canadians: please sign a new petition to help protect an endangered species from profit-driven abuse

Late last year, I blogged about Canada's shameful role in ongoing and illegal animal abuse: the importation of long-tailed macaques, an endangered species of monkey, for use in drug experiments. The posts are here and here.

Those earlier posts did not go into detail, because, frankly, I cannot handle knowing too much about animal abuse. It feels like every animal story I've ever read or seen is indelibly etched in my memory, never to be erased. I can't remember what I did last weekend, but the dogfighting scene from a Cormac McCarthy novel I read more than 20 years ago still haunts me. Even the stories with happy endings kill me: what happened before the rescue still happened.

Follow the money

The illegal importation of long-tailed macaques is purely profit-driven. There is no scientific or medical reason for this abhorrent practice to continue. In addition, it creates a significant risk of zoonotic disease transmission. 

Laws already exist to protect endangered species, but loopholes, lack of oversight, and the absence of meaningful sanctions allow corporations such as US-based pharmaceutical company Charles River Laboratories to continue the practice. 

The importation of long-tailed macaques for experimentation is already illegal in the US, but imports from Cambodia into Canada increased by 500 per cent from 2022 to 2023, according to Statistics Canada.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, the federal department responsible for monitoring commercial trade in wildlife, confirmed that Charles River Laboratories has imported 6,769 long-tailed macaques into the country in (roughly) the past 18 months. The monetary value of these imports: $120 million dollars.

Shine the light, now take the steps

Last November's open letter led by scientists Jesse Greener and Michael Schillaci -- signed by 80 scientists, professors, and researchers, including David Suzuki -- illuminated this inexcusable, unsafe, but highly profitable, practice.

Achieving real change, however, requires movement by our elected officials. This petition, sponsored by MP Alexandre Boulerice, can put pressure on Prime Minister Carney and his cabinet to do the right thing.

You can read more here: 'Serious risks': Researchers join push against importing monkeys for drug testing.

Sign and share

Canadians, please sign this petition before the House of Commons, calling on the government of Canada to stop allowing endangered monkeys to be imported for cruel and unnecessary lab experimentation. And don't forget to check your email, then click the link to you to confirm your signature.

It's easy. It's important. And it may work. 

Please sign and share with your networks. 

Short documentary

You may be interested in this 26-minute documentary from Bloomberg Investigates: The Dirty Business of Monkey Laundering. It looks really good -- powerful. I can't watch, but I hope people will.

greetings from st. louis (day 1, part one)

I worked on Saturday, then we had two ridiculously busy days. But whatever, we were getting ready to leave, so I was happy. A cleaner bailed at the last minute, so in addition to the various phone calls and errands and dog instructions and orienting new dogsitters and laundry and ironing (yes, ironing, believe it or not), lawn-mowing, wood-splitting and whatever else, we were cleaning the house, too. Allan is never in the best mood when he's so busy, so I was dealing with that, too.

But eventually, we got out of the house and had a chance to relax while driving down to the Comox Valley. We stayed at the Coast Courtenay -- a freebie paid for with Coast Rewards. That was the icing on the cake after getting the entire airfare and half the rental car through Aeroplan points.

In the room, we watched election returns until we hit exhaustion. Tanille Johnston, our NDP candidate who I really admire and strongly support, was leading in the early going. After Rachel Blaney declined to run again, I had pretty much resigned myself to having a Conservative MP. Then Aaron Gunn turned out to be a racist idiot (seriously, he is both), and with Tanille ahead in the early hours of counting, I got my hopes up. By the time we went to sleep, Gunn had taken the lead, but Tanille was still closing the gap. 

I was so exhausted that I nearly went to sleep in the disgusting clothes I had been in all day, but rallied a bit. I slept maybe four hours, woke up at 1:00 a.m., saw the final results for our riding and the country.

We knew the NDP would fare poorly, for reasons both of their own doing and well beyond their control, but I didn't expect such a total collapse, with Jagmeet losing his seat. On the other hand, I was doing a happy dance over Poilievre losing his seat. Who would imagine that the American dictator would help us dodge that (seemingly inevitable) bullet. I am happier about PP losing his seat than I am sad about Jagmeet losing his.

And then there is Aaron Gunn. He is an embarrassment, wholly unfit to sit in Parliament. I won't be at all surprised if he does something unconscionable and is forced to resign. Although he has already done something unconscionable, and his party and his voters don't care. Allan and I are absolutely disgusted at his election.

I let Allan sleep til 3:30, then we left the car at the Comox Valley Airport, and took a short and easy flight to Vancouver. Then: all that preparation, and hotel room and super-early wake-up, and now it was only 6:30 a.m. and we had an almost seven-hour layover in Vancouver. A few weeks ago, I had a brilliant idea of what to do with that time -- and I want to capture it here.

In which we cross something off our list and I congratulate myself incessantly 

We have this expensive luggage, purchased from our insurance settlement after the Great Sewage Flood of 2008. Briggs & Riley luggage is guaranteed for life, repaired or replaced, no questions asked. At some point in the last year or so, my suitcase developed a tear in the fabric. B&R would fix it or replace the bag at no charge, and ship it back to me -- but I had to get the bag to the closest authorized dealer... which of course is in Vancouver. Or more accurately, in Richmond, very near the airport!

We brought the empty suitcase with us as a carry-on. Researching online, I discovered there is a bag check in the Vancouver Airport. We left our camera, CPAP, and backpack there ($11 per item, but they only charged us for two, for no reason), and took the Skytrain into Vancouver. I even had transit cards from a previous trip. (More self-congratulations for remembering them and knowing where they were.) 

From the Skytrain, we figured out a long bus ride to the repair place -- or thought we did. We were on the bus for a very long time, and hey, this looks familiar... I think we've already been here... And we realized we had completed the entire bus route and were on a second loop! Oops! 

I chatted with the driver: it turns out we were on the wrong bus. Lesson learned: do not trust Google Maps to understand public transit. I should have checked the bus schedule maps myself. Google gave two different options, and neither were correct.

The bus driver was extremely helpful, and helped me figure out how to correct our mistake. It was totally fixable with one long walk. We had plenty of time, it wasn't raining, and we set off. The only inconvenience was the empty suitcase and a totebag full of snacks. With a long travel day ahead of us, I had packed a lot of healthy snacks from home, and we hadn't checked that bag. We walked for about 15-20 minutes, found the repair place, and left the suitcase. Amazing!

In which a sweet travel story makes me even happier

Then came the second part of my clever plan: dim sum! Richmond has a huge Chinese Canadian population, and I know it is loaded with dim sum places -- the "dumpling trail". In New York, dim sum was a huge treat, but in Mississauga, it was practically a staple. We love it and haven't had it at all since moving to the Island. I called an Uber and in a few minutes we were at one of the places that came up in my research. 

It was in a somewhat strange location, hidden away in what looked like the back of an industrial building. Plus it wasn't open yet. By this time we were very hungry and it felt like a long day and night were about to catch up with us in a big way. Should we wait for the place to open? How far were we from a Skytrain back to the airport? Should we Uber to another restaurant closer to the airport? 

