ON GROUNDHOG DAY, STALE POLITICS AND ELECTION-ITIS

Did any of you ever watch the movie called Groundhog Day? This is the one starring our own Jim Carrey? The last time I watched it, it reminded me a lot of where I live: Niagara Region. Each day I wake up, I confuse the events of the day with the events of the day before, and the day before that, and so on.

In Niagara Region, the politics is so stale, I could leave the area and return fifty years later and I wouldn't miss a thing. If it's not the same old people at the helm, it is the same old family members of people at the helm. Many of the Niagara-based businesses are family businesses, which means the good jobs go to family. It isn't hard to guess who the bad or low-paying jobs go to.

One can learn about the groundhogs in Niagara by reading letters to the editor. Apart from my own tinge of sarcasm about the political backwardness of the people here, or the fact that Niagara has not yet grown up and developed itself a transit service yet, many people argue about the Bible.

The Bible is two thousand years old or more, and to me, there is no point arguing about it. The book is read, and it is time to move on. I am not that concerned about what is in the Bible. If all people have to think about or worry about is what the Bible says or what it means, obviously they are comfortable living in a perpetual Groundhog day. As for me, I want change.

To me, it is not about the people themselves, although a little bit might be about the people, but it is mostly the politics and how slow things seem to happen. Getting Regional transit in place here is like waiting for molasses to pour in the bitter cold of January. In the meantime, people like me lose money because we have to go places too, yet those of us that don't drive are not allowed to do so with comfort, reliability and affordability.

I have often been accused of attacking drivers. Well, taxpayers (which includes ME too) have been over-subsidizing their "privileges" for years. We subsidize drivers on a per capita basis more than we subsidize people on a per capita basis for our universal health care system. We pay for roads, traffic lights, traffic enforcement, highways, parking lots, environmental damages of highway building, pollution and its effects, and other things that keep cars on the road and drivers driving, yet we pay less than 20% of this figure on subsidizing transit users. Transit users pay taxes too, and yes - when I have to take a $70 taxi ride to and from Welland, I am sure they can take some of that out for my "share" of the roads. I just want to get around without giving up my first born each time.

Other than transportation, there are a lot of other issues that Niagara is lacking for ... probably because it wants to still think of itself as a township and not a region or network of cities. For example, my neighbourhood that I live in is okay. I own my own home, although people think I pay less than most do for it (which is about $1200 - $1500 a month including all utilities and costs). It is peaceful in my backyard ... we have built a small communal porch, a sitting area under a gazebo and a waterfall, as well as a compost area/garden. Our front porch which is sheltered from the elements is especially nice. The neighbourhood is quiet, which is probably a good thing after I leave the wingnuts of downtown.

However, that is it. They are just wingnuts. People without direction. People without political discourse. We have as much if not more poverty, disability and hardship as Toronto, yet there are very few protests or even community meetings to go to in order to discuss these things. People in Niagara take it up the tail pipe literally.

I am probably well known in this community for my outspoken manner and devil-may-care attitude. Why? I've never had an employer that bothered wanting to hire me for my skills, so I don't have to kowtow to anybody. If I had a good job with a good employer, I suppose the attitude would have to be kept at the door, and I've done that for years when I did work for others. It is not that my attitude is bad, as most people seem to like what I have to say ... I am actually not disrespectful of individuals, just political environments.

While it is true that people create political environments, I just feel that the folks involved in creating Niagara's political environment have to try harder to make this region a truly inclusive one. When they hear from people like me that at times I do not feel like I am even a citizen with rights in this region, the leaders need to ask why ... and I can rest assure them that I am not the only that has felt this way. I am just getting sad and my nose is getting out of joint because I am losing way too many friends to other cities, even provinces, where they have miraculously been able to find work or fit in better.

There are a lot of beautiful places in the region to go to, but I've never been to see these places in years. One needs a car to get to any of them. If Niagara wants to stand out as even a tourism destination, they should at least provide other ways for potential tourists to get around, as NOT EVERYBODY DRIVES ... I miss the Falls. I miss the town of Jordon. I miss Fort George. I miss most of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Maybe someday I will get there if I ever get my bike back on the road. But for now, these places might as well be on the moon.

What about jobs? Niagara has lost a ton of them ... entire companies have gone under and sent pink slips home to thousands of Niagara workers. No "white knight" is going to come to the region to replace these companies, and any new jobs that come out of our "new economy" aren't likely going to pay even half as much. So, those of us with mortgages, payments, kids, and other expenses, are not likely going to want to do these jobs, unless we can do three or four of them simultaneously (which gives us a new meaning for multi-tasking). As it is, most families need two or even three incomes to survive. Try surviving on just one! Mine!

Well, Liberal leader Michael "Rasputin" Ignatieff has finally turned against the present minority Conservative government in Ottawa. He wanted to create this hairy ass election over ... whatever. The other parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats saw the nonsense in Ignatieff's move in his attempt to call an election that nobody wants ... so they sided with the Conservatives. It is not because they are now buddies with Stephen Harper, but this is minority government at work ... the particular ways and means bill was about implementing many of the popular aspects of the budget the Conservatives tabled last January, and by the way ... a budget that Ignatieff bought and supported (but now he doesn't support?).

This is just another example of the circus coming to town. We all know that Barnum and Bailey wouldn't make it in Ottawa, as there already is a "free" circus available to anyone at Parliament Hill. All somebody has to do is start singing, "Send in the Clowns" ... oops, they are already there. The animals are all there too, up to the usual parlour tricks, except they are all two-legged animals. It kind of makes you want to cozy up to groups like PETA and ZOOCHECK to protect the four-legged kind from being corrupted by this type of circus.

So despite the histrionics and hissy fit thrown by Michael Ignatieff in an attempt to push for an election that nobody wants, the whole tough talk that he gave over the summer seemed to have died down to a trickle. If I walked down the street here and asked everybody I see if they can identify the leaders of the three main political parties in Ottawa, I would bet the least identifiable would be the leader of the Liberals. Many would not even know how to pronounce his name!

However, over the radar of awareness is this new HST (harmonized sales tax) that is being shoved down all of our throats here in Ontario. It is supposed to be good for business, which I still fail to understand. I run a business. How is charging my customers 8% more for my services going to benefit ME or MY CUSTOMERS? They say there will be less paperwork. I don't give a flying hoot about paperwork. That's what I pay my accounting firm for. I am sure they aren't going to reduce their fees to do my annual corporate, HST and personal returns ... I am sure if you asked them they will tell you there is no less work in preparing these returns than there was before.

I am supposed to be able to claim more input credits. Well, what are input credits? This is something my customers don't give a horse's you know what about ... they just see the 8% hike on their bills. Sure I can now write off items that had PST on it before. Whoopie doo! Let's release the balloons. I will still be forking over more of this tax than I get to keep as a result of these inputs, or why else would the government force this HST down our throats in the first place? They have to be making big bucks off of this ... off of small business, off of consumers, off of anybody that comes through my door.

The government has PROMISED income tax cuts in return for us buying this tax. Who are my customers? About a third of them are individuals with disabilities, usually receiving an income that does not attract provincial (or federal for that matter) income taxes of any kind. The work I do involves making insurance companies, government agencies, large companies and other people do what they were supposed to do in the first place ... and even when we get paid in full, none of the proceeds are taxable to them anyways. We also have quite a few senior citizens on "fixed incomes". These are NOT the people with the GM or Teacher's Pensions to give their golden years more than just "fool's gold". Most of these people get at least some Guaranteed Income Supplement, and their own savings are either poor or non-existent, so I don't see these people paying much provincial income tax either ... but I am told I have to hit all of these people with an 8% tax hike!

Unfortunately, with this tax, there is no harmony at all ... so I prefer to call it what it is... the BST, initials for which you don't even have to ask. The Tories call this the Dalton Sales Tax, and the NDP call it the Unfair Tax Grab. Would love to give Hudak's head a shake, like wasn't it HIS federal Conservative cousins that just dumped $4.2 billion on the province to set up this new tax? I just don't get it anymore. Canada's politics are all screwed up.

Each time there is an election, there seems to be less and less people showing up to vote. I know that at some point in my lifetime, there will be an election called and nobody will show up. We will end up with a lot of empty ridings, as nobody will run either. So, we might just not bother with elections anymore. Maybe coup d'etats serve more of a taste for Canadians at this point. I don't know the answer.

But I think it is worth a discussion.

What about you?

CHANGE YOUR VALUES, CHANGE YOUR OUTCOMES

One of my areas of expertise is ethics and knowledge-based analysis. One of my earlier projects (almost eighteen years ago) focused on the underpinning values that eventually erupted into the Holocaust. If you ask people today what led to the Holocaust, people will argue it was Hitler's rise to power. However, my project's research has shown the underpinnings of society's value system at the time resulted in Hitler's rise to power, as opposed to the other way around.

Society's values, often reflected in so-called scientific 'achievements' and measures to back them up, were used to assign values, as opposed to determine hypothesis. The fact so-called western culture has evolved through many cultural and counter-cultural periods can aid in one's understanding of how such values and beliefs determine how the society will address its problems. Instead of being viewed as challenges, such 'problems' were defined as societal nuisances, tragedies and other negative values assigned, and the instruments of science and policy were utilized to eradicate, as opposed to accommodate, such challenges.

I don't want to go into great detail as to how the social psychological theorum developed around these ideas, the founding of eugenic-based thinking and its gradual acceptance and implementation took place, but to demonstrate how the same social psychology and its structure exist in our society today and how it is impacting on our most vulnerable populations. As one speaker series I attended recently demonstrated, how society "defines" its problems and their "causes" results in what policy instruments are used to tackle them.

