Exigenomicon

Employment Insurance: Malaise, Crime and Health Costs

The changes to the Employment Insurance system that have slowly trickled out over the last couple of weeks are concerning.

For what those changes are, see Exploited Natural Resources Required to Exploit Natural Resources.

I'd like to examine those changes to predict that the changes will create a malaise across affected Canadians and that it will drive up crime, both of which will contribute to higher health costs over time and a Canadian populace that is less happy and less healthy.

Forced to work for less money

The government seems determined to use Employment Insurance as a set of spurs, with which to drive people receiving EI to take jobs that pay a minimum of 70% of their previous employment. If they don't take those jobs, then their EI is cut off. The standard line is that 70% of your last wage is better than 55% of your last wage on EI.

EI premiums are paid by people specifically so they can be drawn when needed. What the government is saying is that if there is a job that pays 30% less then EI is not needed. Lording this money over the heads of Canadians will create an atmosphere of anxiety and will contribute to stress, which is a huge factor in overall health.

So I'm working for 30% less money in a government-spurred job. What do I do when I am disenfranchised at work?

• I work less
• I produce less
• I call in sick more
• I am less focused and attentive
• I cost my employer more in benefits and lost productivity

 All these things can contribute to not only my own health but the health and welfare of those around me, especially if I am in an industrial or resource-based job, which have been constantly touted as 'acceptable work' in the Maritimes.

As well, if I'm forced to take a job for less money, it is even possible I want to be fired, to get back on EI after my foray into the government sponsored world of work opportunities.

Forced to relocate

This has been downplayed by the government but the writing is on the wall. People will be forced, through the withholding of their EI payments, to relocate for jobs, specifically seasonal employees and long-term EI recipients.

So I had to relocate. What does this mean?

• I am far more likely to actively try to get a job in my previous community
• I am far more likely to take a job in my previous community and re-re-locate
• Without a support network in place, relocating will probably be more expensive

This also drives up the cost of training and hiring for businesses, as they will soon realize that government-forced employees have one eye on the door at all times and could leave in a puff of smoke at the drop of a hat. This places additional stress up the employer as well as the employee.

Everyone has unskilled labour skills

The government firmly states that, on the one hand, people will not be expected to take jobs that do not fit their skillset. But on the other hand they also make constant reference to a lack of people to fill unskilled jobs, which by extrapolation everyone has the skills for. I have unskilled labour skills! You do too!

A nation of skilled labour being put to work by the government in unskilled jobs. Sounds like a dystopian movie. This will create a general malaise amongst ex-EI claimants, especially those with specialized skills, working in those jobs. Remember, you can make someone work but you can't make someone happy at work. And unskilled jobs are not as rewarding when you have skills in other areas.

Revolt equals crime

So let's say I've decided to not work for less than I think I am worth, and let's say I'm not going to move just because the government says I have to. Let's say I'm going to stay right where I am and continue to look for work but EI be damned. Now what?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist working at McDonald's to realize that the nature of the EI changes will lead to an increase in crime. I need money. The government is making me dress up in a monkey suit and grind an organ for that money. I won't do it. I'll find the money somewhere else.

So now that I'm engaged in some crime to support my family, my stress levels are up and I'm angry at the government.

I'm angry that they would put me to work 'in the mines', in a McJob, and at the same time repealing the fair wages act, so no matter what happens I'll probably make less. But I'll have a job and the government can brag about their 'net new jobs', and apparently everyone will be the happier for it. Except for me. I'm still angry and feeling boxed in.

And when Canadians are pushed, especially when their families are involved, they will push back. Hard.

Conclusion

The government has taken the term 'human resource' and placed it in the context of 'natural resource'. We are all now just natural resources to extract other natural resources. We are no longer Canadians, we are taxable units of work energy.

As Ted Menzies said, on the record in Hansard:

A mining company in St. John's, Newfoundland is looking to hire 1,500 people through the temporary foreign worker program. 

There are 32,500 people [in Newfoundland] looking for work right now. That is why we are trying to make EI more effective, to help these mining companies get people to employ.

Canadians will be looking to a government that is not grooming them for the mines.

NDP Budget Bill Forum - Focus on Health - Regina, Saskatchewan

On May 22, I attended one of several NDP-led forums that happened across the country.

http://budget2012.ndp.ca/

The focus of this particular forum was health. Four MPs were present - Matthew Kellway, Libby Davies, Djaouida Sellah, Malcolm Allen - along with a panel of expert witnesses from a range of health organizations and unions, as well as doctors and academics.

There were approximately 120-150 people in attendance, which is my own estimate.

