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.

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.

Last year I supported closing the airport and I still support it. Exactly what happens at ECCA, how and when, is something I am interested in.

It’s not often a city has a chance to redevelop such a large parcel of land so close to its downtown. It needs to be done right.

So, to summarize, here are the messages Envision Edmonton and its supporters are sending out:

• We’re worried about what will happen to existing jobs at the City Centre Airport
• There may be family upheaval
• People will die because medevac patients may take longer to get to the hospital
• The “average” person wants the airport to stay open

So, Mack, you know what your opposition to the airport is going to do? It’s going to kill people and force them out of work (not necessarily in that order)! (I am kidding of course, but this is the undertone of the opposition.)

How valid any of Envision Edmonton’s points are, is up for debate. I haven’t extensively researched what has been done to make the case for the closure yet, but I have some questions that I believe are important.

I would like to see an analysis of the business case for closing the airport, from the city’s perspective, and have some questions:

• How much does the city currently net from the airport? Does the city make anything on it in terms of property tax?
• Has the city done an estimate of how much it would net if the City Centre Airport were to be fully developed? How does that compare to what it currently nets? How much will the city make from the sale of City Centre Airport land?
• If an environmental cleanup is required on the site, how much will it cost and who will pay? And, if an environmental cleanup is required, why hasn’t it already been done if people are aware of that need?
• What will be done to ease the transition for the businesses affected? How about for medevac flights? For helicopter flights, can they land directly at local hospitals? It would make sense if they could.
• Has there been a realistic assessment of how the businesses at the City Centre Airport will transition? Which ones are likely to close? How many jobs are likely to be lost? What will it cost the city to break leases, etc?
• How many jobs are likely to be created during a reconstruction of the City Centre Airport lands?

From the city’s perspective, I suspect the business case is strongly in favour of the current course of action. It’s not like this kind of thing hasn’t happened before. Vancouver’s gone through redevelopments like Granville Island, Yaletown and the Expo lands. Any other examples?

Development that made sense in the past may not make sense in the future. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made and it’s not always the case that nobody will suffer.

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.

A wave full of oil - from http://ecoterrorist.tumblr.com/post/692615341/waves-crashing-on-alabamas-beaches-thanks-bp

British Petroleum has rightfully taken a lot of heat over their inaction on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. It’s hard to believe that we’re nearly two months in and there’s been virtually no progress in cleaning up the spill or stopping the oil from gushing into the Gulf.

BP has promised to put $20 billion into escrow to settle claims related to the oil disaster. One has to wonder if that’s even going to be enough to compensate for the damage done to the Gulf, the wildlife and the lives of those who rely on the Gulf for their living.

The U.S. government has been pretty well impotent in being able to deal with the crisis, aside from a great deal of posturing.

I’d like to share with you a couple of videos related to the oil spill in the Gulf, one a brilliant satirical piece and the other a surprisingly good (but serious) piece from Al Jazeera English – Fault Lines on the impact of oil exploration on the Gulf coast of Louisiana.

I have to give Al Jazeera English some credit for doing a nice in depth piece on this issue. This is the kind of investigative journalism the world really needs a heck of a lot more of. It might be 23 minutes long, but it’s worth every minute.

Ann Coulter is in Canada to eat your babies. No, seriously.

Canadians are now able to bear witness to the typical political spectacle normally reserved for our American friends.

If you haven’t heard by now, American conservative ‘pundit’ Ann Coulter has been on a speaking tour in Canada and she ran into some opposition at the University of Ottawa.

Coulter is known for pushing the limits of free speech and, ironically, is claiming she may file a human rights complaint after a letter from a University of Ottawa provost Francis Houle reminding Coulter about Canada’s laws on hate speech.

This came after her speech at the University of Ontario where Coulter told one Muslim student who questioned her about past remarks about Muslims that if they didn’t like being denied a flight they could “ride a camel” or a magic carpet.

The whole thing feels like it’s been scripted. Coincidentally, Ezra Lavant, not one to shy away from confrontation or attacking human rights commissions, was present for the festivities as master of ceremonies. How apropos. (I read this after I wrote this blog post. I think Neil MacDonald did a great job and it really reinforces the thought I had that this whole thing seems scripted. It’s not the first time Ezra ‘Chicken Little’ Lavant’s been up to this.)

I’m all for free speech, and think that people should be able to push things a little further than maybe our human rights commissions may be comfortable with. Coulter is well aware of the reactions to the kinds of things she says. She’s trying to evoke that reaction in audiences.

Ann Coulter has a truckload of t-shirts to sell. Get'em before they're gone!

