worked well for us in the past.

We can have vigorous political debate without viewing the other side as “the enemy.” If you feel inclined to hang on to the political past, heed the lyrics of The Eagles and get over it!

Thank you CSIS for saying what many of us have long suspected. And my kids laugh at me and think I’m paranoid when I talk about this.

No surprise that China would be one of the main culprits, as well as Middle East countries. I would also look to India. Of those Middle East countries, the natural inclination is to look at Muslim countries, but no doubt Israel is involved too.

They say at least five countries are engaging in recruiting traitors in Canada, so which ones are they? China, India and Israel for sure. I would suggest Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would round out the five. Who else? Follow the money is always good advice.

I think Canadians need to take this type of activity far more seriously than we do. Canadians don’t seem to want to believe that it is a serious problem or wonder why anyone would want to do that.

Ask yourself that question the next time a government minister loosens the rules to allow more foreign investment in a particular sector or another state-owned Chinese company buys a big stake in a Canadian oilsands or other company.

It doesn’t mean everything should be suspect, but we should pull our heads out of our asses. Canada has a lot of very valuable companies, resources, technology and wealth, so foreign governments are going to be interested. If they can tip the scales in their favour, they’re going to do it.

I think CSIS ought to take a close look at the federal Conservative party, as I’m sure they have, because many of the decisions they make certainly aren’t good for Canadians, but could be seen as beneficial to foreign governments and companies.

Think about that next time you’re at the ballot box.