I was in attendance because I wanted to know more about what's in the budget bill. The bill is large in its size (400+ pages), varied in its scope, from the environment to spies to health to pensions, and the NDP motion to separate the bills into portfolio-sized smaller bills was rejected by the government.

As Libby Davies said very aptly, "the problem with the bill is in the form and the substance, and the process."

Framing the discussion

The fundamental lens through which the panel viewed the cuts was that prevention of illness was more efficient and effective than curing that illness, which is to say that prevention costs less economically, socially and politically than does treatment. Prevention is not being adequately addressed via the determinants of health (such as housing, food, employment etc.) There is no national housing strategy, there is no national food strategy, and the new employment strategy seems to be create bad jobs, say they're good jobs and then get people on EI to fill those jobs and pay taxes.

The other theme that seemed to run through the commentary was that the worst aspect of the budget, specific to health, is the reduction of the escalator of federal transfer payments to the provinces for health. It is currently 6% and after 2017 it is going to drop to around 4%. This is going to put a huge stress on the provinces to provide radically more economical health care or risk creating a Canadian health crisis.

Food security is non-partisan

While many of the budget items were astounding, I was most concerned about the cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Recently the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food reported on Canada's food security, and found it seriously wanting in a number of key areas. Now, whether you believe the rapporteur or not is irrelevant. The point is that the cuts to the CFIA are going to reduce Canada's food security dramatically, so whether it is making a bad situation worse or a good situation worse doesn't really matter.

Because of the cuts, the CFIA no longer has independent oversight and basically regulates itself. This is a great way to save money until something bad happens.

Inspections will be dramatically reduced for imported meat, vegetables and dairy. There are 'trusted' countries that export food to Canada that have recently taken up re-routing food from non-trusted countries. As this type of activity increases, we are going to see a decrease in the robust checks and balances that protect Canada's food supply. This inverse relationship is not healthy.

As a result of the cuts, the CFIA predicts that it will only be able to respond to food crises after they have occurred and will not be able to prevent food crises. I expect more from my government.

Farmers and fishmongers

If you are concerned that slaughterhouses will soon be able to process carcasses (that are DOA and not killed on-site), get to know your farmer through a farmer's market. We are lucky enough to be related to cattle farmers, so we do actually know where most of our meat comes from.

If you're concerned that the government is rewriting the definition of 'fish' then you should get to know your fishmonger.

You should also contact your MP (unless your MP is a Conservative backbencher), or your nearest NDP MP and make your concerns known.

Grow a garden

You have a right to know about the food you eat, and the omnibus budget bill removes, through defunding, many of the organizations and processes that ensure you can have confidence in the food you eat. The best way to know your food is to grow it.

Concerned?

The NDP are out in the communities, listening to Canadians, and in the House of Commons, expressing the concerns of Canadians. My MP is a Conservative backbencher - he is not listening to me - he is listening to Cabinet. He is asking planted questions and being told when to vote yes and when to vote no. If you don't believe me, see the telling case of David Wilks, which proves that backbenchers' relevancy is only determined by how loud they can yell 'yea' or 'nea'.

I joined in 2011 because I was concerned about the effects of an unchecked majority government on Canada. This budget bill should concern you if you eat food. If you're concerned, consider joining and getting involved.

 

Exploited Natural Resources Required to Exploit Natural Resources

The government is looking to make changes to Employment Insurance.

 From the CBC:

If Bill C-38 passes, the cabinet will be able to define what kinds of jobs someone receiving employment insurance payments must accept. will pass from the House of Commons and the courts to the cabinet. Yesterday, the bill passed second reading.

"The government has certainly indicated that the direction is to further broaden what is considered to be suitable employment," Cohen noted.

Definition of suitable employment

Yesterday in Question Period, Peggy Nash asked the government to define how it would define suitable employment in the future.

Peggy Nash NDP: Will someone in the government please outline right now what constitutes suitable employment?

Ted Menzies CPC:   Mr. Speaker, I actually have some examples here of what constitutes suitable employment. A mining company in St. John's, Newfoundland is looking to hire 1,500 people through the temporary foreign worker program. 

There are 32,500 people [in Newfoundland] looking for work right now. That is why we are trying to make EI more effective, to help these mining companies get people to employ.

Think about that statement for a second. Suitable employment means making EI recipients work in mines because those mines need workers. EI recipients are literally being groomed to be sent to the mines. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that working in mining is going to become a whole lot more suitable to a whole lot more Newfoundlanders. The government is going to help the mines get people. It's a distinction that was more than likely scripted, so it is important.

And a further omen:

Ted Menzies CPC: Another example I will give is that Nova Scotia's recent shipbuilding contract will create over 15,000 jobs over the next 30 years and the provincial government is already talking about importing workers.