We walked around the building, trying to figure out what to do in this seemingly deserted parking lot. And when we came back around to the entrance, there was a small crowd of people waiting for it to open! They were all Chinese, always a good sign. I asked a woman if there was a Skytrain nearby, and... we were right near a stop! Actually between two stops! What a laugh!

I said that was amazing, as we were on a layover from the airport. She gave me a huge smile and said, Are you tourists?? She seemed all ready to help. So sweet. I told her we live on Vancouver Island and are just on our way somewhere. A few seconds later, the restaurant opened. Several steamed pork buns and shrimp dumplings later, we were full and very happy. Absolutely perfect.

The Skytrain was literally down the street, and in five minutes we were back at the airport, claimed our items from the baggage, and headed to security, exactly 90 minutes before our flight. The only question is when I will stop congratulating myself.

the residential school denier who won't face voters -- and the party that stands by him

Aaron Gunn, the Conservative candidate for North Island-Powell River (my riding), is a bigot and a residential school denier. 

Pierre Poilievre stands by him, denying the denialism, claiming that the words Gunn said aren't really what he meant.

Gunn's residential school denialism tops a list of his other ignorant views, which include transphobia, admiration for Vladimir Putin, and support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Gunn has cancelled or no-showed every all-candidates meeting since this story broke. The man clearly lacks the courage to face voters and talk about his views. 

* * * *

When Allan and I were looking into moving to Vancouver Island, one of the things that attracted us was local politics: the entire island was NDP, both provincially and federally.

Whatever the NDP is or is not, regardless what it is doing right and what it could do better, they are the party that most closely represents our values and our interests -- and what should be the interest of all Candian people, as opposed to corporations and industries. A place that votes orange in large numbers is going to be more comfortable for us than the southern Ontario ridings that flip back and forth between the Conservatives and the slightly less conservative Liberals.

Once here, I learned that the North Island has a history of flipping back and forth between Conservative and NDP representatives. The Conservatives pander to the Canadian equivalent of MAGA, while a high concentration of union members keep many of those voting for labour. And everyone hates the Liberals. 

I have been very concerned about this election for many reasons. 

Here in the North Island-Powell River riding, a much loved and well-respected Member of Parliament, Rachel Blaney, decided not to stand for re-election. The NDP candidate, Tanille Johnston, is articulate, passionate, and progressive. A young woman with Indigenous heritage, Tanille is a smart, sharp leader with the necessary courage and energy for the job.

Tanille has been a city councillor for Campbell River, but outside of that area, doesn't have a high profile or strong name recognition. 

There is so much racism in this area, an abundance of aggrieved white men listening to talk radio. As issues rise to the forefront -- Reconciliation, trans liberation, immigrants and newcomers -- their reactions are predictable. 

There is also an ignorant backlash against the provincial NDP that bleeds into the federal election. In the last provincial election, the riding flipped from orange to blue, our former and excellent NDP MLA being narrowly unseated by the Conservative candidate. 

Given all these factors, I've been dreading and assuming that we will soon have a Conservative MP.

Then came Aaron Gunn and the revelations of his disgusting denialism of the impact of "residential schools" -- more accurately called concentration camps -- and Canada's role in colonial genocide. Even the dismissive language he used -- "get off Twitter and read a book" -- reveals his unsuitability to be a Member of Parliament. Does the man think the impact of the residential schools is a social-media myth? I'd like to know the last time Aaron Gunn read a book, and Tom Flanagan's latest doesn't count.

Many mayors and councillors of North Island communities signed a letter calling for Gunn to withdraw from the race. Port Hardy Mayor Pat Corbett-Labatt has said:

With everything happening around the world -- especially the troubling events in the United States -- I felt compelled to use my voice by signing this letter.

I believe that all people are equal, regardless of gender, race, religion, mental health, appearance, wealth, or age. To me, this letter is a stand against both overt and subtle forms of racism.

As Desmond Tutu once said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of the mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'

Chief Bobby Joseph's words continue to echo in my mind: 'We Are One'. I truly hope that whichever Member of Parliament is elected shares that belief. 

[Quoted in local newspaper, no link available.]

With the federal election three days from now, blue lawn signs dominate our street. Pierre Poilievre says Gunn didn't mean what he very clearly said. And Gunn himself is in hiding.

So many of my neighbours either don't care, or they agree. 

the reaction to a murder: this is why we must protect and expand public health care

Discussion and debate about health care is a staple in Canadian politics and the culture at large. The adjective most often applied to the system is used so frequently, it might as well be an official name: Our Broken Health Care System. 

Once upon a time, this word broken was a propaganda coup on the order of "pro-life".  And like all propaganda, this ubquitous word masks the real state of Canadian health care. It's not broken. It is starved. 

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments slashed health care budgets; slashed, slashed, and slashed some more. As in all things, budget cuts were never restored. The starving system becomes the new normal. Then the next Liberal or Conservative government blames the other party, and cuts some more. 

Governments continued on this course -- and Canadians continued to vote for those governments -- even though the increasingly elder population would only need more care -- and even though this has been projected for decades. We can see disaster coming, and the collision course continues on. 

And Canadians complain. 

And they continue to vote for governments that don't respect the public sector, who are beholden to corporations rather than people, who focus on window dressing like legalizing cannibis or beer sales, or who win election by spewing blatant lies about their political opponents.

And decades of under-funding have given rise to a system that may in fact truly be broken -- at least parts of it are. 

And now that they've softened the ground, Liberal and Conservative governments can talk about the real end game, the only thing worse than a starving public health care system: a private health care system, or a two-tier system. 

Canadians who want to see the system privatized, who want to continue the stealth march to privatization already taking place under our very noses, would do well to look at a spectacle currently unfolding on social media: the reaction to the recent murder of the CEO of a huge American health insurer. The reaction -- on all platforms, from almost every sector of society (other than the ruling class) -- reflects the insanity of the entrenched for-profit health care non-system, and the continued march of extreme income inequality. 

For this, I share a column by Zeynep Tufekci, who writes about the sociology of technology. The link is unlocked from The New York Times.

The Rage and Glee That Followed a C.E.O.'s Killing Should Ring All Alarms

By Zeynep Tufekci

It started barely minutes after the horrifying news broke that the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was fatally shot in midtown Manhattan. Even before any details were available, the internet was awash in speculation that the company had refused to cover the alleged killer's medical bills — and in debates about whether murder would be a reasonable response.

Soon there was a video of a man in a hoodie, face not visible, walking up behind Thompson and shooting him multiple times, ignoring a woman standing nearby before walking away. Could he be a hit man?

Then came the reports that bullet casings bearing the words "delay," "deny" and "depose" were found at the scene. "Delay" and "deny" clearly echo tactics insurers use to avoid paying claims. "Depose"? Well, that's the sudden, forceful removal from a high position. Ah.

After that, it was an avalanche.