This particular speaker was part of our International Day to Eradicate Poverty forum held at the region. The interesting aspect of this speaker's discussion was something I always knew to be true. She simplified this scenario in how people view the economy and as a result, what solutions are available for reducing poverty in society. She separated her presentation in three parts.

The first part demonstrated a belief that our economy provides equal access to opportunities for everybody and anybody can achieve what they want by tackling their challenges and "working hard". The corollary to this thinking of course means that those that do not find success in the existing economy are not "trying hard enough" or are "not taking advantage of opportunities afforded to them". Policy solutions imposed by this thinking relate to creating "incentives" for people to work and get off social assistance, for example. The idea here is that if we prod people hard enough, they will pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Assistance should be minimal, temporary and difficult to get, or such thinking would go, "it becomes a system that can be abused".

The second part showed a different scenario whereas one believes that usually the economy works well, but there are periodic issues that need to be addressed. One such issue could be the current banking crisis and upcoming global recession. Thinkers in this category believe that the economy is not a structural barrier in itself, but periodic shifts and changes make it necessary to develop policies to assist affected individuals in "adjusting". Policy initiatives brought about by this manner of thinking tend to focus on strengthening the individual through re-training programs, labour adjustment opportunities, job finding clubs and resume upgrades. If people learn how to find work and upgrade their skills for the "new market", everything will be fine.

The third part showed even a more different perspective. The belief system here demonstrates that opportunity is not shared equally among all people in society and that some people benefit more from the status quo than others for a variety of reasons and regardless of how "good" the economy is, there are always people who are left behind. The thinking here is that the people left behind are not at fault, but do deserve not to be left behind ... so the solution to this scenario is more structural, as opposed to individual or laissez-faire. Policy options would include infrastructure projects, improved urban planning, consideration of a minimum citizen's income, as well as support for broad-based community services, such as education, health care, daycare, transit, etc.

The reason I bring up these scenarios and am reminded of this presentation is from a recent article published in the Toronto Star about how today's welfare rates are probably set for 1988 levels. The article exemplifies a young man that had once experienced the "Canadian dream" of a middle-class job, a successful business and a happy marriage, only to see it ruined by addiction ... and several years later, he is clean, but unemployed and living in poverty. With these feature articles, the Star has a comments section where any reader can contribute their thoughts. Almost 200 comments were printed, many of them exposing the vicious prejudices of the writers, beliefs they held about poor people, why they were poor and they would only solve their problems if they just "got a job". It is interesting if life were that simple.

Readers in this category pointed out how there are so many 'help wanted' ads in store windows, how one can easily get a minimum wage job and so forth ... well, these readers would love to see a law passed to force people who are not working to take a job, any job. However, would these same readers be willing to have the same law applied to employers, to force them to hire whoever showed up at their door - regardless of their skills, training and aptitude? Of course not! If this were ever imposed, there'd be a civil war of sorts started by the business and employer community about the state's will being imposed on their businesses. The reason I ask this is because very few people on social assistance want to be there; survey after survey shows that almost everybody wants to work, but most that don't work experience major barriers to doing so.

So, until these barriers are removed, we have to do something about people that are unable to find work or perhaps, either temporarily or permanently, are unable to work ... some argue we should just let them starve. Surely, if we do so, they will suddenly find it in their "interests" to take any job. Right? Sadly, this will not likely work. Would you want to live next door to one of these people, who perhaps you believe should "starve" who through no fault of their own is having trouble securing a job? You better lock your doors! How about your taxes? You think your taxes are high now? Just wait until our medicare system takes in these "starving people" for malnutrition, self-harm, exposure, addictions, fatigue, infections, etc. Or our local jails take them in for petty theft, vandalism, causing a disturbance, assault, etc.

A shocking statistic shows that 75% of people in our prisons are illiterate and more than 80% of them come from low-income backgrounds. Natives and visible minorities are disproportionately represented in prisons. A study overlaying Toronto's 13 poorest postal codes with the residential locations of the shooters during the notorious Summer of the Gun showed almost all of them came from poor and desperate neighbourhoods. I don't even need to tell you how much it costs on an annual basis to keep each of these people in prison, particularly now that there is a public appetite to keep people locked up longer.

While we expect a percentage of prisoners to leave our prisons eventually to live in the community, none of us wants them in "our neighbourhoods" or in "our schools". A prison record almost guarantees lifelong unemployment and thus, the vicious cycle returns with greater force the next time around, which may expand the seriousness of the crime and increase the take. Life becomes cheap when your own life is not valued by the society you are living in. These people simply will not go away, despite the simplistic answers of many of the people who signed their comments in the Toronto Star that day. It is interesting that such comments could be registered anonymously or under a pseudonym, which certainly allows one to distance oneself from their comments and not have to take personal responsibility for saying them.

It is hard to say what the solution is for resolving issues like entrenched poverty, but it definitely revolves much broader than around the individual. If you expect somebody to "take a job", the employment market must be ready and prepared to hire that person. If employers do not want to hire that person, then employers (and other that don't want "those" people around) should pay more taxes to support the person until they are able to find work.

For individuals with disabilities, employers must be proactive in identifying and removing barriers to persons with disabilities. This must be done by reviewing all steps of the engagement process, starting out with the development of the job description or what the position would involve. Then, the next step would be to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to information about the job and the means to apply. People with disabilities will apply for jobs they feel they are qualified to do, as in the case of anybody else.

Employers like other people hold certain prejudices about people with disabilities, which need to be overcome in order for them to facilitate the participation in the paid labour force of more disabled persons. Hiring persons with disabilities helps all of us, not just the person with the disability. The employer has somebody to fill their position; the person with the disability has a job; and taxpayers no longer support the person with the disability by paying out their pittance of a disability income. It is also likely that the person with the disability will enjoy greater health and on an aggregate level, with more people hired, there will be more money in the economy spent on small businesses, which in turn, leads to the creation of other jobs.

Unfortunately, myths continue to prevail about people with disabilities. It is assumed that people with disabilities do not have as many qualifications as other workers. Many people with disabilities have advanced education and professional credentials, as well as substantial work experience. Further, there is no evidence that the work ethic of the person with a disability is any less than it is for anybody else. Their performance is either equal to or exceeds others as a rule. Further, some employer believe that people with disabilities should get paid less because they receive ODSP, which they assume is a "subsidy" ... when in fact, most people seeking work while on it, want to get OFF ODSP. Paying people less than minimum wage or even less than other workers is not only illegal, but is counter-productive as well.

This is just one area where there is shared responsibility for poverty reduction. Of course, there are people that cannot work due to health issues, or caregiving issues, or other reasons. Society needs to re-examine its current beliefs about the need to "punish" these people for being unable to contribute for either a temporary or permanent period of time to the paid labour force. Ontario Works is now the assistance of "first resort" for most people, as other forms of benefits get cut back and more difficult to get ... and as a result of getting on Ontario Works, one unfortunately has to strip themselves of all assets and virtually lose any financial cushion they once had, leaving them very vulnerable to long-term reliance on assistance.

Maybe we should take a look at the other benefits that are being cut and should be easier to get? It is said that less than 35% of people in Ontario who are unemployed could access Employment Insurance. People in receipt of long term disability insurance or worker's compensation are vulnerable to setbacks in adjudication cycles, which often can leave workers cut off with no financial security at all. Insurers suddenly decide your two years are up and you should be able to return to work, or WSIB believes your employer's "modified work" is truly adaptable for you (even though you will be essentially doing the same job you did that you got injured in). Forcing all of these people onto Ontario Works, which does not cover one's basic shelter, let alone their basic living costs, is certainly not good for the economy.

Is it really that good to have these people not shopping in your store, ordering a coffee in your cafe, or not buying clothing from the local merchant downtown, and more and more people ending up in this position? What does this do to the likelihood of jobs being created in your community? What does this do to the health of your local businesses, ranging from the butcher shop to the dry cleaner to the movie house? What about people who can no longer afford to stay in their homes? Where do they go?

Simplistic policy solutions do very little to either: (a) get people involved in the labour force; or (b) get the economy moving. Perhaps, we may need to re-think our ideas before spouting them off on the web, thinking we have all the answers. These issues are way more complex than they usually appear and solutions can only start when we end the blame game.

Thoughts?

ELECTION MALAISE HITS FEVER PITCH

There is lots to be said about the malaise felt by many voters in the current federal election.

I personally feel this election is a joke. We go to the polls, exactly one year earlier than previously legislated by our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Oh well, politicians are allowed to break their own rules when it is convenient.

People get interviewed on the street and respond by how much they are "tired of voting". Well, it is better than the alternative, I suppose. That is, we can stop elections altogether and just appoint a dictatorship or allow one to appoint itself.

The Conservatives haven't proposed any new policies except what their policies would NOT be. I am interested in hearing their position on health care and the Canada Health Act. It was Stephen Harper himself that spoke a few years ago that people should be allowed to purchase private health insurance for any type of service and that physicians should be allowed to choose to deliver privately any service they wish ... arguing this would not erode into public health care or access for everybody else.

Well, news flash. We don't HAVE enough doctors to fill both coffers full of medical staff and if private medicine proves to be more promising, many physicians and other care providers will skip public health insurance altogether to see private patients exclusively. I personally don't know Harper's position on health care right now, as he is not saying anything. Sometimes it is what politicians DO NOT say is more important than what they do say. I would advise people to study all candidates of all parties, their personal backgrounds and their positions on issues that are important to you, before you mark that ballot.