At this point there are 45,000 Nova Scotians looking for work.

Nova Scotians, prepare to build ships. It's on the record. I presume that some of the 15,000 jobs mentioned above are in natural resource extraction, as building ships must require material.

I also enjoy that the government calmly and cooly admits it is meddling in the province's affairs.

There are bad jobs (in shipbuilding and mining)

Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty hinted Monday that changes to the definitions of suitable employment may be around the corner. 'There is no bad job,' he said.

I've never worked in a mine but I've been in a mine. There are bad jobs. Some of those jobs are in mines, and probably in shipbuilding. There cannot be good jobs without bad jobs, by definition.

So when can someone on EI decline a work opportunity? From the same CBC article:

Currently, work can be declined when it

• Results from a situation involving a labour dispute.
• Pays less or has less favourable conditions than work covered by existing collective agreements, or "those recognized by good employers."
• Is not their usual occupation and pays less or has conditions less favourable than that person "might reasonably expect to obtain."

There is nothing specific about shift work, night shifts, casual or temporary employment.

The crux of the debate is currently what changes will be made to this list of eligible reasons to decline work. Some could be adapted, others could be introduced around shift work or night shifts, some of the eligible reasons could be watered down or beefed up, it'll all depend on what gets people to the mines faster.

Definition printed on blank cheque

Chris Charlton NDP: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development keeps proving how much she does not understand about the reality facing unemployed Canadians.

The minister says EI is “attractive”, as if being out of work is somehow delightful. She also said it is too “lucrative”, as if one's income being cut 45% is a rewarding experience. She will only tell us what she means by “suitable employment” after the legislation has passed.

It is important to note that the definition of 'suitable employment' will only be finalized after the legislation to redefine it is passed. Think about that for a moment. It sounds like a blank cheque. The government is passing a law that let's them redefine 'suitable employment'. Then they're going to redefine it as they see fit. I'll bet it refers to mining and shipbuilding a lot. And probably the oil sands.

Veiled threat to EI recipients

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the National Post editorial board that if unemployed Canadians, "don't take available work, you don't get EI." Kenney claimed, "That's always been a legal principle of that program."

However, the Act states that to collect benefits, one has to be "available for work" but it is suitable work that they must take.

Hey, there's available work in mining and shipbuilding in the Maritimes!

I don't like that this makes EI recipients sound like moochers and leeches on the system. What the government doesn't understand is that people not only want to work they want to be proud of their work. And they paid into the system. It's their money (on some level). And it's 45% of your last wage. And it's not earned so it is really worth less.

Things that will prove, in the end, to be not true

Ted Menzies CPC: Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, there are available jobs out there, but we will ensure that Canadians will not be expected to take jobs that are not within their skill set.

One other thing we need to exemplify is that no job seeker will be asked to relocate.

The government will expect people to take jobs that are not within their skill sets. Especially in mining and shipbuilding in the Maritimes. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, it will happen.

The last time I checked, mines were pretty much immovable and shipbuilding usually takes place near a body of water, so job seekers will be asked, then urged, then forced to relocate (to a mine or shipyard).

Conclusion

The government has created a bunch of jobs that nobody in Canada seems to want. You have to remember that if these jobs were so lucrative then people with existing jobs would quit and take a new job at the mine. Or building ships. But that's not happening.

People relocate for good jobs. All the time. That's not happening, except from overseas.

So it seems that there are bad jobs, and that the government has created a bunch of them and now needs to fill them with its loyal Canadian subjects. And thus we become another natural resource for the government to use as it deems fit.

What the label 'Fifth-Generation' means to the F-35 debate

It is the crux of the debate

The government has only put forward one requirement for the replacement for the CF-18 - that the fighter jet be 'fifth-generation'. This requirement was put forward in a letter from DND to Public Works.

Marc Garneau: Instead, [Canadians] have been told that Canada needs the only “fifth-generation” aircraft available — a requirement which, as the Auditor-General points out, is not an operational one.

The use of 'fifth-generation' to describe the F-35 fighter jet is well documented (from macleans.ca).

Peter MacKay, January 27, 2011.  “[The F-35] is the only fifth-generation aircraft..."
Peter MacKay, October 24, 2011. "With respect to the F-35...this is a state-of-the-art fifth-generation aircraft..."
Peter MacKay, October 25, 2011. "... the F-35 is the only fifth-generation aircraft available to Canadians."

But what does fifth-generation mean exactly, and how does it apply to the F-35 procurement debate?

Definition of Generation

A generation can refer to stages of successive improvement in the development of a technology such as the internal combustion engine, or successive iterations of products with planned obsolescence, such as video game consoles or mobile phones.