The shooter was compared to John Q, the desperate fictional father who takes an entire emergency room hostage after a health insurance company refuses to cover his son's lifesaving transplant in a 2002 film of the same name. Some posted "prior authorization needed before thoughts and prayers." Others wryly pointed out that the reward for information connected to the murder, $10,000, was less than their annual deductibles. One observer recommended that Thompson should be scheduled to see a specialist in a few months, maybe.

Many others went further. They urged people with information about the killing not to share it with the authorities. Names and photos of other health insurance executives floated around. Some of the posts that went most viral, racking up millions of views by celebrating the killing, I can't repeat here.

It's true that any news with shock value would get some of this response online — after all, trolling, engagement bait and performative provocation are part of everyday life on digital platforms.

But this was something different. The rage that people felt at the health insurance industry, and the elation that they expressed at seeing it injured, was widespread and organic. It was shocking to many, but it crossed communities all along the political spectrum and took hold in countless divergent cultural clusters.

Even on Facebook, a platform where people do not commonly hide behind pseudonyms, the somber announcement by UnitedHealth Group that it was "deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague" was met with, as of this writing, 80,000 reactions; 75,000 of them were the "haha" emoji.

Politicians offering boilerplate condolences were eviscerated. Some responses came in the form of personal testimony. I don't condone murder, many started, before describing harrowing ordeals that health insurance companies had put them through.

On a prominent Reddit forum for medical professionals, one of the most upvoted comments was a parody rejection letter: After "a careful review of the claim submitted for emergency services on December 4, 2024," it read, a claim was denied because "you failed to obtain prior authorization before seeking care for the gunshot wound to your chest." Just a few days earlier, the forum had been a place where people debated the side effects of Flomax and the best medical conferences.

I've been studying social media for a long time, and I can't think of any other incident when a murder in this country has been so openly celebrated.

The conditions that gave rise to this outpouring of anger are in some ways specific to this moment. Today's business culture enshrines the maximization of executive wealth and shareholder fortunes, and has succeeded in leveraging personal riches into untold political influence. New communication platforms allow millions of strangers around the world to converse in real time.

But on a deeper level, the currents we are seeing are expressions of something more fundamental. We've been here before. And it wasn't pretty.

The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.

The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awe-struck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.

Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate the industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.

As the historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, "the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections 'won' by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations." And neither political party, he added, seemed "capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans' lives." No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.

It's not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it's not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.

A recent Reuters investigation identified at least 300 cases of political violence since the 2021 assault on the Capitol, which it described as "the biggest and most sustained increase in U.S. political violence since the 1970s." A 2023 poll showed that the number of Americans who agree with the statement "American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country" was ticking up alarmingly.

And the fraying of the social contract is getting worse. Americans express less and less trust in many institutions. Substantial majorities of people say that government, business leaders and the media are purposefully misleading them. In striking contrast to older generations, majorities of younger people say they do not believe that "the American dream" is achievable anymore. The health insurance industry likes to cite polls that show overall satisfaction, but those numbers go down when people get sick and learn what their insurer is and is not willing to do for them.

Things are much better now than in the 19th century. But there is a similarity to the trajectory and the mood, to the expression of deep powerlessness and alienation.

Now, however, the country is awash in powerful guns. And some of the new technologies that will be deployed to help preserve order can cut both ways. Thompson's killer apparently knew exactly where to find his target and at exactly what time. No evidence has emerged that he had access to digital tracking data, but that information is out there on the market. How long before easily built artificial-intelligence-powered drones equipped with facial recognition cameras, rather than hooded men with backpacks, seek targets in cities and towns?

The turbulence and violence of the Gilded Age eventually gave way to comprehensive social reform. The nation built a social safety net, expanded public education and erected regulations and infrastructure that greatly improved the health and well-being of all Americans.

Those reforms weren't perfect, and they weren't the only reason the violence eventually receded (though never entirely disappeared), but they moved us forward.

The concentration of extreme wealth in the United States has recently surpassed that of the Gilded Age. And the will among politicians to push for broad public solutions appears to have all but vanished. I fear that instead of an era of reform, the response to this act of violence, and to the widespread rage it has ushered into view, will be limited to another round of retreat by the wealthiest. Corporate executives are already reportedly beefing up their security. I expect more of them to move to gated communities, entrenched beyond even higher walls, protected by people with even bigger guns. Calls for a higher degree of public surveillance, or for integrating facial recognition algorithms into policing, may well follow. Almost certainly, armed security entourages and private jets will become an even more common element of executive compensation packages, further removing routine contact between the extremely wealthy and the rest of us, except when employed to serve them.

We still don't know who killed Brian Thompson or what his motive was. Whatever facts eventually emerge, the anger it has laid bare will still be real, and what we glimpsed should ring all the alarm bells.

three canadian mps call on trudeau government to end importation of endangered macque monkeys

Photo: Ignacio Yufera

I've learned that the image of a macaque monkey that I posted was not the kind of monkey that is being illegally trafficked in Canada. That image was of a toque monkey. I've updated that previous post with an image of long-tailed macaque, also pictured here (two photos, see below).

There's been a welcome development on this issue! Three members of Canada's Parliament have brought it up with cabinet ministers and called for immediate action.

[Canadians: please click here to sign a petition to end the illegal trafficking of long-tailed macaques.]

In a letter sent on October 24, MPs Alexandre Boulerice, Laurel Collins, and Matthew Green called on cabinet ministers to immediately block any further illegal importation of long-tailed macaques for international monkey dealer Charles River Laboratories.

The letter urged the minister of transport, the minister of the environment and climate change, and the minister of public safety to:

• Enforce existing laws, focusing on scrutinizing international shipments involving endangered species,


• Strengthen penalties for violations in order to deter illegal activities, and


• Implement safeguards to verify that imported long-tailed macaques aren’t illegally abducted from forests.

The letter states, in part:

We are committed to working with our parliamentary colleagues to explore new legislative measures that could prohibit the importation of all primates for use in experimentation, protect endangered species, and prevent Canada from becoming a hub for unethical and illegal wildlife trade practices.

Photo: Ignacio Yufera

The letter follows a detailed report from primate scientist Dr. Lisa Jones-Engel and a fine imposed by the Canadian Transportation Agency against SkyTaxi, a small Poland-based cargo airline, for $7,500 for three illegal shipments of 1,980 monkeys. This works out to less than $4 per monkey. 

Fines may be a useful deterrent, but Charles River can undoubtedly find another carrier to do their dirty work.

A reminder that the US has already refused to allow Charles River to import these endangered animals, and that's when the company turned to Canada. Beginning in early 2023, Charles River 

Laboratories imported more than 6,700 long-tailed macaques into Canada, shipments valued at more than $120,000.

World Animal Protection lists five facts about long-tailed macaques and has some great photos of these intelligent, social, endangered animals. 

I hope you will click here to sign a petition calling on Canada to end the illegal, immoral, unethical, and completely unnecessary trafficking of these animals.

elections: here some relief, there... only fear

I rarely -- almost never -- write about politics anymore, either Canadian or US. But of course the upcoming US election is weighing heavily on my mind, as it surely is on yours. 