For example, an astute letter write wrote a letter to the Welland Tribune to "educate" voters in the area that the Conservative candidate for the Welland Riding, Alfred Kiers, was formerly a candidate for the Family Coalition Party. For those that want to learn about that small party's politics, you can always visit its website to learn about its policies. This does not necessarily mean Mr. Kiers will push these values on the party, but one should be wary that some politicians do impose their religious beliefs on the electorate. This is commonly known to be the Religious Right in the United States, where many states have backward policies on a number of issues, imposing certain morals on the electorate through legislation as opposed to personal choice. We certainly do not want that attitude imported to Canada.

Current election gaffes include a number of Conservative (as well as at least one Liberal) bloggers that have been reprimanded or asked to withdraw from the race once their blogs and posts on various websites were uncovered; it is not hard to find out if your local candidates have been actively keeping a blog or journal online. All you need to do is google their name via the web or even blogsites. You can also try finding them on sites like MySpace and Facebook, where many candidates have formed web pages to keep in touch with supporters. While they may have "official" views on these pages, you may wish to explore various discussion groups to see if they also posted there. That way, you can learn about your candidate and see if their views are something you could support being represented at the political level.

Another method is to meet your candidates and talk to them personally about the issues that concern you most. Ask your candidate the difficult questions and do not let them get away with political double-speak, which is either answering your question with a question or answering your question by giving information that does not answer your question. To get them to be truthful, play devil's advocate with some of the issues you care about. For example, if you strongly support universal health care, ask your candidate if there are instances where they believe the private sector can deliver health care effectively and efficiently and to identify what circumstances these might be. If you care about the homeless, ask the candidate what they believe is the cause of homelessness and how it should be addressed.

Get involved with political websites of parties you are not necessarily likely to support, but have questions about. There are likely people that post to these discussion boards that present ideas or opinions that might represent the position of the party and the majority of its candidates. If something bothers you, ask for an official interpretation of the party's position on that particular subject, not necessarily what the writer actually believes. For example, the Conservative's official position may still support universal medicare, but some of its candidates may not. The other thing is don't assume that parties of the so-called "left" all agree on positions either. There are Liberal party candidates that have supported the war in Iraq, privatization of health care and vouchers for religious schools. These are not necessarily bad policies, but if you feel they are not good - learn about what your candidates actually support.

Another cue to learn from is to go to the Elections Canada website to get a list of last election's donors to the various political parties. By law, donors that give funding or services in kind to any political party have to be named and reported to Elections Canada. Which businesses and organizations appear to be likely to donate to your political party? Does the party appear to have more organizations donating or individuals? You may want to google the names of individuals that appear to give significant amounts of money to any party to see who this person is. Many times, they are former candidates or executives in the party or they are part of an organization whose interests would be served by the particular party. For example, if a person is active in the labour movement, they might be supporting the New Democratic Party. If they are academics or policy analysts with private think tanks, go to the academic site and search up articles they've written or co-authored. If they are part of a think tank, such as Canadian Policy Research Network, the Fraser Institute, CD Howe Institute or Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, you might want to go to these websites to learn about what policies these organizations support and who is behind them.

Being an educated voter is hard work, but I would rather educate myself as to who I intend to vote for than to vote blindly or as in the United States, vote through some kind of middle man at an Electoral College. The campaign is getting silly here and this, unfortunately, benefits the incumbent party. People get sick and tired of listening to negative ads, finger pointing, opinion polls and other "media coverage" of the election. This coverage sadly is very incomplete and does not tell you who the people you vote for really are. Some people are comparing the Green Party to the Liberal Party of Canada, by saying that the Green Party is simply campaigning for the Liberals and if you vote Green, you are supporting the Liberals. Skip the middle man, they say, and vote Liberal directly.

As for the so-called "left", there are people out there advocating that the Liberals, NDP and Green Parties unite in their efforts to defeat Stephen Harper. Some are setting up "strategic voting" sites to encourage people to vote for one candidate in an attempt to prevent another candidate from getting elected. Nobody votes for who they want anymore. They vote against who they do not want or dislike the most. Our election system is antiquated to the point that strategic voting becomes necessary if we want to prevent massive majorities at 38% of the vote, meaning that instead of appointing them - we are ELECTING dictatorships. I prefer some type of proportional representation, but whenever something like this is proposed to the electorate, representatives from the two main political parties put on an anti-reform agenda to prevent people from choosing change ... simply to protect their own butts!

In my own view, they should have an option called None of the Above. If you are in the voting booth and NONE of the candidates appeal to you, which is slowly getting to be the case with people like me, folks would have an option to register their "vote". However, this can present itself in the likely scenario that None of the Above forms a "majority" of the votes in the majority of the ridings. Or people can always vote for the Marijuana Party, the Work Less Party, the Communist Party or even the Marxist Leninist Party. I'm sure there are equally bizarre options out there; maybe I might form my own political party someday.

Anyhow, people whine and complain and wonder why we have to go to vote again! I say, why not ... voting just takes a few minutes of your day. You can call the office of any candidate and ask for a ride. That doesn't mean you have to vote for the candidate of the office that provided you with the ride ... it is a secret ballot! You can even go in there and write on the ballot in bold block letters, "Throw the bums out!" or decline your ballot. If you decline your ballot properly, your "vote" is registered. However, do anything ... just don't stay home.

Happy Election Day (which will be October 14, 2008). Check the Elections Canada site for advance polling dates, special polls and other ways to vote to make sure your voice is heard. See you all there!

FEDERAL ELECTION ON ITS WAY: HO-HUM!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally pulled the plug!

This was several weeks after projecting commercials about himself sitting by a fireplace wearing a comfortable sweater portraying himself as a family man, as well as another one where paid stooges were put on film to say they will be voting for Stephen Harper. Well, the pain of waiting is over ... the plug is finally pulled and the pain of waiting is over.

This election is predictable as anything else. Harper's team started a website called notaleader.ca and on another site, portrayed a video of Stephane Dion standing in front of what appears to be a chalk board, until a flying puffin blows by and poops on his shoulder and disappears. Dion's team struck back with their own scandalpedia outlining the innumerable gaffaws by the Conservatives during their relatively short reign of minority rule. What does this have to do with the price of bread, one may ask?

Political parties continue to believe that Canadians are stupid. They think Canadians will rush to vote Conservative because they see Stephen Harper portrayed as a "family man" before the hearth talking with glowing terms about playing cards with his son, Ben, and his daughter, Rachel. Congratulations, Stephen! I'm so glad that you have a family. But this does not take away from the fact that Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Elizabeth May also have families, and they likely enjoy spending time with them too. But does this make him the best choice for a Prime Minister? God only knows.

Because nobody seems to know what policies any of these people have. All we are seeing are flying puffins, attack ads, comparisons of Harper to George Bush in the U.S., and so on. All of that means nothing to me as a voter. A survey was done of voters and it was found that the majority of them did not feel that the party in power made a difference in how well their lives went. That is probably true, but I also believe the big issues are important ... which is why we should be voting and studying the political parties' positions.

Pollsters are estimating that the Conservatives will win. Okay, so why bother voting, if we already know what is going to happen? Publishing these stupid polls is probably what bothers me the most. The pundits are pointing to a likely minority government headed by Stephen Harper again; it is like we ran out the back door, only to enter the same house through the front door all over again. Whoopie doo! Nevertheless, the ABC groups are being set up all over the web, citing "anybody but Conservative". I am still looking for the group that attracts the flying puffins.

In between these irrational election ads are commercials pushing vehicles, often with hard rock music that tends to attract the elder portion of the baby boomers, e, g. those with money. The latter group doesn't have any. I am still eagerly awaiting clear cut information about what each of the party leaders plan to do to further screw up our country and when I do finally vote, I will hold my nose and put my X beside the name that offends or nauseates me the least. Maybe one or two candidates might even provide petroleum jelly before they start their country screwing tactics, for example.

The Conservative party has not once spoke a word about how it intends to reduce poverty. Perhaps, they are part of the community that believes there is no poverty, much like my region's politicians believe. They talk about the wonder of tax cuts, which do absolutely nothing for low income people, but then again, some voters will be fooled. The Liberals promise a plan to reduce poverty, but at the same time they want to create more of it through their proposal to create a carbon tax, which Harper rightly describes as "a tax on everything". NDP Leader Jack Layton told his supporters the day the election was called, "The Prime Minister quit his job today. I am now applying for his job." Yeah, right. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, is finally allowed to participate in the Big Debates, which I will probably watch if only for that reason ... usually that would be an exercise in where best to place the barf bag.

Elections are viewed by most Canadians as something we must tolerate every so often, like it is such a burden on our privacy and an invasion of their busy lives. Perhaps, we should stop having them and then watch everybody scream about dictatorships and authoritarian governments. Canadians are stupid bunch anyways; I can never understand them. The media whines about summer elections, while summer elections wouldn't make a difference to me anyways. I am in the same place during the summer as I am during the spring, winter and fall ... working, probably until I am put in the ground.

The media whines about winter elections, whining about how Canadians would rather be in Florida getting some sun. Must be nice to have money to go to places like that, but I'm still here like I am the other 364 days of each year. The media whines about elections during or too close to holidays, like as if ALL Canadians just spend quiet time with their families ... assuming all Canadians have families to spend quiet time with.

But the thing that pisses me off the most is that when they raise so-called "pocket book" issues, it assumes that all Canadians have "disposable income" - a foreign concept in many people's lives. They talk about reducing taxes, but many of my clients don't pay income taxes. They need an income to pay taxes on. If some of them got the good jobs that other Canadians seem to have, they can join the same bitching rounds as everyone else about how high their taxes are. Wouldn't that be nice!

However, as the so-called middle class goes the way of the do-do bird, and less and less people have the "disposable income" to pick up a cup of coffee, let alone buy flat screen TVs, computers and new clothes, ANY government of any stripe will be scratching their heads to figure out what happened ... as they literally wiped out taxes on wealthy families and are quickly going into a deficit to cover basic operating costs, maybe we need to start thinking about doing politics differently.