So here we are, five, count'em, five generations into a product that costs approximately $100M. So what do we expect from a product like that?

From Fifth-generation jet fighter on Wikipedia

The exact characteristics of fifth generation jet fighters are controversial, with Lockheed Martin defining them as having all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept by Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war to achieve an advantage in situational awareness.

Well that is convenient. The maker of the jet can tell us what to expect of fifth generation aircraft. This is the definition we'll use for now but it is important to note that 'fifth-generation' doesn't mean anything consistent and so is imbued with biased meaning from Lockheed Martin. But can the F-35 live up to the hype of 'fifth-generation'?

"All-aspect stealth even when armed"

Ironically, not true. External guns and missiles negate the stealth component of the fighter jet. And the F-35A, the jet we are looking to purchase, has external guns and missiles. From Lockheed Martin:

The F-35A 5th Generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations featuring four weapon stations inside two weapon bays, for maximum stealth capability, and an additional three weapon stations on each wing.

Those additional three stations on each wing negate stealth considerably.

As well, this jet requires external fuel tanks for longer missions, and those also reduce the stealth factor considerably.So this jet fighter does not satisfy the first component of being 'fifth-generation'.

"Low Probability of Intercept by Radar (LPIR)"

I had to look this one up. It means that a fighter jet can't be found on radar even when it is using its own radar.

From Wikipedia:

Unlike the previous generation of fighters, the F-35 was designed with a shape for low-observable characteristics.

If something is 'unlike' the previous generation, then it doesn't fit in with the notion of iterative generational technology. And the shape of the airplane is not a planned obsolescence, if you want to apply the other definition of 'generation'.

It is also worth noting that the original specs for the F-35 were for 'very low-observable' and that the jet was downgraded to 'low-observable' in 2006. So it's actually not as good as it was supposed to be in this regard.

And again it is worth noting that the letter from DND to Public Works (link above) claims that the F-35 would be 'very very low-observable'.

"Advanced avionics"

These are the electronic systems on the jet fighter. The "software for the F-35 is planned to have 8.6 million lines of software code." Okay, so it sounds advanced. It is twice as much code as the F-22 (why do cars and jets share a similar cryptic nomenclature?)

Unfortunately, that much code creates problems.

The scale of the program has led to a software crisis as officials continue to discover that additional software needs to be written. General Norton Schwartz has said that the software is the biggest factor that might delay the USAF's initial operational capability which is now scheduled for April 2016. Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, has written that, "the F-35 mission systems software development and test is tending towards familiar historical patterns of extended development, discovery in flight test, and deferrals to later increments.

So the electronic systems seem to be, like the jet itself, hypothetical and theoretical (and in crisis). I don't think that 'software crisis' is code for 'fifth-generation'. Once again, I find the description fifth-generation to be a bit dubious here, as the code is so advanced it doesn't seem to work.

"Highly integrated computer systems capable of networking"

I'm going to give this one to LM. The situational awareness systems on the F-35 do seem to be in keeping with a fifth-generation moniker. However, 'networking' also means communicating with other aircraft and ground support. Consider then this statement by Peter MacKay.

Peter MacKay, November 18, 2011.  I’m talking about subject matters such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and our mutual interest in the procurement of this 21st-century aircraft to protect North America, to continue to be interoperable and to work together in international missions, as we’ve seen most recently in the mission Unified Protector in Libya.

He says that to continue to be interoperable we need to purchase these jets. That doesn't sound like the ability to network with all elements in the theatre of war. It makes it sound like these jets can only communicate with each other.

Conclusion

So this is what we have:

• A manufacturer who has dubbed its product 'fifth-generation'
• A government that claims 'fifth-generation' is the only requirement for new Canadian aircraft
• A jet fighter that doesn't live up to its billing as 'fifth-generation'

Fifth-generation is the myth surrounding the F-35 to make it palatable for the hoi polloi who have to purchase them. It makes it sound impressive, advanced and futuristic. It doesn't mean anything and the meaning it does have is beyond the capabilities of the F-35, at least at present.

Canadians don't need fifth-generation jets and the F-35 is not deserving of the accolades that come with that distinction.

Why buying F35 fighter jets is not the same as buying a car

From the National Post:

Consider a car. Let’s say you’re considering buying a subcompact or an SUV, which you plan to hold onto for five years. A subcompact has a one-time purchase cost of $20,000 followed by $7,000 in annual, recurring costs on things like gas and maintenance. Your total costs over five years are therefore $55,000, or $11,000 average cost/year.