Of course Coulter’s friends and fans are trying to frame the issue as a violent riot and that Coulter was scared (kind of like Democrats have been threatened in the US). One random, unverified comment on the Small Dead Animals blog apparently about huge Egyptian student union/club member overturning a table gets turned into ‘they were throwing tables.’

Somehow the pulling of a fire alarm is equated to yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. Well, it’s a theatre alright; the theatre of the absurd

Coulter’s fans are also trying to frame her opponents as being opposed to free speech, ironically while exercising their own right to free speech.

The absurd theatre will continue at the University of Calgary but, now that she’s really whipped everyone into a frenzy about the apparent lack of free speech in Canada and crazed left-wing mobs, comes the real reason for her visit. I heard it from one source that she has a semi-trailer full of Obama Joker t-shirts and she’ll be selling them at her speech in Calgary.

She’s got so much attention here now that everyone will want a memento from her speech. Well, it’s either that or she is trying to get some free healthcare while she’s here in Canada, sort of like Rush Limbaugh did when he was in Hawaii. Oh, wait, no. Apparently everyone can get healthcare in the U.S. now. Forget it.

What Ann Coulter has done with her bit of performance art is to remind us that Canada is not at all like the USA in its political discourse. Thank you Ann.

With the reigning Conservatives on the ropes in terms of their approval ratings, the Wildrose Alliance has seen support rise for its party. It seems like a natural thing, since they both occupy similar real estate in the political spectrum.

The Conservatives are especially defensive after the defection of two MLAs to the Wildrose Alliance. This defensiveness apparently has spread to the Wildrose Alliance now that the Alberta Party has merged with the Renew Alberta movement

The Wildrose Alliance has the attack dogs out on the Alberta Party questioning a number of things such as the party apparently suspending its constitution as a result of the merger, appointment of board members, etc.

I had to laugh at Jane Morgan’s claim:

“Sorry to disappoint the WAP detractors; but the WAP has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It’s just lil’ol me typing away on an otherwise boring weekend; trying to get to the bottom of some very bizarre switch-a-roos.”

Using someone else to do your political dirty work, paid or unpaid, is a political tactic as old as the hills and helps politicians maintain plausible deniability. I get the impression Ms. Morgan is now a former party official, though I do not know what role she played in the WAP.

I understand what they’re doing. They’re hoping to frame the debate about the Alberta Party as one that is acting illegitimately, in violation of its constitution and without the support of its members.

The Alberta Party could potentially siphon off support from every party as Alberta voters don’t seem to be satisfied with any party at this point. No surprise that the WAP sees the AP as a threat. WAP would like to be the protest party of choice for Albertans. Having two out there muddies the already very murky political waters.

My view of the Alberta Party

Anyone who knows me, knows I have some strong views on politics and I’m suspicious of political parties in general.

I am interested in what is happening with the Alberta Party and may yet participate in their “Big Listen.” Will I vote for them? I can’t say at this point. It really depends on a number of factors.

I think it’s fair to raise questions about the party’s constitution and how that was handled. Political parties do need to ensure they operate according to the rules they’ve laid out for themselves and to ensure they’re in compliance with any government legislation.

I would also like to see what policies develop out of the “Big Listen” process and subsequently at any policy convention. I’m not worried, as some anonymous poster is, that the “Big Listen” is similar language used by Hillary Clinton; oh, and also that poster was concerned about “starting conversations.”

So, Democratic party leadership candidates have a monopoly on listening and starting conversations? Does using similar language mean that you have the same policies? Please. Pull your head out of your ass and start listening. Hell, start a conversation while you’re at it.

A key issue for me is the autonomy of party MLAs and party discipline. I believe in free votes on everything.

Political parties should not impose their will on duly elected MLAs. An MLA should always be free to vote according to their conscience and the will of their local electorate. I don’t believe in small- or large-scale authoritarianism. This is one of my main problems with virtually every political party.

I don’t tend to be a labeler and bristle at attempts to label me. I like ideas from across the political spectrum and, really, I am a centrist if you’d like to use the term. Frankly labeling is an overused American political tactic to short-circuit critical thinking. Many Canadian political parties are importing this tactic. Why? I guess their critical thinking skills have been short-circuited. Judging by the political situation in the US and how well everything is going there, do we really need ANY political tactics or policies imported from there?

Open finances

Another concern of mine is that the Alberta Party’s finances be completely open and transparent. That goes for political campaigns as well as leadership campaigns. I have some serious concerns about WAP leader Danielle Smith hiding her leadership campaign supporters and donations from public scrutiny. What does she have to hide?