Wealthy and upper middle echelon people often think of taxation as "theft". To me, if they truly believe that, they should all move to some island somewhere that has no government, no rules and no infrastructure to be taxed for ... let it be man against man, pitting life against life, lest only the strongest survive. They want to stop paying for health care because after all, they are healthy and even if they aren't, they can afford out-of-pocket medical care. They want to get rid of welfare and leave the less fortunate at the mercy of charity, and both you and I know what charities don't do -- they certainly don't do any better than the government, in fact a lot worse, at dealing with the problems plaguing the disadvantaged.

These are the same people who will tell a homeless man that needs glasses to go the Lion's Club to pick up a used pair, regardless of what his requirements are ... or to go to the welfare dental clinic and get his teeth pulled and then slap him in the face if he doesn't find a job. They are roundly criticized if they have a cell phone, lest they waste the money "taxpayers" give to them ... but then we somehow expect them to magically be in touch with employers to find work. The logic of these people is sorely lacking, as I see the results of this logic every day in my legal practice.

And these people think we pay too many taxes right now ... just wait until we open more prisons, hire more police officers, fill more hospital beds with patients with conditions that could have been treated had they been eating healthy and had enough funds to stay warm in the winter. Poverty is expensive. Our country cannot afford another ounce of it.

But then again, I am yearning for politicians who are true leaders for this country. This is something I think all Canadians miss. We no longer have the Sir John A. MacDonalds, the Diefenbakers, the Pearsons, even the Trudeaus ... we are stuck with the Harpers, who pay as much for their "image consultants" as twelve of my client's families pay for their entire expenses over the entire fiscal year. We have the Dions who can't communicate his "green shaft" plan in either English or French, not much better than one of his predecessors that spoke from both sides of his mouth. Then we have Jack Layton, who is probably closest to being "an ordinary Canadian" among them all, but yet so politically correct, he squeeks. I don't know enough about Elizabeth May, except that she practised law at some point, but then again ... aren't 99.9% of politicians over-represented by lawyers and wealthy business interests?

Some suggest a "none of the above" option on the ballot. It sounds like a good idea until it is implemented and I know for sure what will happen ... what happens, for example, if "none of the above" gains a majority in Parliament? Does it mean we have to start all over again and bother our vote-weary Canadians in going back to the polls to pick from yet another equally incompetent group of losers?

I don't know the answers, but I would at least like to see some way of reflecting a proportional representation so that people can stop twisting their voting strategies into pretzels and off-track betting proposals in order to prevent certain parties from getting in, as opposed to choosing a candidate of one's choice. During the provincial election, there was a lot said about bottles of Visine being used to "get the red out" and how voters could have done the same on October 10, 2007, by getting rid of Liberals ... but it seems that the Selsun Blue needs to go, but nobody seems to know how. I love you Harper, and I know you are a good person, a good family man, a hockey fan, a man of my heart ... but I just don't know what you have up your sleeve and how it will affect my constituency.

As you know, my constituency comes first and I intend to educate them in a non-partisan way, because I really don't "support" any political party ... I go for specific candidates, some of whom are Conservative, others are from other parties. I trust those that I know, regardless of political stripe. But if Stephen Harper came to my door tomorrow to tell me what he will do for my constituency and could convince me on how it will improve their lot, he might have half a chance. I might even send him a few flying puffins.

Anyways, I *will* be voting. I don't know for who yet ... but it should be a blast. See you at the ballot box folks, where we can all "throw the bums out!"

IS A FEDERAL ELECTION IMMINENT?

There are lots of clues in the air that a federal election will soon be called. First, Stephen Harper himself flies to the Arctic to make an appearance in the far northern community, only to speak to the media about the possibility of sending Canadians to the polls. Further, a television commercial featuring a number of "ordinary Canadians" who speak highly of Stephen Harper and their intent to vote for him in the next election has already been put on the air, despite the fact no writs have actually been dropped.

There were threats of plunging Harper's minority government into an election for the past couple of years, but nothing ever materialized. Harper's Government actually tendered and passed an election bill that would set future election dates, namely the next one, which was supposed to be set for October 2009, and not this year. The only exception to this specific date is if the Government fell to a non-confidence vote. So, why is he going to the polls now?

I am hearing from people who feel that calling the election now would certainly be a breach of Harper's first promise, which was to not call an election himself until October 2009, which in itself was enough to steer some people away from his party and government. Further, Harper indicated that he felt that Parliament was dysfunctional and difficult to govern, given the minority situation, so an election call was valid ... nevertheless, Harper himself admitted we might just put another minority back into Parliament again, given the polls showing Harper's governing party and the opposition Liberals to be neck and neck in popularity.

At the same time, this is a minority Parliament and it appears that all parties have attempted to make minority government work. Thirteen bills have been passed into law, as well as three budgets have been implemented since the election of this government. Henceforth, it is certainly not as dysfunctional as some might suggest. Further, the appetite of Canadian voters appears to lean towards minority governments, which can force parties to work together on proposals, as opposed to ramming their own through despite massive public opposition.

Do I want another federal election? I personally could not care less, although I tend to participate in the public debate around issues in the election, write letters to the paper and attend meetings, if possible, as well as cast my vote as I did since I was old enough in every federal, provincial and municipal election. I might even work on voting day at the polling stations, something my husband and I have done for years.

However, to me, real issues are hardly ever discussed in elections. When the then Right Honourable Kim Campbell was campaigning to return to her job as Prime Minister, she set the standard that an election was not the time to discuss issues. However, to some extent, it is. In the last election, for example, the Conservatives focused heavily on 'accountability' and 'transparency' in government. Unfortunately, this has not translated into action, particularly when the same organizations continue to get the same funding and are mandated to carry on the business of serving people, when these organizations don't seem to have accountability of their own. But then again, who am I?

I observe that elections get sillier and sillier as time goes on. Politicians want you to vote for them not on the basis of their own policies, but on the policies they want you to dislike of other politicians. To me, this doesn't make a lot of sense, as I prefer to vote for a candidate with the best policies from my perspective. I want to know what they want to offer me, and I don't care why they dislike the other guy. This is too much like going into a car dealership, where the man trying to sell you a Toyota spends all his time with you berating GM products and not telling you why you should buy a Toyota.

So, if an election is going to be held, and by the looks of things, it probably will - it is likely the Tories will put out ads depicting Stephane Dion as a bad leader, particularly given Dion's broken English (which again tells me nothing about Dion's policies or his leadership). The Liberals will probably put out ads about how they feel the Tories are a bunch of right-wing zealots that are going to sell us down the river to the United States, if they haven't already. The NDP will try to attack the Liberals, while unknowingly at the same time, boost the Tory votes. The Green Party will simply be taking a swipe at NDP votes, so these two parties can compete for third party status. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to run on the same agenda they always had, that Quebec should be given nation status and get out of Canada, all the while continuing to collect paycheques with the Canadian flag on them.

Cynical as my observations are, people reading this will know this is truthful. Virtually none of the parties will provide a clear message to voters as to why we should vote for them; just why we should not vote for the other guys. To me, all the political parties have positives in their platforms, as well as negatives. I would rather have each political party roll out their platforms, stick only to key promises and provide arguments to back each of them up. Then, let us as voters decide what party and platform we as Canadians like the best.

The Tories haven't really done anything to piss me off, but then they haven't done a whole lot to endear me either. I am sure that like any politician, they are subject to the whim of lobbyists and interest groups and have to respond to situations as they come up during their electoral term and frankly, most political leaders do try their best with these things. In the US, as Hurricane Gustav threatens to outdo Hurricane Katrina from three years ago, almost to the date, presidential candidates from both parties are doing their Sunday best to speak to the nation as leaders, while attempting to sidestep as many political differences they have at this time to allow the nation to deal with this new potential disaster.

I don't know if it is because it is an election year, or because the fallout from Hurricane Katrina gave the current administration such a big whopping when it did, but I notice the emergency response to Hurricane Gustav is much more organized and is ensuring that any citizen that wants to get the heck out of the way of Gustav can and will be safely housed until this storm literally blows over. There are also key steps being put into place to protect the property of citizens from those who decide to stick around to become looters, something not unheard of when disaster strikes.

But in many ways, our own country is going to Hell in a handbasket and Nero continues to fiddle while Rome burns; therefore, I want to know what our political leaders want to do about it. What do they want to do about the environment? What do they want to do about increasing poverty, instability of the labour market and massive layoffs in the manufacturing sector? What will they promise in terms of accountability and transparency, so that taxpayers can be assured that their monies are spent appropriately and in the best interests of all Canadians?

Canadians are getting more cynical about politicians, and not without reason ... particularly when promises are made and not kept, or politicians seems to get involved in scandal after scandal and later, vote themselves double digit increases and gold-plated pension plans the rest of us can only dream of. Politicians really need to understand this cynicism and do something about the root causes of it if they want to increase participation in elections, as well as increase popular support for the right reasons ... as I once asked, what would happen to our government if nobody voted?

Well, if the None of the Above Party gets into power, chaos would ensue. At the same time, government needs decisive direction based on consensus building, that is based on core values held by most Canadians. Unfortunately, we don't get this. We get vague promises never kept, while our country's suffering continues ... this is certainly not a treatise to tell people not to vote, as I do feel strongly that people should vote. However, our responsibility as Canadians does not end there. We must also hold our politicians to account, even after they return or newly get elected to office.

Among those reading this blog, what do you feel most strongly about at the federal level that must be addressed? Your thoughts?