Meanwhile, the SUV has a one-time purchase cost of $25,000 and recurring costs of $7,500, leading to a five-year total cost of $62,500, or $12,500 average total cost/year.

The Nat Post article elaborates on why buying an F-35 stealth jet fighter for 36 years is the same as buying a car for five years. This certainly begs some response - mine is below.

No one buys cars through life cycle costing

I admit that when I bought my Jeep, I was concerned about the gas it would guzzle, but the price was right and it allowed me to sit up straight while driving. I didn't do a 'life cycle costing' other than a fleeting thought of $80 to fill it up, and if the analogy falls flat no other way, it is simply that people don't shop for cars that way.

F-35 is the only car on the lot

If there is another way that it falls flat, perhaps more obviously, is that it compares two cars. One of the central themes of the F-35 fiasco is that the F-35 was, is and always will be the jet fighter Canada is purchasing for its military. The fiasco literally centres around the scuttled procurement process and the development of military requirements that only the F-35 could fulfill, thus rigging the outcome.

When I go to purchase a car I walk around, up and down Broad Street, looking at the hundreds of fresh, shiny cars. Hundreds.

There are rules for buying jets

I don't have to follow Treasury Board, Department of Public Works and Department of Defence procurement procedures when I buy a car. However, the Department of Defence does have to follow its own procurement procedures et al. The rules state that life cycle costs must be examined for the duration of the life cycle.

I can buy a car because it is red. I bought the Jeep because it has a high roof and the seats are high off the ground, both of which are critical to my attempt to maintain good posture at all times.

Debt and deficit

I will go into debt to purchase a car but I won't run a deficit to continue to operate my car; I would sell it. Quite simply, the government will spend $1B/year to maintain the F-35 regardless of debt or deficit. It would have to be particularily dire straits for the government to try and sell these jet fighters after such a protracted battle to purchase them.

I'm not buying my car with your taxes

If I were buying my car with your taxes, I'd get the shiniest, greatest, fastest car in the world. There, I said it.

I buy cars in my price range

If you've been following this story at all, one of the themes that has surfaced is that the DOD likes the latest and greatest and that they have a history of pulling the wool over the taxpayer's eyes, presumably to get the latest and greatest. In this debacle quite literally, price was no object.

This is not how I purchase my cars. Price is a definitive, big scary object when I purchase cars.

The F-35 is a hypothetical plane

I'm not out buying a hypothetical car. I'm buying a real car. The F-35 isn't even a thing yet. It's a concept. While I realize that the F-35 will be a real jet fighter in the future, this is what we're buying into right now - a strike fighter program to develop a strike fighter. I'd love to see a car salesman try to sell me a hypothetical car based on sizeable upfront contributions to help to develop the hypothetical car I was buying. This might happen if price was no object, as it seems to be for the F-35.

Conclusion

The procurement of stealth jet fighters is more complex than buying a car - but I think most of us knew that already.

Beyond the Billions: A Glossed Over Revelation of the F-35 Fiasco

Let me begin by saying that I have nothing but criticism for a government that are self-proclaimed 'good fiscal managers' and then publicly admit to billions of dollars in accounting inconsistencies. I also have nothing but criticism for a government that attempts to spin the situation so hard that it actually ends up making itself look more foolish than it did in the beginning, when it only appeared incompetent.

For more on the jetstream of money, see Andrew Coyne: "Not $9-billion. Not $15- or $16-billion. Not $25-billion. Forty-billion dollars. So far."

History of Hoodwinkery

 From John Ivison's article, Pax Americana alliance at heart of Harper government’s F-35 posture

National Defence has a long history of pulling the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. This was a procurement process where there were no checks or balances on the military, which wanted the shiniest car in the showroom.

Ivison mentions it, almost in passing, that pesky ol' history that National Defence has of pulling the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. Oh, those zany kats over at National Defence are at it again, with their beguiling and inveigling.

This Begs Some Questions

1. How much has this cost Canadian taxpayers?
2. Is Ivison suggesting that National Defence has deceived the taxpayer in some way during this procurement? I think most people would agree that is true.
3. Is the F-35 debacle the latest scam in a series of scams?
4. Does National Defence actually have a long history of hoodwinking the tax payer?
5. Why has this behaviour not been nipped in the bud far earlier? Has some entity tried to change this behaviour and failed?
6. Is this just some tacitly understood thing that happened last week so it will happen next week?

What bothers me is the idea that National Defence is a corrupt sheriff, plundering the public purse, lurking in the woods nearby for years and years, preying on the defenseless villagers.

If this is true, shame on National Defence. Stop wasting my money so you can have shiny things. If it isn't true, shame on Ivison for putting it out in the ether.