Furthermore, how can the WAP leader have a party policy of an “open and comprehensive Freedom of Information Act” as well as wanting to “institute strict conflict of interest guidelines facilitated through the Provincial Ethics Commissioner’s office” yet not have her leadership campaign fully open to public scrutiny?

It seems more politics as usual. Money talks and I wonder what money is talking to Danielle Smith? I can bet I know. It’s the same money that talks to everyone in politics in Alberta. That concerns me.

The energy lobby in Alberta is obviously tremendously powerful. We need governments that are transparent, open and not unduly influenced by any lobby. We need a government that implements policies that are in the best interests of Albertans as a whole and do not cater to any lobby.

The citizens of Alberta elect governments, not businesses. That’s not to say that business is not important. It’s not a dichotomy. A balanced approach is appropriate. I’ve been a Chamber of Commerce director and I am fully aware of the needs of small business. I also know that governments tend to focus more on the needs of large business, typically at the expense of small business.

I also believe in a balanced regulatory approach between government and business. The economic meltdown we’re still in is proof that there has to be regulation of business. Business operating without regulation is, quite simply, stupid. Government’s role is to look out for the public interest. Laws and enforcement of those laws is how we keep things fair for everyone.

The supposed architect of the boom and bust, Alan Greenspan, a noted Ayn Rand sycophant, admitted he was wrong about essentially letting business regulate itself. How is it that some could claim one group, government, can’t sufficiently look after the public interest, yet put blind faith in business to do the same? It’s either stupidity, willful ignorance or outright duplicity.

Looking to Alberta’s future

Unfortunately, Alberta governments really haven’t looked that far into the future, looking more towards the next election and staying in power. We need governments that are looking generations ahead. We haven’t had it here. In fact, most governments operate much like large corporations, by the quarter, it seems. Maybe it would pay for Alberta governments to think of Alberta citizens as shareholders? We do have all the voting rights and should be the ones collecting the dividends.

This short-term thinking has to stop. We are facing serious issues on this planet, and while the Alberta government, whatever its political stripe, isn’t going to solve them, it can play a role in not making those problems worse and also look after the interests of Albertans.

These are just some of the things I will be looking at in the Alberta Party. I’ll give them a fair shot, like I have with every other political party. For now I am willing to engage in the listening and conversation, and so should every Albertan because the discussion transcends just one political party.

If you hadn’t heard about ChangeCamp happened October 17 at Lister Hall at the University of Alberta. The goal of ChangeCamp was to answer the question: “How do we re-imagine government and citizenship in the age of participation?” It’s an “unconference,” which means that there’s no set agenda. The agenda is set that day by the participants in the room.

Our goal was to get 150 people out to the event and it seems that we succeeded. The room was full and we had about 25 people pitch topics to discuss that day. There were so many interesting topics; I would have really liked to have been at more sessions.

Overall, I was really impressed with how smoothly the event was run. The team running the event did an excellent job! I heard a lot of good feedback and everyone seemed pretty happy.

Who was missing?

Many people attended who billed themselves as “average citizens” which was nice to see. If political change is going to happen anywhere, in my opinion, it has to start from the bottom up. There are a lot of unhappy citizens out there. The evidence? What was the voter turnout in the last Alberta election? 40%? There are a lot of people frustrated with status-quo politics.

The rumour was that provincial employees were ordered not to attend. We only saw a few local politicians and, I believe, two MLAs. Granted, our politicians are busy people and this is the first ChangeCamp event we’ve had, but a few more would be nice. I’m hoping we have more ChangeCamps and get better attendance by our leaders.

There are some great posts I’ve listed below that go more in depth about what happened and their views on the events of the day. I’ll let the video and audio content I’ve posted speak for itself.

Technical stuff:

I was able to record the audio from several sessions and video from a few. That consumed quite a bit of my time on the day and I learned a lot from covering the event. I hadn’t planned on bringing my video camera, but I’m glad I did. I focused on individual sessions and tried to cover them completely. I’ll be posting to Flickr, YouTube and other locations as I get the files processed.

I haven’t watched all the footage but it seems good, generally. I’m not a post-production video guy, so processing the video and posting it has been a learning experience. I’d just like to say I hate YouTube’s 10 minute rule.

Things I’d do differently?

• Bring my video camera charger and an extra battery.
• Bring more SD cards for my video camera.
• Bring a proper microphone for my video camera.

What I did right

• I brought my tripod (I hate shaky video).
• I brought two audio recorders & fresh batteries (to record sessions I wasn’t in).
• Brought my point and shoot digital camera.