POVERTY -- THE LAST ACCEPTED PREJUDICE

When Mike Harris was elected to power in 1995, he promised to cut welfare payments by 21.6% and cut provincial income taxes by 30%. Thus, the class war began in Ontario. It became acceptable through the actions of our leaders to attack the most vulnerable among us. It became acceptable to lord your social class over somebody who is less fortunate and tell them to buck up; after all, just thinking makes it so.

Soon, it became popular for members of the public to believe that if only the poor "got a job", their circumstances would vastly improve. Employers needed to fill their minimum wage, unstable workforce, while taxpayers wanted to pay less taxes and invest in more mutual funds and overseas vacations. The homes of the wealthy got bigger, while many of the poor had no homes at all, and this was acceptable. After all, isn't wealth earned and deserved?

Since Mike Harris and Harris wannabes got into power across Canada, including Gordon Campbell of BC, among others, it has become fact that the wealthiest sector of our population became much better off than they ever were, while our poor folks continued to lose ground. Even after the Liberals got swept into power in 2003, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, old attitudes played hard. While they were a kinder, gentler version than Mike Harris, nevertheless, little has changed under their leadership as to how the very poor are dealt with.

Last year, a group of downtown residents identifying themselves as the "real taxpayers" lobbied city hall and the region about the so-called concentration of social services in the downtown of St. Catharines. They pointed out that the welfare office, a few methadone clinics, Start Me Up Niagara, among other organizations were crowded in the downtown core to such an extent that nobody wanted to do business up there. Horsefeathers! I sat for eleven varied periods in the vicinity of the one methadone clinic uptown to see if people entering and exiting the clinic proceeded to "hang out" or urinate in the laneways, etc. as some people believed. Not once during any of my travails have I noted any problems emanating from that clinic. Nor have I witnessed the same coming from the welfare office, which was for a time centrally located and accessible by transit ...

After the same NIMBY-ites continued their bantering at all levels by writing letters to the paper, appearing at meetings of city council and making genuine asses of themselves, the social services office moved over to the far east side of the city, inaccessible to many people without a car or bus fare. Of course, they justify it by saying many of their clients are living at the east side, but then again, many also live downtown, the west side, etc. The city is going to Hell in a handbasket and it has little to do with what services are located where. It has more to do with poor planning and not listening to the people they should be listening to.

One example is our judicial system in Niagara. In Niagara, we have the peculiar arrangement of three different courthouses for provincial offences, and two different judicial districts whereby some cases must be heard in Welland and others must be heard in St. Catharines. The option to have hearings in Niagara Falls has been obliterated with the exception of traffic court cases, which tend to have heavy caseloads at all the locations. The Niagara South judicial district is headed in Welland, where nobody without a car can travel to or from. If you live in Niagara Falls, or an incident occured in Niagara South, the hearing is turned over to Welland. This is a minor matter for most middle class people who can easily hop in their cars and drive anywhere; however, if you live in Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, Wellandport, Port Colborne, etc. it becomes tricky. Because I don't drive, I am forced to pay $63 PER TRIP to a cab company to get me to that court and back, something I think no matter how high gas prices are, nobody that drives ever has to pay. This also applies to clients of mine ... many of whom I have to arrange transport from Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, Wellandport or Port Colborne, so they can attend their hearing ... also at a cost of between $63 to $85 per round trip for them.

One can always say they don't have to file their case, but many times, these cases are filed against THEM and they have no choice but to defend themselves in a court that is inaccessible to them. The thinking in setting up the two judicial districts in Niagara Region was obviously done by somebody who drives and never had a disadvantage in that way, nor have they obviously consulted the legal or business community to determine the best way to handle Niagara-based cases.

Unfortunately, the same thinking is permeating the Niagara Health System. Several years ago, six of Niagara's hospitals were amalgamated under some scheme that was put forth by the former Conservative Government under the assumption that one level of bureaucracy to run all of the six hospitals was better than having six separate administrations. Unfortunately, several other hospitals, such as Grimsby and Hotel Dieu-Shaver, have been left out of the amalgamation for various reasons. So, anyways, the Niagara Health System gets its wrists slapped for having a $17.5 million deficit and they were ordered to submit a health care system redesign this month, after pseudo-consultation with the public. I wrote my comments in, as I am sure others did.

In the consultation itself, much was said about what they had already planned anyways. Unfortunately, they are moving towards a multi-site, centre of excellence model, which would work well for Toronto or some other location where reliable, affordable transportation is available to members of the public. However, when the announcement was finally made as to what their intentions were, it didn't surprise me whatsoever. It once again was set up similar to the way our judicial system is set up ... dividing up Niagara's hospitals into specialized areas; St. Catharines being where the babies are born from throughout Niagara, as well as the centre for cancer care and childhood ear-nose-throat surgery and cardiac care ... Niagara Falls for orthopedic surgery, adult ENT surgery and many day therapies ... Welland for dialysis, etc.

Okay, if somebody starts getting contractions at three in the morning, will the NHS pay their cab fare from Fort Erie to St. Catharines? If somebody has to leave their community to go to Niagara Falls for example and their family is in Welland, will the NHS pay their cab fare to go visit their hospitalized family member getting orthopedic surgery following a car accident, for example? How about mental health care? This is going to be centred in St. Catharines, so if you have a mental breakdown but live in Port Colborne, I suppose the NHS is going to provide cab fare to get to St. Catharines. This also applies to family members that do not have cars, but want to visit. The rich have social support and family companionship, the poor get isolated. Isn't that always the case? It is obvious that whoever thought up this hare-brained scheme drives and everybody in their family drives ... and nobody bothered considering the 1/3 of adults in Niagara Region who either have no license or access to a car.

Instead, some propose asking "charities" to provide rides to people. Poor people do not want charity. Poor people simply want access, the same access taken for granted by others in the community. Those without cars are fed up with hearing those with cars complaining about the price of gas, when those living in poverty are lucky to eat and have a place to stay in the same month. People that do not drive are looked down upon here, like they are some kind of "damaged goods". They are not offered jobs, they are offered charity. They are not considered equally skilled to the "mobile" population, but deemed only skilled enough for minimum wage. It seems alright for these folks to live perpetually on social assistance, while others with the exact same or even less qualifications can climb the corporate ladder and retire in relative comfort someday ... while the poor find the idea of retirement to be merely a dream.

Then the Ontario Government comes up with this other hare-brained scheme called the Ontario Child Benefit, which they say will be given to all low-income families, whether working or on assistance. However, they don't mention that this is simply another clawback to replace the alleged clawback for the National Child Benefit Supplement. OW/ ODSP families will be getting anywhere from 10% - 30% less on their cheques in exchange for an insulting Ontario Child Benefit to "take their children off welfare". Yeah, right. Once the shell games stop, it only becomes clear that OW/ ODSP people actually LOSE in the end. No more back to school. No more winter clothing. Hey, they can now "save" their money from their meagre OW/ ODSP cheques to pay for these items ... yeah, the last I knew, many families had to unfortunately use this money to pay a hydro bill or to re-connect their telephone. If this is the cornerstone of Ontario's poverty-reduction strategy, I am very disappointed.

There are still a lot of prejudices out there, that low-income people cannot manage their money so they need a "trustee" to handle it for them, or that poor people spend all their money on booze and cigarettes and they somehow should be not permitted to do so ... like, what are they going to do? Hire an army of investigators to go through the cupboards of poor families to ensure they didn't buy any booze or anything like that? There are others that actually believe low-income women in particular keep getting pregnant and having more and more kids so they can get more money, which is another myth that is not supported by data. Yet when members of the public are asked how much they believe people actually get on welfare, the figures they give are grossly higher than they actually are ... and then they wonder why poor people hide their heads in shame and many do not even bother asking for help. They too are fed up with being seen as "damaged goods".

I personally am not going to wait for a time in the undetermined future when people are supposed to become more enlightened and compassionate and will not consider the source of your income or the fact you have a disability or a child with special needs an anomaly that must be punished. I think that TODAY we have to tell our governments to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth ... saying they want to eliminate child poverty on one hand, but on the other, create much more of it ... this world is so full of inequality and in particular, kids from low income families are tired of having it rubbed in their faces how inferior they feel. It is time that low-income people have access to the same goods and services others do without having to resort to charities or to "cry poor" everywhere they go, just so they can get half a slice of day old bread.

Ontario is not a third world country ... we are not led by a despot that has taken all the gold and lives in fifteen palaces and uses weapons of mass destruction against his own people. We supposedly live in a democracy and a rich one, thank you very much ... and to me, ALL Ontarians, not just the so-called middle and upper classes, should have equal access to all that Ontario offers as a matter of course. Why am I stuck in a region that is light years behind many others, even places like Kitchener-Waterloo that have decisively put together an inter-municipal transit service and are looking into light rail now has the second lowest poverty rate across Ontario?

Your thoughts?

TOO MANY AGENCIES, NOT ENOUGH ACCOUNTABILITY

At a recent meeting with a friend, she told me that in her immediate neighbourhood there were 240 agencies. If any of these agencies were effective at what they did, there wouldn't be a need for so many of them. She lives in Toronto and is self-employed in the arts. Her skills are such that she can make this into a self-sufficient enterprise, but the types of programs set up for entrepreneurs do not meet her needs -- so she continues to remain on ODSP. This was an interesting comment, because the next day on the bus I met another friend who referred to our COIN Niagara (now aptly named Niagara Employment Magazine), who commented that in it there were references to dozens and dozens of agencies set up to help people find work. She commented that the people who work in these agencies make good salaries - what are they actually doing to help people find jobs? This particular friend of mine is a typical over-skilled, over-educated person who works in a field beneath her to make ends meet ... and to even get THIS job, she has to commute to Toronto everyday. Not surprisingly, she still makes so little, that her husband who has medical problems, continues to qualify for some ODSP monies.