Suggested reading

Andrew Coyne has been all over this and I recommend his latest, which is the most scathing piece of journalism I've read in a while. He cuts through the spin and absolutely levels the government.

Auditor-General’s F-35 accounting complaints are déjà vu for Peter MacKay

How Peter Julian changed the NDP narrative with his budget filibuster

I was listening to CPAC Monday at work, listening to Peter Julian's filibuster speech on the budget, at points more intently than others, and I decided to tweet the following:

@MPJulian great job in the house right now! Content FB and Twitter is a great way to show #ndp is a party for the people #cdnpoli #bdgt12

I was enjoying the filibuster, as they happen infrequently. But this one was different. Peter Julian was reading Tweets, Facebook messages and emails from regular, concerned Canadians.

And then he read my Tweet. Well, paraphrased actually, but there it was. I was participating directly in the democratic process. Now, I'll be honest - I didn't send it with the expectation that it would be referenced - nor did it contain anything profound or terribly partisan, but then I started listening more intently to what Peter Julian was saying.

Peter Julian was reading Tweets, Facebook messages and emails from regular, concerned Canadians about the budget in the House of Commons - specifically from Conservative-held ridings.

From Hansard, April 2, 2011

Mr. Peter Julian

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing more comments. I certainly encourage people to provide their comments. If they would like me to read them into the record, they could send them to me on Facebook or Twitter or send an email to an NDP MP. I must admit the vast majority of the comments we are getting are from Conservative-held ridings. People in Conservative ridings are saying they disagree with their Conservative MP. They may have sent this information to their Conservative MP as well, but very clearly they are saying they want to ensure the NDP brings forward these points of view, which is what we are doing. In the spirit of back and forth, that is members' right and I would not discourage them from doing that. However, since the vast majority of comments I am reading are from Conservative ridings, it behooves those members to listen to Canadians who are speaking out. These Canadians who live in Conservative-held ridings are saying that they think Canadian families deserve better than the budget the Conservatives delivered. Canadian families deserve better. That is what they are saying.

NDP speaks for the people - the government listens

And there it was - the NDP was literally speaking for the people, not just for their ridings but for Conservative-held ridings. And doing it in real-time. It gave 'the people' an unprecedented amount of power, well beyond voting in a first-past-the-post democracy. It gave people the power to say their two cents to the government and the government had to listen. The government was, for a fleeting moment, our captive audience.

Some people complained that Peter Julian's filibuster was just an annoyance in the face of an insurmountable majority government, but it was much more than that. He spoke, quite literally, for the people, and the people responded. Emails, tweets and messages flooded in.

In my opinion he changed politics today - by giving literal voice to the concerns of the nation Mr. Julian has tapped into a source that has been for too long far removed from the direct political process: The electorate.

The Conservative narrative is in shambles

While the Conservatives are floundering under the weight of Robocon, the F-35 procurement debacle and the budget that removes many traces of the national Canadian identity and is being criticized by left and right alike, their narrative is in disarray. The Conservative narrative is talking points now and nobody believes them anymore.

The Conservative narrative also includes attacking those who disagree with you. It includes name-calling and besmirchment. It includes calling the Official Opposition 'high-tax' and 'job-killing'.

The NDP narrative is surging

As the Conservatives flounder and try to mitigate the damage of the scandals, they cannot focus their attention on the NDP right now. And as a result, the NDP have an unfettered opportunity to define their own narrative. And this filibuster was a critical part of that process.

The shadow government in Conservative ridings

Today the NDP became the party of all Canadians who believed their voice doesn't matter or can't be heard. Today the NDP became the shadow government in Conservative ridings. If you are in a Conservative riding and you don't feel like you're being represented, the Official Opposition will bring your concerns forward. They may even represent you, verbatim, in the House of Commons.

Tapestry of Canadian voices

With the filibuster of tweets, posts and emails, the NDP has proven that it will take Canadians' concerns seriously, even getting some of them on the record. They are the party of the people and the narrative is interwoven with words from everyday Canadians. Telling the Conservatives what the NDP think about the budget is one thing - but telling the Conservatives what Canadians think about the budget cannot be fobbed off with 'talking points'.

Kings and queens of social media

This innovative approach to the filibuster also places a rather long peacock feather in the NDP's cap. They are the most approachable through social media, and being the guardians of the social media realm is a coveted, enviable position. As the Conservatives and Liberals fight about @vikileaks30, the NDP is using social media to redefine the relationships that citizens have with governments. Organized online communities are powerful energies to harness, and the NDP has proven it can be done effectively.