I really enjoyed covering the event the way I did (I still miss being a reporter). While I didn’t participate as much as I would have liked, I felt an obligation to record what was happening so it wasn’t lost.

Links, media, photos, video

Photos of ChangeCamp Edmonton

• ChangeCamp Edmonton Flickr group

Youtube videos/audio about ChangeCamp Edmonton

• Accountability journalism – 4 parts – audio (link to part 1)
• Opening video – Mark Kuznicki

Blog posts about ChangeCamp Edmonton

• Chris Labossiere
• Dave Cournoyer – Daveberta
• Alex Abboud
• John Winslow – SirThinks
• Andrew McIntyre
• Robert Burwood – bOpen
• The Edmontonian
• The Edmontonian – Why I’m going
• Debra Ward – Edmonton Ambassador

Media about ChangeCamp Edmonton

• Edmonton Journal
• The Gateway – University of Alberta
• See Magazine
• Metro News
• Vue Weekly
• Unlimited Magazine

ChangeCamp Edmonton – official

• Wiki – day of ChangeCamp
• The Grid – what we talked about

Social media

• Twitter search – #yegchange
• Scribblelive – ChangeCamp #yeg

If you’ve got any suggestions for links to add, please comment. I’ll also add more of my audio and videos from the day of.

The idea behind ChangeCamp is “How do we re-imagine government and citizenship in the age of participation?”

This is also on the ChangeCamp Edmonton site: “ChangeCamp addresses the demand for a renewed relationship among citizens and government. We seek to create connections, knowledge, tools and policies that drive transparency, civic engagement and democratic empowerment.”

I think those both capture it fairly well, but I feel like I need to inject a bit of my vision, for what it’s worth. This is why I’m involved and this is my view, not necessarily the view of others who are involved in ChangeCamp.

I’m participating in publicizing the event and trying to get various interest groups and interested parties out to the event. It’s a time consuming task to contact all the groups who really should be represented there and who would have a strong interest in what’s going on.

In some ways it reads like a “who’s who” or “the usual suspects,” depending on your point of view. I’m not saying it’s going to be an elitist event where you have to be “in the know” to be able to attend. That’s not the intention of anyone involved, and I wouldn’t want that perception to be out there either.

Value in diversity of opinion

What I would like to see is a good mix of the population represented at ChangeCamp Edmonton, from the business community right down to those living in poverty. I think ChangeCamp needs a broad cross section of the community to talk about the issues around governing, accountability, transparency and citizen engagement.

Does this capture how you feel about politics lately?

Let’s be honest. We are far from having truly accountable and transparent government at any level in Canada, no matter what the party. Citizen engagement is something most politicians seem only to consider up to and including election time. After that? Well, it depends on the politician.

I know the types of people who will show up to ChangeCamp for sure. They’re the same ones that show up for so many of these kinds of events. They’re the type of people who are interested and engaged in what’s happening in our society, and I thank them deeply for that.

The people who are not as likely to be represented at ChangeCamp Edmonton are those who are disenfranchised, poor, frustrated with the system, marginalized, haven’t voted in a long time, have never voted, new to Canada or just plain pissed off.

These are the people, in addition to the rest, that I would really like to see attending ChangeCamp. These are the people that, if they got involved in the political system, have an incredible amount of political power and ability to change things. For a variety of reasons, they’re not represented.

I don’t see ChangeCamp as an advocacy group and it’s not. There are people from across the political spectrum involved. I see it more as a group trying to facilitate a discussion among this country’s citizens to see how we can make government into something that works better for everyone.

Frustrated with politics? Come out to ChangeCamp. Got friends who feels the same way? Bring them too.

I’m not expecting to change the world in one day, but it’s a first step. It’ll be your opportunity to get out and interact with people who are also interested in changing politics, making government more accountable, transparent and increasing civic engagement and voter participation.

I am hoping to see some of our MPs, Alberta MLAs and Edmonton city councillors in the room to participate in the discussion.

Please take the time to attend. It’s important to have your contribution to the process and to have an open, honest, civil discussion about our political system and how to make it better. It’s an “unconference” format where you help to decide on the topics that will be discussed. Perhaps you’d like to help out by leading a discussion on a topic?

There have been other ChangeCamps in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

ChangeCamp Edmonton happens on:

October 17, 2009 Saturday
Lister Conference Centre – Maple Leaf Room, University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Lunch will be provided.

You can get involved by signing up to the Facebook ChangeCamp page.

Or register right at the ChangeCamp Edmonton registration page.