However, agencies continue to make money. They continue to rub elbows with the political and in some cases, the business elite, to make it look like something is being done about problems that lurk in our community. Their executive directors make between $50,000 a year for a small agency to over $150,000 a year for a larger one -- yet, despite all this money being poured into these organizations, there is little formal accountability. This does not mean that there are not some agencies that voluntarily subject themselves to a higher standard of accountability, but none of them are forced to. Politicians are unwilling to penalize agencies, even if they are not doing anything, because if they had to de-fund or penalize every agency that truly did nothing, it would be political suicide. Politicians rely on the very existence of these agencies to make it look like they are doing something to assist the less fortunate or disenfranchised. Because most members of the public do not have to rely on these agencies to get them out of serious life challenges, most people do not consider these accountability issues.

Accountability is only considered when it happens to you. If YOU are the one that was poorly served by an agency, or whose confidential information was improperly dealt with, or who did not get hired in favour of a candidate without any formal training, accountability tends to loom quite large. Unfortunately, there is none. You can complain, I suppose, to the executive director or to the board, but nine times out of ten, nothing changes. The agency prefers to operate its programs in a way that continues to maximize its funding, not its effectiveness. In fact, many agencies tend to "follow the funding" and apply for funds for programs that stretch or even exceed their mandate. You can complain to the funding agency or department, but nine times out of ten, this goes nowhere as well. Civil servants work for political masters who seek publicity and want to be seen as acting on important issues. The reality and the effectiveness of these actions are not left to question.

At the same time, these same governments, including the one here in Ontario, saw fit to regulate my profession (as well as a few others). The regulations on my profession were to "protect the public", as well as to provide some level of consumer confidence that when they come into my office, people can expect a certain level of service, a certain level of competence and a certain level of respect for the 'consumer'. I pay a lot of money to ensure that I remain in practice, let alone all my other costs I have to pay to keep the business running. People who get jobs at non-profits and charities are not asked about their level of education, their adherence to a mandatory code of ethics, the requirement they carry errors and omissions insurance, etc. While some are hired for the educational qualifications, others are not. No law says you have to have any education to run a non-profit. No law says you cannot have a criminal record or history in order to run a non-profit, although certain types of direct service workers may be required to submit to police checks (e.g. such as those workers and volunteers who work with children or older persons). However, nobody says a director cannot hire somebody who "fails" a police check. These things are still up the discretion of somebody within the organization. I've actually sat in meetings where a board actually decided it was okay to allow volunteers for a fundraising initiative whose police check included no violent or sexual offences, but may include offences related to fraud. Yet, if I had a rap for fraud, I may not be permitted to work in my own profession - despite the fact I net less money than the average worker in a non-profit setting.

I remember a conference I attended a couple of years back. As a part of this conference, several agencies were invited to give a fifteen minute presentation about themselves, as well as accept a couple of questions afterwards. Virtually none of these agencies really had an interest in ensuring people seeking work actually got it. Job placement, for some, was a priority, only because the funder made it that way ... unfortunately, their quest for job placement has made it extremely difficult for consumers with larger needs, bigger barriers or those with higher levels of skills and aspirations, to find assistance. They do not get paid to push for barrier removal. They do not get paid to seek higher paying employers and foster partnerships with them. They do not get paid to even provide pre-employment supports that some people need, especially if they were out of the workplace for so long. The agency can only see it as economically sound to make arrangements with large employers with many entry-level, high-turnover positions, to place their clients in. In other words, all the Wal-Marts, Starbucks, Loblaws, No Frills, hotels (e.g. cleaning staff), etc. can find placements this way. The service provider is not mandated to 'encourage' these employers to explore higher level positions for more skilled candidates or to even increase their pay for their entry candidates ... placement in ANY job = money.

For others, they are occupation-specific. That means, if you want to work in a call centre, answer phones at a customer service desk, or work in retail, this particular agency can work for you. This is the BUILT Network, although I am sure the BUILT Network is not alone in promoting and sending referrals to low-paid dead-end, often stressful jobs that rarely pay more than $8.75 to $10/hour. Some of the Goodwill programs are similar, except our local Goodwill is at least trying to get some people into the skilled trades. When one of their representatives appeared at the conference, I asked if they can confirm that the base pay rate for those they place was between $8-$10 an hour. She advised me it was. I then asked if SHE would do HER job for $8-$10 an hour ... probably not, she said. At least she was honest. For somebody who likely earns a good middle-class salary placing people into low-wage jobs, it is probably not much of an ethical consideration it is for her than it is for me, and probably for many others.

The unfortunate thing is these are the agencies that continue to relentlessly take millions of dollars from the taxpayers to achieve what is likely very little. All of these programs claim high placement rates. There is no way anybody can disprove these high placement rates, unless every single one of their clients signed a waiver and were willing to be interviewed on the spot as to whether or not they got a job from the program, as well as to verify each success with their respective employers. So, it is quite easy to lie or fudge statistics. To me, if an occupation-specific job program wants to continue, it should not be funded by the public. Instead, it should seek financial support from its employers. For example, if you are a call centre and want to accept ten people from that program to join your firm, you should be permitted to have a say as to who enters and the composition of the training initiative, and then pay a "tuition fee" for each participant they wish to train. That way, they will have invested in the program and be invested in hiring the said people. The way it is now, none of these employers have to accept anybody they churn out, as is likely the present case. If they can't sell this program to employers, then the public shouldn't be paying for it either.

The public and non-profit/ charitable sector has a major accountability problem. This is not because these organizations are inherently less competent or the people in charge don't know as much about their job as the people in private businesses, for example. It is because there are no 'market forces' in play for the public and not-for-profit sectors. At least if you don't like McDonald's, you can always go to a Burger King, a Wendy's, an Arby's or a Harvey's, or even Taco Bell. If you don't like the coffee at Tim Horton's, you can always go to Starbucks or Coffee Time, or even have a coffee at any of the myriad of mom and pop cafes in your community. Because of this competition, each of these businesses are under pressure to provide a good service to the customer, so the customer returns and/or refers other customers. In the non-profit sector, there isn't a lot of choice ... while there are some specialty agencies, such as those serving immigrants, there are really no competitive forces at play to ensure whatever agency you go to, is under any kind of pressure to keep you happy enough to prevent you from going elsewhere.

Further, there are some options for consumers who may have been injured or not served properly by a private business. For example, if you go to a Wal-Mart to get your oil changed and then as you drive your car out, your engine blows, there is some accountability there on the part of Wal-Mart if a connection can be made with the work done there. If you hire a contractor to fix your bathroom, but the company takes forever to acquire supplies, tears up the bathroom, ruins the plumbing and makes your home unliveable and still fails to complete the job in a reasonable time or with good workmanship, there are a number of options to take. If your contractor is a plumber, there is a technical safety inspection program. There is a Better Business Bureau. There is also small claims court. In certain cases, you can even make a claim on the company's insurance policy.

Not so for non-profits. If you are unhappy with their service, there really is nowhere to complain, let alone get actual redress. You can't really take the Job Action Centre to small claims court because they failed to provide the service. We don't have an ombudsman of any type that can review and oversee the resolution of complaints against publicly-funded services. As suggested earlier, you can go to the board or the executive director, but it is not likely anything will be achieved. Many of these programs do get audited, but the results of these audits are generally not available to the public (nor can you as a consumer give any input into such an audit). Many of these audits as well are not based on value for money or actual program effectiveness. They are usually just based on whether the non-profit spent its money in accordance to the way it promised when it signed the funding contract, which means basically nothing for the unserved consumer.

For "generic" or "demographic-based" programs, it is probably harder to subscribe to an employer buy-in, as these agencies seek a variety of types of jobs and likely work with many employers. However, it is fact that the increasing demand for accountability has actually brought in the wrong kind of incentives to these agencies. More and more agencies are only getting paid once the client is placed in a job and keeps that job for a certain length of time. On the surface, it looks good. If the agency sits on its butt, it gets nothing. However, this actually diminishes the quality of the jobs that people get. Such agencies will not work with clients with significant employment barriers (as barriers take too long to negotiate and remove) or persons with higher skill levels and aspirations than a low-paid entry level job (as this requires actual work and substantial education of employers to even consider opening up their higher paid positions to these people).

I've been to agencies as well that may not necessarily be paid on a per-placement basis, but the incentive I noted is to get me out of there as fast as possible. They'd give me references to jobs that I could find in any newspaper or job board, and then told to apply for them, even though I couldn't apply for most of them. They have no time to work with employers either to remove obvious barriers they put into place to keep the "uncleansed" out of their workplaces, e.g. no time to confirm why an employer is demanding a driver's license and a car for a job that likely doesn't require you to drive anybody anywhere. They expect the candidate to work out these details, which is likely to be unsuccessful, particularly when the employer can actually hire somebody else that can drive. It is obvious that the agency I was working with is unfamiliar with the Human Rights Code and the precedent for bona fide occupational requirements. To their misfortune, they probably believe most employers are in compliance, when in fact, the opposite is true.

While people like me, and countless others, are trying to get help at these various agencies, the staff that work there continue to earn decent middle-class salaries. Their performance is not reviewed on the basis of their successes, but on how well they meet the agencies' own agenda. Staff at some of these agencies are not even required to be trained or educated in any particular field, although some others are more careful regarding qualifications. Or, even when they do want qualifications, they may be asking for the wrong ones ... for example, social workers should not be administrators or executive directors, although in many of the direct service jobs, a social work background is useful. My background that made me qualified as an executive director includes business, financial planning and management, human resources, sociology (which includes quite a bit of background in evaluation and research design), public relations and communications. Most social workers are not trained in these areas. When I was an executive director, I hired staff that were not only trained in their specific jobs, but also had a track record in doing this work for others. If two or more appeared equally qualified, I picked the one with the best communications and people skills.