Conclusion

By invoking his right to filibuster and then using his time to reflect the views of everyday Canadians, Peter Julian gave voice to the concerns of many people who believed that their voice would never be heard in Ottawa.

The NDP has become the party of Canadians who thought they had no voice. Until now. If you don't believe your Conservative MP is representing you in Ottawa, you can still have your voice heard by the NDP. That's a story I can get behind.

@nikiashton speech after first ballot in #ndpldr race

After the first ballot, Niki Ashton and her supporters, of which I was one, left the convention floor and regrouped at her campaign room. She got up on a chair and gave a great speech.

The video is about 1G so be patient. Also,

1. I would have uploaded it sooner but I couldn't figure out how to do it through my iPad. 
2. It took four hours to upload.

Fascinating turn of probably unrelated events in #robocon #cdnpoli

The reason I refer to this particular turn of events as 'fascinating' is because it has value as a point of interest but is probably not directly connected to the Robocon scandal. And while there is more than likely a non-nefarious situation at play here, it is still curiouser and curiouser.

I am referring to the mysterious-but-not-likely-robocon-related RackNine employee, Rick McKnight. For a great perspective on the story we once again turn to the dynamic duo of Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor.

This facet of the story has all the elements of a great mystery:

• Postmedia and the Ottawa Citizen cannot find anyone who knows McKnight
• McKnight has 551 Facebook friends
• He's the only North American employee besides the business owner
• His Stanford degree cannot be conclusively corroborated
• He claims to have had a job at a place where the vice president says otherwise
• He's not the Rick McKnight in the Edmonton phone book (old skool investigation)
• He's being shielded from the media by the company lawyer
• His nationality and even his very reality would not be confirmed
• He's friends with prominent Conservatives and conservatives such as Guy Giorno, Andrew Prescott, Dimitri Soudas, Kory Teneycke, and Fred DeLorey

Possible scenarios

Someone is pretending to be Rick McKnight online...

Why?

• Superfluous reasons such as satisfying curiosity and having fun
• Legitimate reasons such as privacy and security
• Dubious reasons such as trolling or infultrating
• Criminal reasons such as fraud and theft

Who is Rick McKnight?

• An avatar for an individual who uses no other online persona for social networking and media
• A fake online persona developed by an individual or group that is administrated as a fake - the administrator also has a legitimate online persona associated with their real person

What does McKnight do online?

• Collects friends on Facebook who don't actually know him
• Writes articles for the RackNine blog - at least one article was published by R. Martinez a year earlier
• Administrates a profile on Facebook, LinkedIn, Quora and possibly other social media sites - on Quora he was active March 13 in answering a CMS question

Questions

Why is he being shielded by the call centre's lawyer? Why is his identity a closely guarded secret? Why would his nationality be in question?

In an interview, when asked how a reporter could get in touch with McKnight, [Meier] said "you don't," and hung up.

Later, he referred queries to his lawyer, R. Justin Matthews, who offered a cryptic reply.

"How does one define a real person?" said Matthews in an email. "Would a web-design employee that chooses to use a different name online (which some people seem to do these days) be considered a real person?"

Matthews said he would not reveal McKnight's identity, and would not confirm that he is a Canadian.

What would connect this to Robocon?

If there is one thing I've learned from all the Robocon stuff it is this: Acting suspiciously tends to rouse suspicion. And to protect the identity of Rick McKnight at these great lengths is certainly suspicious.

But in order to connect this to Robocon, the administrator/perpetrator of Rick McKnight would  have to be a Conservative employee masquerading as an employee of RackNine. That would draw lines between a lot of dots. However, that is speculation and we'll see how it plays out.

Update 6:02 pm CST Tuesday, March 20: Turns out it was innocent all along - or so it appears. I called it. He is using a 'Canadian' pseudonym to be more accessible to clients. Nothing nefarious. On an unrelated note - way to keep your firm in the media spotlight when you should be keeping your firm out of the spotlight.

 

The #robocon Hail Mary has been thrown - turns out it was you and me all along #cdnpoli #canada

Let's quickly review the various persons responsible for Robocon election suppression and fraud:

Michael Sona

Michael Sona was originally fingered as the culprit, the mastermind of the whole affair, the lone gunman with the Liberals in his sights. His name was floated to the media from CPC 'insiders', whatever that means, the day after the scandal broke wide courtesy Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor. It was later determined that it was improbable, implausible, and virtually impossible for one person to carry out even one side of this multi-faceted scandal. And he denies the whole thing as well, which is a bold bluff if it is one.