Good, sane people everywhere can only watch in horror and disbelief as the US becomes increasingly bizarre and unhinged. We've all run out of adjectives. It is simply surreal. 

Why I still vote NDP

I had another election on my mind, too. There was a provincial election in BC: the incumbent progressive NDP trying to fend off a Conservative surge. 

There's a lot of anger against the NDP government, most of it based on ignorance and lies from the right, and magical thinking from the left. As governments go, the BC NDP government was as good as it gets. They've been focused on improving life for ordinary Canadians in ways that make a real difference -- healthcare, childcare, housing. 

Their part in the criminalization of the Wet'suwet'en land defenders is very troubling. The pipeline blockaded by land defenders was approved by the elected Wet'suwet'en council, but is opposed by the hereditary chiefs. Amnesty, environmental groups, and many Indigenous allies see this as an end-run around the principles and intent of DRIPA.

It's true that the elected councils are vestiges of colonialism, brought in by the Indian Act. However, they exist, and the Nations elect them. Should we discount elected councils and chiefs because of their origins? Do we have the right to do that -- or are we conveniently siding with the view of the Indigenous people who we agree with? I'm not sure. Whatever the answer to this complicated question, no sitting government will allow a blockade to continue, and no sitting government, of any party, will say no to a pipeline.

Similarly, the BC NDP walks an impossible balance: being too pro-logging for environmentalists, and being too green for the industries (and workers) who would cut down every tree, extract every living creature from the ocean, and uproot every acre of earth in service of short-term jobs and profits. A party that doesn't support logging in BC will never form the government.

I'd rather have a government that allows controlled logging, and also strengthens public healthcare, builds housing, creates affordable childcare, raises wages, and supports workers than a government that allows uncontrolled logging and privatizes everything. The pipeline and the logging is a given. The rest of it is up for grabs. 

A nail-biter

It was a wild election, with some ridings needing automatic recounts and others decided by absentee ballots. The NDP formed the government with the minimum number of seats needed for a majority. The Greens won two seats; with proportional representation, they would have won eight. Our own MLA (provincial representative) lost, the riding flipping to Conservative, which is unsurprising. But most importantly, we escaped the orgy of privatization and cutbacks that would have followed a Conservative win.

US-style Canadian trolls are already trying to manufacture doubt about the outcome, accusing Elections BC of all kinds of malfeasance. 

American insanity, and some leftist insanity, too

About the US election, what is there to say? The anxiety and fear of good-hearted, right-thinking Americans is justifiably soaring. What will happen if Trump wins -- and what will happen if he loses? Fascists are making death threats against election workers and their families. Fascists with a higher level of education have hundreds of lawsuits ready to drop, to slow and attempt to invalidate results. I assume wmtc readers know about this, but just in case, a primer: Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election.

One sad and infuriating bit, for me, is the response of many leftists, exhorting people to not vote for Harris, because the Democrats, like the Republicans, support the ongoing genocide and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

I find this by turns infuriating and depressing.

US foreign policy does not change. There is no "cut the military budget" party. No "stop supporting dictators" party. No "break ties with Israel" party. Trump's love of dictators in Russia and North Korea is only a new variation of the long history of US support for (and often installation of) dictators the world over. Neither party will stop that vile madness.

But to say there will be no difference between a Harris presidency and a Trump presidency is wildly disingenuous, incredibly ignorant, and unforgiveably callous. The socialist activists I know who exhort US voters to shun both parties fall into the third category. 

A Facebook contact recently explained a bit of this thinking: they said that Trump is a symptom, not the disease. I agree. But what do we normally do with symptoms of diseases that have no imminent cure? Do we refuse to treat them, allow people to wither and die, because the disease itself cannot be cured? 

I've heard versions of this all my life. Don't donate to food banks because it allows governments to not provide adequate supports. Don't work with grassroots groups facilitating abortion access, or helping rape victims, don't teach people who didn't finish high school, because those things "let governments off the hook". 

Choosing to help people who have been fucked over by capitalism and patriarchy doesn't preclude working to change those conditions. Can a person who needs to terminate a pregnancy wait for their state to pass better laws? Should we let families suffer from hunger and malnutrition until we achieve a more just and caring society? 

Sure, Trump is a symptom. When looked at through a socialist lens, everything that's wrong with our world is a symptom. And we need to treat the symptom to the best of our very limited ability.

I had to unfollow some really smart, interesting, and engaged socialist activists, because I can no longer bear this peculiarly leftist brand of bothsiding. Right-wing cruelty is on display every day. I expect it from them. This left-wing cruelty is infuriating and heartbreaking.  

Hypocrisy? Not really and who cares

I voted Democrat in 1992, and for a third party in 1996 and 2000. My vote was of no consequence, thanks to the US system, and I was free to not vote for a party I despised. Those who blamed third-party voting for the debacle of the 2000 election are either short-sighted, misinformed, or party hacks.

In 2004 I voted Democrat. I hated the Dems as much as I ever did, but I felt the popular vote count might be important. Turns out it was not, thanks again to the Dems themselves.

That was the last time I voted in a US election.

If I still lived in the US, I would absolutely vote Democrat now. This, and I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, and am horrified and grieving over Israel's extermination of the Indigenous population. I would vote Democrat because it is an emergency.

In her acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, Kamala Harris uttered the words "the rights of the Palestinian people". I have never heard a POTUS candidate say that before. Just words, of course -- but words we could try to build on. Not voting Democrat will not help the Palestinian people, but the harm that choice could bring is unfathomable.

As we hold our collective breath: I want to cry tears of joy

On August 1 of this year, I posted this on Facebook. 

It's been 20 years since I last voted in the US and my disgust at the DNC and my feelings about the sham democracy are well documented. But the idea of a brown woman being POTUS thrills me and I will cry tears of joy when she is elected. Just as I did when Obama was elected, even though I knew who he truly was and what his election would (and wouldn't) bring. The US is the US. I'm not expecting anything other. But I want Harris to fucking kick that felon's butt. I want to see a fucking landslide, a decisive victory. I want to cry at her inauguration.

polarization is not the problem. the problem is fascism.

Art by Maaike Hartjes

"The problem today is that society is so polarized. We need to come together and find common ground."

I hear and read this a lot these days. 

In this analysis, opposing points of view are characterized as "extreme". The best option, it is said, lies in the middle. 

This is a deceptive and potentially dangerous belief.

When mainstream views move so far to the right that the ideas, if put into action, would destroy democracy and civil society, then it is our responsibility to oppose those views. 

When bigotry and hate are rallying cries, it is our duty to stand in opposition, and in solidarity with the targets.

When political actions offend our core values, we must call them out and oppose them.

And if that appears polarizing, it's not the fault of the people trying to build a better world -- or trying to save the crappy one we have.

The opposite of extremism may not be extreme

The "polarization is the problem" view assumes that both ends of the spectrum are always extreme, and that a common-sense approach always lies somewhere in the middle. 