There are consumer organizations and even some individual consumers that detest my bias in this direction. They favour "life experience" over credentials. I always ask them without ever getting any appropriate answer as to exactly WHAT is "life experience" and how can one person's "life experience" be compared to another person's "life experience", particularly if the two are from the same demographic, e.g. disability, gender, culture. Further, they couldn't tell me how any kind of "life experience" teaches people how to plan for and manage multi-million dollar budgets, manage human resources, acquire a skilled workforce, develop and deliver an effective program, or even provide effective "spokepersonship" for the demographic. Because marginalized people often think very few of their peers are educated or qualified for anything, they think it's okay to hire somebody with no skills or education to "speak for" other marginalized people, including those among the marginalized that are. As somebody who is better educated, when I ever made representations on behalf of an organization I worked with, it was done in consultation with a substantial portion of its members, as well as an attempt at getting voices from people who were not members, but shared the same issues.

It is a difficult balance to strike. At the ODSP Action Coalition, we strive to speak for all people involved with ODSP recipients as well as the full range of ODSP recipients themselves. I have been forceful in my own advocacy efforts (without an organization at times) on pushing for reforms that benefited people without children (though I have kids myself), benefited people that are not well-educated (e.g. better user friendly materials, better access to programs that meet the needs of people with multiple issues, better access to education and training to secure better jobs), as well as programs for those that are well-educated, as well as people from different cultures and religious backgrounds (though I have no real cultural leanings given the absence of family of origin influence and I don't consider myself religious, although I recognize many people are).

It is a major fact that people with education and previous mid-level and senior job experience who are now unemployed and/or disabled, that they are ignored and marginalized ... even from within their own demographic communities. Some single disability communities, such as mainstream psychiatric survivor organizations, are actually anti-credential in nature, under the false impression that one cannot be well educated and qualified AND suffer from a major mental health disorder. Most of such persons that do get into senior positions in these organizations are eventually pushed out by somebody without any qualifications. I am aware of at least seven or eight major cases where this happened in Ontario, although if anybody asked a psychiatric survivor leader if this happens, they will deny it. Their victims become invisible and without a voice, which is the desired objective of these types of groups -- as those with the ambition to gain the title without the responsibility are certainly not going to care if they hurt anybody else on their way up. With cross-disability organizations and coalitions, their expectations vary ... because many such organizations also try to engage people who have become disabled later in life, as well as injured workers, many of whom may actually be quite skilled.

Anti-credentialism is anti-accountability and anti-transparency and anti-ethical. Because those who acquire positions without having proper training fail to understand the importance of many requirements, such as the right to confidentiality and the right to open and democratic processes within an organization, these organizations are even less likely to achieve their objectives. This is also ignored by politicians because politicians do not want to look like they are "attacking the consumers" or are "anti mental health" or whatever they might be seen as if they do decide to withdraw money from an organization, although in rare instances, it has happened (but I can count the number of times on my left hand when this happened for reasons other than political objectives ... such as ensuring a "politically friendly" or a "harmless" group of people get preference for funding as opposed to a group of people who might actually influence or force things to change).

To me, if non-profits want regular funding, they must be regulated -- period. Regulation simply means setting standards. Standards are different for each profession, some are tougher, some are less strict -- depending on the educational requirements and complexity of the job involved. A non-profit should be considered the same ... set minimum educational requirements for all positions. It may not necessarily be a specific type of education, unless the non-profit was involved specifically in something regulated, like child protection. For those involved in employment services, the candidate MUST have a university degree or education that leaves them with skills and knowledge in the following areas: human resources, labour law, human rights, marketing, communications, etc. Not all of this comes from a degree, of course ... but this is usually a foundation, then after that would be one's actual experience, both volunteer and paid or even as a self-employed business person.

For candidates without degrees, their skills and references need to be more closely scrutinized and proven. Sometimes, a position calls for business and marketing knowledge, for example, and a candidate without post-secondary education comes in strong because they worked for twenty years in a successful family business. In certain circumstances, the professions also consider these things as part of their admissions process. One year, the Law Society of Upper Canada came under scrutiny because it chose to admit about a dozen candidates who failed their bar admissions. These candidates were able to be admitted under other criteria that proved they were equally capable of performing the work required under a license. Some people just can't handle tests. In fact, the Law Society regularly admits people that do not always fit neatly in their licensed structure. There is an increasingly common provision for something called "peer review" in other professions, where an individual would perform under a few seasoned professionals and then later evaluated for the delivery of their services. Teaching is an example of where this provision might work well. However, despite their admission, all licensees are required to continue to upgrade and educate themselves in their fields.

In my own view, if the government wanted to discourage people from dropping out of high school, none of them should be able to access ANY publicly-funded job, even as a janitor at the school board, until they graduate or obtain an equivalency. The private sector can still hire them, as they have the market forces to contend with ... if they hire incompetent people, the business suffers. It is the investors choice as to how much risk they want to take. In the public and not-for-profit sector, because there is no market forces and little choice for those that need the services downloaded upon them by the government, standards must be in place. In addition to minimum educational requirements, a code of ethics must be drawn for all workers and tailored to the specific areas that they work in. There must also be a body to which to complain and get support. Because there is no such body to complain, many non-profits continue to practise nepotism, hire their own "friends" and not bother to perform at their top level (because after all, if people complain, nothing will happen anyways ...). They should also be insured personally in certain jobs, or bonded in others.

Under this new regulatory regime, personal information collected by an organization's worker will be protected and the worker that is careless in dealing with it CAN be penalized. The worker that fails to serve a certain person because it is not economical or it is too difficult to find a higher paid job for them, etc. (whatever their excuse is) may be FORCED to help or lose their own job and license to work in this field. This doesn't necessarily mean that the worker MUST be successful everytime, as lawyers who are licensed do lose cases too and this doesn't hurt them (unless the loss was caused directly by negligence). Doctors are also not expected to cure everybody either, but they are supposed to try. Accountability does not mean guaranteed results. It means guaranteed effort and professionalism in the delivery of services, while respecting the individual. Yes, many non-profits do hold themselves to voluntary high standards. I am asking for this to be a requirement.

Until then, I really don't choose to use a lot of services unless it can be shown to me that the agency is actually delivering on their promises (e.g. finding people housing, finding people jobs that match the person's skills and abilities, assisting people in accessing disability supports). I want a say in the agency's future without having to join their board or make friends with the senior staff. I want the power to control what is done with my information and how I am treated when I go to these types of places. I don't think I want anything more than anybody else does. I just think that politicians have to start demanding that agencies deliver ... until then, there will never be any accountability, transparency or in relevant cases, democratic processes within.

ELECTIONS, POLITICS AND THE INSIDE WORLD OF A VOTER

Want to know what really ticks me off? People who don't vote in elections.

I recall people going to wars and risking their lives and sometimes even paying with their lives to give us this freedom. There was a time when women and blacks did not have the vote. When this was the issue, many women engaged in violence and civil disobedience to prove their point. Later on, another woman took her fight to the Supreme Court to argue that women were "persons" for the purposes of accepting an appointment to the Senate. Other women had to dress like and pretend they were men in order to engage in a profession of their choice ... this was during a time when women were not traditionally admitted to the higher paid professions, such as medicine, dentistry and law. It was sometimes found out only after the person had died and the mortician came to take the body, when it was learned that the "he" everybody believed the person was, was actually a "she".

One thing having a higher education did for me was to make me understand the history and the struggle behind things that too many people take for granted today. In one particular course I took, we were shown films that documented the lives of people who gave so much of themselves, including their lives, to a particular cause. As I continued my education, I did some studies in the historical and social psychological relevance of key events, such as the suffragette movement, the Holocaust and the French Revolution. While historical in their nature, understanding these issues helps us learn about the importance of similar struggles today. To me, these issues are all of the same fabric, but the technology is more advanced as we age as a human species.

There are a lot of people today that are trying to protest the war in Afghanistan. They say we should withdraw and bring our troops back home. Because of my learnings about the early struggles of modern humankind, I am not entirely against war. It was war that put the Nazis to their knees and freed the many European nations that Hitler attempted to take over. It was the Civil War in the United States that started the path to freedom for African Americans who were held there as slaves. I live in a part of the world where many slaves came to after the "underground railroad" was built as a means for many of them to escape before and during that war. Today, I still think the work we are doing in Afghanistan is worth something ... I think the people who should be answering whether the war is accomplishing anything are those that are involved, the thousands of soldiers and civilians who are on the grounds protecting the citizens of that country against the ravages of the Taliban and their remainders. I am one of those people who believe that Remembrance Day should mean something and that the veterans who return from these wars should be respected and their lives celebrated.

To argue that voting is a waste of your time, or that your vote doesn't make any difference doesn't persuade me. I can only envision the veterans of the first and second world wars, the leaders of the suffragette movement and those who built the underground railroad turn over in their graves as you casually disregard your duty. If you are truly disenchanted by the array of candidates presented on your ballot, the thing to do is take your ballot, fold it and return it to the Deputy Returning Officer at your polling station without marking it. This is called "rejecting your ballot", which still means you voted and your presence is recorded - even though you did not visibly support anybody on that ballot. At one time, I served many Elections as a poll clerk or deputy returning officer and we would always encounter one or two people throughout the day that did just that - rejected their ballot. We were required to strike out the voter's name and count that ballot as "rejected".