The Call Centres

The Call Centres were next on the sacrificial block, even though Elections Canada expressedly made it clear they were not on the suspect list. Lawsuits are pending for defamation all over the place because an Elections Canada investigation led to gathering evidence from the Call Centres but not investigating the Call Centres. It may yet prove to be an employee of one of the Call Centres, or a group of employees, but so far the investigation is not focused on the Call Centres themselves (although a separate investigation into one of the Call Centres has been started for something else).

Rogue Operatives

This notion was floated around as if there were a gang named The Rogue Operatives and they were a right-wing, anti-democracy group hell bent on fixing elections and then exposing the election fraud to the world. This one didn't last long. Not only was it contrary to the lone gunman theory put forward the day after the scandal broke, it was as nebulous as the 'war on drugs' and therefore carried little weight.

The Liberals did it to themselves

This was my favourite because it basically insults the Liberals whilst simultaneously forcing the Liberals to defend an absurd position. Of course no one really believes the Liberals called their own supporters pretending to be Conservatives pretending to be Liberals, not even the master debaters who troll this shit along to the media.

Pierre Poutine

Either a clever pseudonym or a cruel joke, Poutine is a tangible suspect in the elections fraud and voter suppression in Guelph and other Ontario ridings. There is a cyber-trail of evidence that points to a mobile registered to Pierre Poutine living on Separatist Street in Quebec. An IP address used for some form of Internet transaction with one of the Call Centres can be linked to the same town in Quebec where the mobile was registered. This person has some explaining to do.

The Hail Mary - It's all a big mistake

But in the midst of all this, for some reason the CPC have decided to throw a Hail Mary and share the blame with regular working and voting Canadians.

From the CBC

Phone calls directing voters to the wrong polling stations in the last federal election could have been mistakes, and people should stop jumping to conclusions, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro says.

Del Mastro, who has been leading his party's defence in the controversy over live and automated election phone calls, said nobody has come forward to say they didn't vote because they first went to the wrong polling station.

"So where are these people? Where are these people? Where are these people saying that I got the call, I went to the wrong station, and then I didn't vote?" Del Mastro said on CBC's Power & Politics.

"There haven’t been any. No one has stepped forward and said that."

"Some of these things, as I've already indicated, could have well been mistakes. I don't understand why folks jump to these things and run to a conclusion that they have no evidence of."

"Where are these people?"

"Where are these people saying that I got the call, I went to the wrong station, and then I didn't vote?" Del Mastro is trying to make it seem that voter suppression had to work in order for the electorates' concerns to be legitimate . If you weren't actually suppressed, then it was just a reprehensible dirty trick. Get over it. This is why you hate politics, remember?

"There haven't been any"

About 700 people, not zero as intimated in the quote, have come forward with enough veracity for Elections Canada to engage with them further. Apparently Del Mastro is unaware of these legitimate complaints and the investigation for Pierre Poutine that has led to the CPC doorstep.

"Folks jump to these things and run to a conclusion"

Anytime a political party doesn't want you to 'run to a conclusion' is because that conclusion is bad for the party in question. It's that simple. We're running to these conclusions based on the evidence, which is mounting, which the CPC denies exists.

"Some of these things...could have been mistakes"

I agree - some of the misleading calls 'could' have been mistakes. So let's examine who could be mistaken in all of this:

• Elections Canada 'could' have called people and given them incorrect polling station information - implausible but not impossible.
• Call Centre staff 'did' give out incorrect polling station information - were they mistakes? Improbably.
• Voters being caught up in the scandal and being 'mistaken' in whether they received an anoying call or a suppressing call.

Any way you slice it or dice it, these 'honest mistakes' would have been made by working and voting Canadians.

This revelation that it was all a huge coincidental river of mistakes made by a slough of Canadians just like you and me comes mere hours after this article hit the 'net: Elections Canada sifts through Tory database to identify Pierre Poutine. This does not seem like an investigation into an honest mistake. Elections Canada has made a direct link between Pierre Poutine and the CPC and are following that forward.

And furthermore, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if voters were suppressed then those suppressors must bear the full weight of the law upon their actions.

Conclusion

Del Mastro seems to be shifting the blame, yet again, and this time it rests upon our shoulders. He is suggesting that Canadians are mistaken about their experience, that they weren't suppressed enough to complain, and that they shouldn't jump to conclusions because the conclusions are tightening around the neck of the CPC. He's further suggesting that these 'mistakes' should go unpunished (law and order agenda anyone?)

So to recap, Robocon was perpetrated by:

1. Michael Sona
2. Call Centre staff
3. Rogue operatives
4. The Liberals
5. Pierre Poutine
6. Canadians

The CPC is running out of red herrings to dangle under our noses, and once it has been proven that the NDP, the CBC and environmental 'extremists' had nothing to do with it, there may be only one group left to blame.