So as the right wing has become more and more extreme, the definition of "centrist" -- supposedly middle ground -- has moved further to the right, too. In conversations with Canadians, I have been absolutely amazed that this is a novel concept:  people don't  seem to realize that centre is a relative term! 

There is no active extreme left in either the US or Canada. There may be random individuals on the extreme left, but there is no political party representing those views, no widespread people's movement, no groundswell of public opinion. 

The parties and viewpoints that oppose the extreme right are either moderate centre-right (Liberal Party, most of Democratic Party) or moderate center-left (NDP, some of Democratic Party). The Liberals, Democrats, and NDP are only far-left in a Fox News-induced fantasy world -- and through the polarization lens.

Take a look at those parties' platforms, the bills they put forward, how they vote. Not so very long ago, their positions were considered quite moderately liberal. The evidence for that is all around us: it's what's left of the public sector that the right-wing has been demolishing since the Reagan/Mulroney era. Advocating for public healthcare, affordable housing, public education, a fair tax code, green energy, and decent jobs is not extreme. Wanting an inclusive society is not extreme.

Define "greater good"

"We need to come together to work for the greater good." 

This is a familiar refrain from the "polarization is the problem" mindset. But how should those with opposing viewpoints work together -- and why?

I can agree that in Parliament and Congress it would be best if political parties could work together. If a party votes yes for something when they put it forward, and vote no on the same thing when another party puts it forward, that is partisanship. It values party loyalty over society at large. It's counterproductive, childish, and wrong. 

But when parties' values are opposed to each other, finding a so-called middle ground isn't necessarily a reasonable goal. Take healthcare, for example. If one party wants to expand the public health system, and one party wants to privatize it, those two parties can't find a middle ground and they shouldn't try. 

Should the party that wants to expand public health care "compromise" and allow some privatization? Of course not! That party should oppose all privatization and seek to roll back whatever privatization has already taken place. Those are the actions that align with their values, and presumably the values of their voters. Finding so-called common ground would mean betraying their values, their voters, and the public health system.

After hearing "we need to come together to work for the greater good," we must insist: define greater good. 

Can't we all just coalition?

What about a coalition? In most parliamentary systems of government, in countries throughout the world, parties enter into coalitions from time to time. Can Canada do that? Would we want it to? 

I would probably support an NDP-Liberal coalition government, so those parties could work together to defeat the Conservatives. When this was attempted in 2009, it was scuttled by a weak Liberal leader, public ignorance, and propaganda, with a huge assist from the Canadian media. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said a coalition would "overturn the results of an election" -- and no one challenged or corrected him.** (If they did it was not amplified to the point where anyone could hear it.) 

A coalition would be exciting, scary, potentially amazing. Potentially disastrous. Alas, we'll probably never know. It seems highly unlikely that we'll see a coalition government in Canada. But we could try. 

If working together for the greater good means defeating the Conservatives -- who, in the Canadian context, are far-right -- then working together is a laudable goal.

Good guys vs. fascists

All my adult life, I've heard that's it's wrong to think in terms of us vs. them. But I've never believed that. Of course it's wrong when applied to nationality or ethnic background or so-called "race". But my own us vs. them has nothing to do with personal characteristics. My us vs. them is not even about class. It's about worldviews. Values. Right and wrong. 

There are those who want justice, peace, equity. Who want everyone to have a safe and affordable place to live, quality healthcare, quality education. Those who value democracy. Who want everyone to be free to live and love as they choose, to create the families that they want, without government or religious interference. 

And there are those who want profit, empire, and power. Warmongers. Hatemongers. People who believe that where their ancestors were born makes them superior. People who think their life choices should be the only ones available. People who want to reverse social progress. As an old boss of mine, Oz Elliott, used to say: good guys and fascists. 

Being a good guy doesn't mean staying neutral or searching for common ground. It means standing up for what is right.

Polarization is, in reality, resistance. And in the face of fascism, bigotry, and hate, it's exactly what we need.

-----

** For some US readers: A coalition does no such thing. Everyone who was elected is still elected.  What differs is who forms the government.

hard times: we are ruled by banks, corporations, and the governments that enable them. it doesn't have to be this way.

In Canada this year, food bank usage hit an all-time high. In March 2022, there were almost 1.5 million visits to food banks -- 15% more than there were one year ago, and a whopping 35% more visits than in March 2019, pre-pandemic.

Food prices have ballooned at the highest rate in four decades. The Consumer Price Index, which approximates a cost of living barometer, has risen 6.9% since this time last year, which was already 5.9% higher than the previous year. At times over this past year, food prices had gone up more than 10%.

The price of gasoline is 13.2% higher than it was the previous year -- down from an eye-popping 22% increase a few months earlier. Most Canadians must drive in order to work; in most areas of the country, public transit is minimal. In urban areas, 17% of Canadians take public transit to work. In non-urban areas, a scant 2% do so. 

This is usually attributed to Russia's war on Ukraine, and supply chain interruption. Why would a faraway war impact the price of food in North America? Because everything, including basic survival, is subject to the irrational, mysterious ways of the market. The good old invisible hand of capitalism, causing good times and bad. And supposedly there's nothing we can do about it. Too bad, so sad. 

But there is something we can do. We can build a better system -- a rational system that privileges the needs of many over profits for a few.

It doesn't have to be this way

But in response to this crippling inflation, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates, which harms people, and benefits banks. Raising interest rates to combat inflation has been shown to fail 100% of the time. 

That's worth repeating. The Bank of Canada is following a policy with a zero percent success rate. Unless your goal is helping banks, in which case it's spectacularly successful.

As Economist David MacDonald puts it:

History tells us that the Bank of Canada has a 0% success rate in fighting inflation by quickly raising interest rates. If a pilot told me that they'd only ever attempted a particular landing three times in the past 60 years with a 0% success rate, that's not a plane I'd want to be on. Unfortunately, that looks like the plane all Canadians are on now.

Free-market rationale says that rising interest rates will discourage borrowing and encourage savings. This seems little more than fantasy.

(1), mortgages are already borrowed, we can't un-borrow them, so increasing interest just increases the housing costs of real people. (2), the price of food and fuel continues to climb, so therefore, (3), ordinary people have even less money to save, if indeed they ever had any.

These rising interest rates and higher mortgage payments occur are occuring in a country where housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Rising interest rates are bad news for everyone -- except banks.

Meanwhile:

Exxon Mobil and Chevron raked in a mountain of profit this year. The net income for the world's oil and natural gas producers is set to double in 2022 from 2021, to a new high of $4 trillion. World Energy Outlook calls it "an unprecedented windfall for producers".

Loblaw, the corporate food giant, tried to package a routine holiday practice -- freezing prices on their store brand for a few months -- as noblesse oblige. Who do they think they're fooling? In the first quarter of this year, Loblaw enjoyed a 40% increase in profits compared with the previous year. 

Meanwhile:

Nearly a quarter of Canadians have been forced to cut back on purchasing food.

Whose government is this?

The Liberal Government defends interest rate hikes, even though this has squeezed many Canadians in a fight for survival, and pushes many into food insecurity or outright hunger. 