In addition to voting, I always believed in keeping active and keeping our leaders accountable. In modern days, elections are run quite differently than they were when I was directly involved in the the elections ... during this part of my life, I did everything from canvassing for a political candidate, raising funds for a political campaign, traveling throughout the riding to deliver literature and knock on doors. During one election, I was on crutches for a broken ankle, but I still hobbled my way door to door to speak to voters about the issues and to encourage them to vote for "my" candidate. I've also been involved with enumerations, which helped create the voter's list before every federal or provincial election. We would go door to door in pairs to ascertain the names of each resident who was eligible to vote in each household. We would often have to return a second or third time if a voter was not home to provide this information. I would then go home and actually type up voter's lists and submit them to my local Returning Office for posting. At the Advanced Polls, or on the Election Day itself, I also served a number of functions, whether that be scrutineering for a political candidate or remaining "neutral" and sticking to clerking at the polls.

In other functions, I actually met personally with political candidates or sent them surveys for various community groups I was involved with during the time. I would record the candidates' replies exactly as they delivered them and publish this information for people that wanted to know the positions that different parties took on issues. I would be involved with political parties - I was a member of two different parties at two very distinct and separate periods of my life. For one of the parties, I served on its executive and attended most party functions, such as policy and leadership conventions. For this party, I also served for a time as its riding association president. Much later in my life, I worked with and became part of regular political fundraising and social events for the second political party. Today, I am non-partisan, although I will attempt to serve and provide information to whoever gets into power. I've voted at least once in my life for all the major political parties, including one time when I voted for the Green Party.

Outside of electoral politics, I have served in a lobbying capacity on behalf of community organizations or my profession(s), a protester especially when I was young at heart and idealist in my culture, as well as a consultant to whatever Ministry or government department needed the type of services and advice I can offer. In my later years, after becoming non-partisan (from the radical centre, as I always like to call it), I provide consultation and assistance for community groups with respect to their communications with government or at times, as a direct consultant on specific projects. The one thing I know that doesn't change much in government is the function and role of the permanent bureaucracy. These are the people that are charged with carrying out decisions made by the government in power and in many cases, designing programs and services in response to Cabinet directives. In my working life, I enjoyed working in jobs that have occasionally brought me in contact with Cabinet Ministers and even the Leaders of political parties or Government. Through these functions, I have learned quite a bit about how democracy works.

I can't say I ever met a Cabinet Minister of any stripe that I intensely disliked. Individuals that achieve these positions of power are usually well trained to deal with a diversity of people and organizations. Most of them have also achieved a level of respect from the people who elected them in their own ridings. In fact, there were a number of them I actually liked and enjoyed meeting with. One thing to note, however, is that meeting any of these political leaders in real life is far different than reading about them through the media or hearing about them through the perspectives of others. You do develop a type of knowledge one can never obtain from any of the courses I took in school or from dealing with issues from the "outside". Despite the political affilitations and positions of many of these people, I do know that serving in their positions regardless of whether or not I like their policies is actually very difficult work. I remember attending a function that included the full Cabinet and Premier of one of our past provincial governments and meeting several of them. To me, these are all just people ... many of which are carrying a very high level of burden and responsibility.

Not only are these people responsible and accountable for everything that comes out of their respective offices, serving in the highly public capacity that they are in often creates friction with people on the "outside". If anybody thinks these conflicts do not impact on any of these people personally, they are dreaming in technicolour. Politics is a very public, as well as a personal responsibility. One mistep can cost a person their job. A major mistep that may not affect you or me either way can cost a politician their reputation and career. Think about Brian Mulroney. Many people remember this man as the "most hated Prime Minister in the history of Canada". I even remember one time when my husband and I went to visit with one of his relatives and a young girl (his niece?) was there watching television when a news story involving then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney came on. This girl turned to the TV and told us loudly that she "hated that man".

Can you IMAGINE what it is actually like to be a man in Mulroney's position which held a great deal of responsibility and certainly a need for caution, when a lot of people - including eight-year old little girls - are all pointing their fingers at you to say how much they hate you? My husband and I met Mulroney before. In real life, he is actually shorter than I envisioned him to be when I watched him on television. What I have learned at that time and in subsequent years is that these leaders are all just people ... much like you and me. I also had the occasion to enjoy a dinner function where I sat at the same table as Bob and Arlene Perly Rae while the NDP held power in Ontario. Again, these people are far different than they have ever been portrayed by the media. One thing all of our leaders have, regardless of political stripe, is the belief that they are truly doing some good. They don't want to believe they may sometimes create harm by some of their policies ... some of them are deeply sensitive to this type of attack, even though they have been trained not to show it. When something clicks in the minds of voters and these folks are literally tossed out of office, they all feel personally attacked. In fact, both Parliament and the Legislature provides a service to politicians who are tossed out of office to aid them in their career and personal transitions as a result of being voted out.

This brings me on to my next topic, which is the best way to "do" politics. Ontario had 42 years of what was referred to as a Progressive Conservative dynasty, which ended abruptly in 1985, upon the promise of extended funding for Roman Catholic schools in Ontario. I was around at the time when folks had to pay tuition at Roman Catholic schools after the eighth grade. The promise of extended funding was controversial, for sure ... as many people, as they are thinking right now on the subject of faith-based schools ... believe that support for Catholic education to the exception of all others, is discriminatory against other faiths. This is becoming even more of a key issue today, particularly with the growing diversity of our province and the richness of our multi-faith society. What may have worked in 1985 may not necessarily work today. This is the issue that threw the Progressive Conservatives out of power after 42 years of moderate (and often "bland") leadership. Since 1985, Ontario had become a more volatile political landscape, including a single term for the NDP in 1990 - 1995.

I sense voters do want to see "change", but radical changes scare people and as proven in the past, is very risky to the political careers of those that implement change too far, too soon. In many ways, our current Premier - Dalton McGuinty - has tried to represent to the voters that his leadership was the antidote to what voters got tired of with the former administration of Mike Harris/ Ernie Eves. In some ways, McGuinty did put some brakes on the ideological push and pull involved with the so-called "MUSH sector" (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals). When Harris was in power, many of his ideas were good - but like most politicians, he wanted to do all of this in one term of office. This is what eventually did his administration in and possibly could continue to turn some voters off the Progressive Conservative party. However, there were many hot spots where McGuinty could have taken a more cautious and consensus-oriented position, but chose not to. Like Mike Harris, McGuinty had his own ideas of how things needed to be done and given the short-term view of politics, he too needed to get some of these things done in THIS term. Need I name these "changes"? Lifting the "cap" off hydro, terminating the "employment" of highly paid Hydro employees with golden parachutes, radically altering the payment structure and rate of pay for MPPs, adding a major health tax, smart meters, banning pit bulls, cutting the special diet allowances (as well as some other less known ODSP benefits), forcing paralegals under the Law Society, etc. were in his mind decisive moves, but in the minds of many voters - maybe not good ideas. I don't think the McGuinty administration actually wanted to hurt anybody with these moves; however, many of these decisions have cost jobs, businesses and hurt the working poor.

I think what most voters want is to be left alone, to be availed of work opportunities, increased income and a reasonable social safety net in the health care and social sector. They want somebody managing the good ship Ontario with a moderate, yet consensus building role at the top. People do not want to fear the loss of their livelihood or to pay more for essential services. When politicians start pulling manoevres that put some of these things at risk, they make voters nervous. People don't like strikes, major protests, long waiting lists for services that taxes should be paying for, and so forth. The machine should be well-oiled and running smoothly, while ensuring that regardless of who you are in Ontario - there is a sense of predictability and safety. This is something that unfortunately I feel I was not getting from the McGuinty government ...

While not everything that went wrong in Ontario is McGuinty's fault, voters needed to see that some effort is being made to reduce or ameliorate the negative impacts that changes might bring. With the hike in hydro, the loss of my own government contracts and the sense that paralegals are being regulated out of business, I have lost that sense of security and safety I should be receiving from my government. I have therefore lost confidence in the leadership and direction that McGuinty's government is going. I don't want another four years of suffering the way I am right now. I want access to opportunities, access to more work ... I am well over forty years of age and this is the time of my life that I begin to worry about if I will ever be able to retire. If things keep going the way they have under the present administration, I might as well forget it.

However - what if Mr. McGuinty still made the same decisions that he did, but somehow took other steps to ameliorate the negative effects of some of these policies (so people like me can stop feeling targeted)? For example, his government could have provided "seed money" to the Law Society of Upper Canada to pay them to regulate us and reduce some of our costs ... while allowing eventual economies of scale (with more paralegals eventually becoming licensed) to be the taper-off point of this funding, so that regulatory mechanisms are at least affordable to the first set of guinea pigs going through licensing (a.k.a. "grandparented" or "transitional" candidates) can actually afford to continue and the public can continue to afford to access our services. With respect to the other contracts, if changes were made to the Employment Support program, could there have been a way to negotiate some other type of related contract with my office to ensure that: (a) clients receiving my service can continue to receive services; and (b) my office can continue to serve some type of role with ODSP clients - maybe a different role, but still a role that will pay me to continue working? Would my attitude and my feeling of predictability and safety under McGuinty's watch be different? Absolutely! If things were different in this way, I may instead be campaigning for one of their people instead of wasting my time on this blog "educating" voters about my life and attitudes toward it.

In this post, I have come full circle in expressing my concerns about people that don't vote (but still complain nevertheless), to the directness of much of my life and work experience in the political and government sphere, to my knowledge of how government actually works, to my knowledge of how governments can at times unintentionally put "outside" people in precarious or difficult situations - which can and should cost them not only votes, but possibly a majority government. I often wish the powers that be could actually read my letters and my articles and get a sense of how they went wrong for me and let me have the opportunities that they speak of so frequently, but somehow seem so elusive to me. In 2003, many of us including my husband and I did vote to "choose change", but it appears this time around, we're going to have to do it again - except this time for real.