The Conservative Party criticizes the rate hikes, but that's just partisanship. History is quite clear on this point: if the Conservatives were in power, they would also support the Bank's moves, too.

Only Jagmeet Singh and the New Democrat Party speak out against this insanity.

But there's little enough that any party can do, as our laws are written to support big business and minimize government input. The NDP can call for investigations and strategies, but the fact is, a remedy would require an entire re-thinking of government's role in business. 

It would require a government that protects people from predatory businesses, rather than enabling their voracious greed.

All this could change. Laws are not found in nature. They are written by people. 

If the government governed for us, there would be laws against price gouging, there would be a "Robin Hood" tax, there would be caps on profits for essential goods. There would be a human right to food and shelter, and laws that supported those rights. 

Instead, the laws of the land are designed to maximize the profits of the few, not the needs of the many.

We must ask, who does the Government represent? If Trudeau's Liberals support policies that are killing Canadians, how can they credibly say they are representing the people who elected them?  

I am fed up

I am fed up -- I am way beyond fed up -- with governments that represent Loblaw, Suncor, and RBC. For the millions of Canadians who will only vote Liberal or Conservative, I ask, How's that been working out for you? 

In the US, there is no viable third option. That has enabled the march to the extreme right. In Canada, where there is a developed third party, the majority are afraid to vote for it -- even those who claim to support its platforms. Supposedly progressive people routinely advise and pressure others to not vote NDP. 

Obviously voting NDP will not magically fix these problems. But it would be a start. With Liberals and Conservatives, things will continue along the current path, which will only lead to greater wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people. Then Canada will be well positioned for the desperation that allows fearmongers to incite scapegoating, violence, and all manner of repression. 

I have no illusions about the NDP. They are a political party, and therefore subject to the same pitfalls as any other. But if all the partisan politics are equal, only the NDP speaks for ordinary Canadians. 

Isn't it time to try something different? 

Further reading

David Macdonald, quoted above, is the senior economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a progressive think tank that I am proud to support. You can read Macdonald's analysis here. 

Paul Krugman is also a good read on this topic. See his "wonking out" columns.

Here are three good stories on food insecurity in Canada -- all published pre-pandemic. Since that, it has gotten so much worse.

Wealth is health: The Reality of Food Insecurity in Canada

People Across Canada Are Struggling with Food Insecurity

More Canadians are food insecure than ever before – and the problem is only getting worse

Imagine something different.

What Would a Socialist Food Industry Look Like?

Capitalism and food: Hunger amidst plenty

Socialism for the bankers, capitalism for the rest of us -- so it goes

electoral reform is way overdue (but ranked ballots won't help)

Canada's 2021 federal election made the case for proportional representation very plain. 

While Canada's electoral system isn't as insanely nondemocratic as the US's winner-take-all (or "first-past-the-post")  by state, with the antiquated and antidemocratic electoral college intervening, it is still FPTP by riding.

For US readers, ridings are roughly the equivalent of congressional districts. So while a 51% vote doesn't rake in all of Ontario, Saskatchewan, or Quebec, it does win a seat in any given riding. And the other 49% of you can all go to hell.

A recent disastrous election in Ontario underscored this further. 

With slightly less than 41% of the vote, Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives were able to declare a "majority" government, meaning they have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. 

And in this case, what they want is ever more privatization -- of Ontario's healthcare system, education, transit, and any public service that can possibly be privatized. 

And that means higher fees for every taxpayer, lower-quality service, less oversight in how finances are managed, and a great increase in profits for a well-placed few. Those few will have connections to Conservative governments and to the Ford family personally. In other words, a transfer of wealth from the public to already-wealthy private shareholders.

It also means drastic cutbacks in services and cancellations of many planned programs -- in a province that where public services are already tissue-thin.

This is from an analysis of the 2022 Ontario election from Fair Vote Canada (in part, emphasis added):

-- The PCs got a landslide majority with just 40.84% of the vote. They won a whopping 83 seats ― that's 7 more seats than 2018 with only 0.34 points more of the popular vote. 

-- The Liberal Party earned more of the popular vote than the NDP ― 23.85% vs 23.73%―but the NDP’s voters elected 31 MPPs and Liberal voters only elected 8. 

-- 54% of voters ― 2,531,087 ― cast wasted votes that elected no-one.

-- Thresholds of 3-5% are common in countries with proportional systems and any PR system for Canada wouldn't deliver perfectly proportional results. For example, see here how smaller parties would have fared in the recent federal election.

-- In an Ontario PR system with a 3% threshold, the results would have been:

Progressive Conservative: 53

Liberal Party: 31

NDP: 31

Green Party of Ontario: 8

Independent: 1

-- Voter turnout fell to 43.54%. That means the current "majority" government is supported by 17.78% of eligible voters. In a winner-take-all electoral system, many people feel they must vote for the lesser evil, or are discouraged from voting at all. 

--- The Ontario Liberal Party's proposed "reform"― a winner-take-all ranked ballot ― wouldn't have solved any of the glaring problems with Ontario's voting system. A simulation shows that a winner-take-all ranked ballot would have led to the same outcome: a PC "majority" with only a minority of the popular vote. Australia has been using winner-take-all ranked ballot for 100 years and almost always elects a false majority government.

In May of this year, Members of Parliament from the Green and New Democrat parties called for a Citizens' Assembly on proportional representation. I was so pleased and proud that my own MP, Rachel Blaney, is one of those. Rachel said, in part:

When we talk about things like proportional representation, we really are talking about making sure that every vote counts, that the voices of the collective are reflective in our House of Commons.

As a person who, as I said earlier, really represents rural and remote communities, we wanted to make sure that there were opportunities for those voices to be heard and that the process of a proportional system would not lose those voices. They want to see that the local representation and that those voices are heard in the House of Commons. They want it to be fair.

There is room to have those discussions, but sadly, the Liberals ignored that opportunity. I really feel, and I have heard this after every election, that there is a sense of cynicism that we are never going to get to a place where those voices are heard and where we actually create a system that is more proportional.

The member for Elmwood-Transcona did put forward a motion in PROC to discuss the important idea of having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform in the last Parliament. It passed, but unfortunately, because of the election called, a completely uncalled for election in my opinion, the study never happened. We now have to go back to the writing board.

What is so important about having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform is we need to see citizens engaged. We need to hear those voices and maybe we need to take it out of the political realm and give voices to people across this country.

What I think is so important, and what I have heard from constituents across the board, is they want to explore this. They want to make sure their vote counts. They want to be able to vote as they feel, even if that vote will not get them a seat in Parliament. They do not want to feel like that vote is something they throw away.

Constituents also want to make sure that areas are represented fairly. For my riding, like I said earlier, they do not want to feel like the cities of our country are the ones making the decisions. The realities for rural and remote communities can be very different than those of larger cities. That is not to dishonour any one of them, but it is to make sure that those voices are heard.

You can watch Rachel's full speech here. 

Rachel also supports lowering the voting age to 16, which we urgently need.

I was surprised to learn that the Toronto Star published an editorial calling for electoral reform -- surprised, that is, until I realized that this time around, Ontario's Liberal Party was negatively affected by FPTP. During the 2007 Ontario referendum on electoral reform -- when the Liberal Party was in power -- the Star, always a Liberal mouthpiece, opposed reform, citing "the way we've always done things," don't you know.

Therein lies the reason Canada doesn't have proportional representation: because the two governing parties are more interested in getting in power and keeping that power than in the people they are meant to serve. And obviously more interested in power than in democracy.

Although moving to a proportional representation system often seems like an impossible dream, it's a dream worth fighting for -- a dream we must never give up.

another federal election, another opportunity squandered #elxn44 #ndp

I haven't written anything about the upcoming Canadian federal election, because what is there to say? The results are depressingly predictable.

We will either have a Liberal government or a Conservative government. 

Both will suck. One will suck worse, and one will appear to suck less. 

In a predictable bit of circular reasoning, a large number of Canadians will not vote for a party whose values they claim to support, because that party is not "electable". Despite imagining themselves as politically savvy, they will choose not to strengthen the party whose platform they support, not to build that party for the future. They will believe they are making a smart choice by not voting for what they want. Instead, they will chose to continue down a worn path that prevents Canada from moving forward.

If the Conservatives win the election, supposedly progressive people who don't vote NDP will blame progressive people who do vote NDP, sneeringly calling us as conscience voters, as if acting on one's conscience is something to be avoided. 

If the Liberals win the election, supposedly progressive people will breathe a sigh of relief, believing rhetoric and appearance over substance and voting record.

People who don't identify as progressive, but who would substantially benefit from an NDP government -- that is, the majority of Canadians -- will not vote NDP, because of mistaken, ill-informed beliefs. These beliefs are supported by the Canadian media, doggedly asking the question that is reserved solely for the NDP: How are you going to pay for that? The question no one ever asks about a military budget. About corporate welfare. About privatization. A question that used to be asked about public healthcare.

There's a reason that, come election time, the Liberals sound like the NDP. In 2021, why not vote for the party that truly supports what the Liberals claim to support?

Only one party supports a national pharmacare program. 

Only one party wants to expand public healthcare to include dental care.

Only one party wants to re-invest in our depleted public sector.

Only one party supports workers.

Only one party truly engages in Reconciliation.

Only one party has a leader willing to call out Canada's institutionalized racism.

Only one party has a plan to address income equality.

Only one party wants to invest in affordable post-secondary education.

I could go on and on. 

But it doesn't matter, does it? 

Until Canadians are willing to do something besides this

nothing will change. 

But that's not really true. There's never a time when nothing changes; change is the only constant. So what changes will we see?

The public sector will continue to shrink.

Income inequality will worsen.

Climate change will worsen.

Housing will become even less affordable.

An increasingly large segment of Canadians will be unable to afford post-secondary education -- and indeed, unable to afford daily life.

I want change. I want a government that wants the same things I want. That's why I vote NDP.

who else turned 60 this year: celebrating the bc ndp

The great Tommy Douglas
was an MP for a BC riding in the 1960s.

I recently learned that the BC NDP -- the party I vote for, the party that currently leads the provincial government -- is 60 years old this year. 

There's a website showing highlights of the party's accomplishments. It's impressive, and it explains why I vote for them. 

In a sense, it explains why I moved to Canada: the fact that there's a viable party I can feel good about voting for, a party that shares my values. That means my politics are not freakish or extreme in Canadian culture. It means I belong here, more than I ever did in the US. 

Right now, both my MP (federal) and my MLA (as provincial representatives are called here) are both NDP: Rachel Blaney and Michele Babchuk (who was elected after long-serving Claire Trevena retired). They are both outstanding representatives. I met Rachel Blaney when Port Hardy held its first-ever Pride event; she came all the way up to Port Hardy to join in. 

* * * *

Many leftists are angry at the BC NDP for its support of the logging industry -- for allowing more forest to be logged. Now that I live in a "resource town," as it is called here, I see why this is. It's one thing to hear vaguely about the economic impacts of the failing logging, mining and fishing industries. It's quite another thing to see people struggle for survival in an area almost completely dependent on extraction. Or, as is often the case, struggle to remain in the middle class -- to have enough stability to pay a mortgage, keep the kids playing sports. In other words, the same concerns as millions of other families. 

This doesn't mean I want to see all the old-growth forests felled and all the oceans overfished. It means I understand the political struggle in a different way.

In BC, no party is going to form the government campaigning on shutting down the logging industry. If the BC NDP were too vocal about curtailing logging, it wouldn't win an election. And if the NDP doesn't win the election, it won't be able to do all the good things: support and expand child care, build affordable housing, expand health care, fund education.

And if the NDP isn't elected, not only won't we have a government doing good for all people, we would be suffering from all the very bad things the Conservatives or Liberals would most assuredly do. We'd suffer through corporate tax cuts and an austerity agenda. 

So the BC NDP walks a fine line. Logging families think the government is weak and gives in to the tree-huggers. Lefties and environmentalists think the party sells out by allowing too much logging. 

A brief history of the BC NDP

Perhaps this is what caused Rachel Notley's government to implode in Alberta. I don't know. (I'm sure someone will be along to tell us!) But when Canada's most right-wing province elected an NDP government, I knew that government would support the expansion of the tar sands. It could not be otherwise.

This doesn't speak to the faults of the NDP: it speaks to the reality and the limitations of electoral politics. 

It's also why the path to creating change must begin outside electoral politics, in the grassroots -- educating ourselves and others, gathering support, creating campaigns, applying political pressure. 

And it's why any win for the grassroots will always be partial -- will always be, on some level, a disappointment. But that doesn't mean it won't be significant and have a very positive impact on people's lives. 

* * * *

Here's something else I've heard from nominally progressive Canadians: the Liberal Party, historically, is responsible for everything that's good about Canada -- that all positive change in Canadian society has come under Liberal governments. While perhaps this is technically true -- since the NDP has never formed a federal government -- it's a false narrative. Would the Liberals have done anything progressive without pressure from the left? Without knowing that they might lose left-leaning, "liberal" (in the American sense of the word) voters? 

Here's a snip from a story in Canadian Dimension about the birth of universal health insurance in Canada. (Emphasis mine.) We know that the movement to universal health insurance began under the CCF, which later became the NDP. The NDP weren't in government, but their presence exerted the necessary political pressure on both the Liberals and Conservatives.

By 1964 the pro-Medicare forces in the country were riding the crest of public opinion during a period when the political culture was moving to the left. The political alignment of national parties saw six years of minority governments over three elections between 1962 and 1968, and this favoured those political forces attempting to move the country in a more progressive direction. The NDP was growing and this strengthened left Liberals who argued that their party must protect their left flank. This in turn encouraged the red Tories within the Progressive Conservatives, who argued that the party must move left to remain electorally competitive. All of this was occurring during a minority situation when an election might occur at any time and no party wanted to be caught on the wrong side of a popular issue like public Medicare.

It took fierce struggles within both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parliamentary parties, but in the end the party whips forced the right wing into submission. The National Medical Care Insurance Act was passed in the House of Commons on December 8, 1966, by an overwhelming vote of 177 to 2. The starting date was July 1, 1968, and the Act provided that the federal government would pay about half of Medicare costs in any province with insurance plans that met the criteria of being universal, publicly administered, portable and comprehensive. By 1971 all provinces had established plans which met the criteria.

* * * *

Speaking of healthcare, when I moved to BC, I was surprised to learn that residents of this province paid monthly premiums. In Ontario, the cost of health insurance is calculated in provincial taxes, according to income. (Ours was about $1,200 per year for two people.) In BC, residents would pay monthly, also on an income-based scale. 

For the past decade, under Liberal governments, those costs had been rising steadily. In 2015, the maximum premium was $864 annually per person, or $1,728 per family. By 2018, the individual premium was $125 per month or $1,500 annually, and the annual family premium was $3,000. If you have good employment with benefits, that monthly premium may be covered by your employer. But obviously that's a condition that many people don't meet.

The BC NDP promised that, if elected, they would eliminate these fees. The Liberals trotted out charts and graphs supposedly proving that without these fees, the Province would go bankrupt. 

The NDP was elected, and it kept its promise: the monthly premiums were eliminated in January 2020. No services have been cut. Services continue to expand. 

Why wouldn't I vote for the party that does that?

* * * *

I hope many of you have seen this video of Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, then a Member of Parliament, speaking about her experience in the House of Commons, after deciding not to stand for re-election. It's a powerful speech, shared widely on social media. I hope you will watch it or re-watch it. 

Mumilaaq also explains why she stands with the NDP; she also specifically mentions my MP, Rachel Blaney.

 

solidarity with wet’suwet’en land defenders and their allies on the frontlines

Thank you to the Wet'suwet'en people who are courageously defending their land for the greater good of us all.

Thank you to the Kahnawake people who are courageously blocking the rail lines in solidarity.

Thank you to the non-Indigenous allies who blocked the main highway on Vancouver Island, and disbanded only under threats of violence from racist thugs.

Thank you to every person who attended a solidarity protest in cities across Canada.

It's inspiring to see that protest has moved to full-scale civil disobedience. We can't all do it, and we are indebted to those who can.

Shame beyond measure on the Trudeau government for pretending to care about reconciliation. When we doubted Trudeau's sincerity, Liberal Party apologists chided us: give him a chance, he sincerely cares. Have you woken up yet?

Justin Trudeau should never be allowed to speak the word reconciliation again. When he utters the word, everyone in the room should stand up and turn their backs. Everyone should unleash a chorus of SHAME so loud that he cannot be heard.

The pipelines must stop.

Canada must change its relationship with the people whose land this was and is.

#elxn43: my (completely mundane) thoughts on the results

Since I posted my useless blather just before the recent Canadian federal election, I feel like I should weigh in on the outcome. My thoughts are not trenchant or incisive, but then, neither are the thoughts of 95 percent of the pundits out there, whether employed by CBC or writing independently on their own blog.

The NDP.  I'm sorry to see the party lose so many seats. We'll never know how much of that was attributable to racism, how much to the NDP's lack of preparation, and how much to Singh's weak performance in the House of Commons. Based on what I know of people and voting, I would say more of the first and second, and little of the third. But my completely nonscientific tiny-sample-size polling tells me many disaffected Dippers are going Green, and Jagmeet has to wear some of that.

I'm not into party politics, but I do want to have a strong choice on the left -- not just on climate change, but on all issues. I ask only two things of the NDP. One, be consistently and strongly in opposition to the Liberals and Conservatives, from a democratic socialist point of view. And two, invest resources in ridings other than the few enclaves already considered safe. This should not be an impossible dream. And yet.

Minority all the way. There was some good news in this election, for sure. I assumed we'd see a minority Liberal government, and I'm relieved that we did. I'm relieved to not have a majority government of any kind, and not a Conservative government of any kind.

Goodbye Mr. Bernier. The racist, xenophobic, radically regressive PPC did not win any seats, and Maxime Bernier is no longer an MP. Excellent news. I also support the party's right to exist and to speak freely. I'm disgusted by attempts from the left to shut the PPC out of the debate.

Hello Green voters. It's good to see the Greens gain ground, even though they are not my party of choice. I want to see more people vote for more parties that are not Liberal or Conservative.

Welcome back, Bloc. I also think the resurgence of the Bloc is healthy for democracy (although bad for the NDP). When I listen to the Bloc leader in translation -- not just now, but throughout my time in Canada -- I always admire them. With one important exception, of course: their racism and Islamophobia, hardly disguised by the label "secularism". I'd love to see the NDP represent democratic socialism as clearly and strongly as the Bloc Quebecois represents its constituents.

Electoral. Reform. Now. When I look at the colour chart and look at the popular vote, I have a renewed resolve to work on electoral reform in some way. I don't know what I can do, beyond supporting Fair Vote Canada, but there must be something.

We moved to BC in the middle of a referendum on election reform, and weren't eligible to vote in it. Now I've seen two referenda of this kind, one in Ontario and one in BC. Both were massive campaigns, and both failed. I believe we should keep trying. Huge electoral change won't happen overnight. We must keep working for this. But how?

Thank you, Vancouver Island. And finally, I am grateful for the good people of Vancouver Island, where we remain staunchly orange with a touch of green.

#elxn43: the choice is clear, as always: progressives who vote liberal are not progressive at all

Jagmeet Singh marching with striking hotel workers
in Vancouver.

For weeks now, I've ignored all commentary and punditry about the upcoming Canadian federal election. I feel that literally no one has anything new or interesting thing to say.

I ignored polls for weeks, too, knowing that they are pretty much proven to be bullshit every time out. But a few days ago, I caved, and now anxiously check seat projections daily, as if they mean anything -- but knowing they do not.

It's all beyond predictable.

Calls for us to vote so-called strategically, casting blame and shame on anyone who wants something different. Dire warnings about so-called vote splitting -- the term itself worthy of derision, as if Liberal and NDP voters all want the same thing, as if the parties are actually the same. As if we're somehow divvying up the votes, as opposed to, you know, voting. Perhaps we should talk about vote-splitting between the Tories and the Liberals.

In BC, where everyone hates the Liberals, the Conservatives are scaremongering about the NDP. In all provinces, the Liberals are scaremongering about the Conservatives, while they peddle their false centrism.

And so many people spending their precious, measly little vote by trying to predict what other people will do! So many people not voting for what they want, and instead falling for the biggest self-fulfilling scam of them all.

Our awesome MP

I don't know if we're about to see a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority. And although I don't want Andrew Scheer to become Prime Minister, I cannot and will not vote for the pipeline-buying, corporate-loving, environment-killing, indigenous-hating, lying, duplicitous, unprincipled Trudeau Liberals.

Most right-thinking Canadians don't want Canada to mimic the United States. Yet they continue to believe that there are only two parties worthy of their vote, rather than building a movement for something better.

Not this voter. Not now, not ever.