One of the things that pisses me off about elections in Canada is that everyone says “I’m voting for such and such a leader.” Unless you actually LIVE in the riding of a party leader, you aren’t voting for a party leader, you are voting for whichever individual you feel best represents the policies put forward by a group of people. Some food for thought, how many Bills do you think Stephen Harper introduced in Parliament since 2006? None. How many policies vocalized by Stephen Harper do you think were his very own ideas? Probably not many. That’s what policy analysts and planners are for. A Party leader is a figurehead agreed upon by the members of a party who they feel best represents their values and policies. You are voting for those policies and plans when you cast a ballot, you are NOT voting for the leader. If more people realized this, then we’d probably have some less fucked up political problems in this country.

 

So, given that you are voting for an individual in the constituency in which you live, you should consider a few things if your current, incumbent MP is again seeking election:

fyi, all of this information is publicly available either by sorting through hundreds of pages of Hansard, or by doing a simple search on Howdtheyvote.ca

Who is your incumbent MP:

Earl Dreeshen, CPC

 

How long has your incumbent served as a Member of Parliament:

Mr. Dreeshen was first elected as a MP with the CPC on October 14, 2008.

 

How many motions of bills has your incumbent introduced in the House:

1.       October 10, 2010 Bill C-576, amendment to the Criminal Code respecting the personating of a police officer

 

How many major votes in the House has your MP been absent for:

Two: November 17 and 18, 2009, Bills C-395 (an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act concerning a labour dispute) and C-51 (An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget)

 

How many times has your MP voted against Party lines:

Once, December 15, 2010: Bill C-510 an Act to amend the Criminal code (concerning coercion of a woman to have an abortion)

 

How long did it take your MP to first address the House after being elected:

Four months.

 

How many times did your MP rise to speak in the House:

40th Parliament 1st Session: 0

40th Parliament 2nd Session: 19

40th Parliament 3rd Session: 33

 

What are some notable votes that you feel must be addressed by your incumbent (if they are again seeking election):

Bill C-311 Climate Change Accountability Act. Out of three votes on this bill, Mr. Dreeshen vote Nay twice.  This Act ensures Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change. By voting against this Bill, Mr. Dreeshen has indicated that Canada’s role in preventing climate change is not a high priority.

Bill C-310 Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights.  Mr. Dreeshen apparently feels that airlines who do not properly inform passengers about why their flights have been delayed for hours, or made to sit on board a grounded plane on the tarmac with no food or water available, is not a major inconvenience to air passengers. No member of the Conservative Party voted in favour of this Bill.

Bill C-232 An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (requiring Supreme Court Justices to be able to understand both official languages without the assistance of translators). Mr. Dreeshen voted Nay to this Bill, apparently believing that Justices in the highest court in Canada need not know both official languages of the country over which they have ultimate say in matters of law. While many people would disagree, I feel that holding that position should, without question, be filled by an individual who is bilingual, as they are required to provide equal service to all Canadians in the language of their choice.

Bill C-393 an Act to amend the Patent Act to provide cheap, generic drugs for international humanitarian purposes. Mr. Dreeshen apparently feels that providing Canadian pharmaceutical companies the opportunity to produce and distribute cheap, generic drugs to third world countries suffering medical crises is not something that Canada should take part in. This Bill was passed by the House and sent to the Senate where Tory Senators were instructed by Minister Tony Clement to stall debate, and vote down the bill.  This was done using false accusations of economic impacts to Canadian companies, stifling R&D efforts and not being useful to countries needing medical assistance.

Bill C-440 An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (war resistors) Mr. Dreeshen, as well as the entire CPC party, cast a Nay vote on a bill allowing foreign nationals to be provided humanitarian protection if they leave the armed forces of their country of origin, based on moral, political or religious objection, which is participating in an armed conflicted not sanctioned by the United Nations.

Bill C-304 Amendment, An Act to ensure secure, adequate accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. All members of the CPC voted Nay, not supporting measures making affordable housing easier to secure for some Canadians.

Bill C-389 an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal code, with respect to adding gender identity and expression and discrimination towards them made prohibited. Mr. Dreeshen cast a Nay vote, showing his lack of support for gender identity issues and highlighting that discrimination against any individual based on how they identify and express themselves based on which gender they believe they fall under. The Canadian Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, why Mr. Dreeshen felt that gender identity does not belong in the same document is questionable.

Bill C-343 An Act to amend the Canada Labour code, concerning the ability of workers to take voluntary, unpaid leave in the event of major distress in their family (including, but not limited to, the disappearance of a minor child pr the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child). Mr. Dreeshen, as well as the entire CPC party, voted Nay to a bill allowing voluntary leave, without pay, to workers who are suffering major distress in their personal lives. Why the disappearance of a minor, or death of a family member would not warrant this type of leave is not something one would expect of a party espousing its support for the values and importance of strong Canadian families.

 

Which committees has your MP served on:

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

 

As evidenced by the unwillingness of the Conservative Party to willingly provide access to information, and recent developments concerning that improper use of public funds during the G8 and G20 summits, I do not feel that participation on some committees by my current MP has benefitted anyone in my riding.

 

An example of communication from your MP to constituents:

From a March 22, 2011 update on his website concerning Canada’s Economic Action Plan:

“Preserving Canada’s Fiscal Advantage: eliminating government waste; limiting spending growth; and closing unfair tax loopholes to ensure Canada stays on track for balanced budgets.

Alberta will also benefit from many initiatives including $5 million for the 100th anniversary of the Calgary Stampede in 2012.

 

The next phase of the Plan also reinforces the Conservative Government’s long- standing rejection of the former Liberal government’s legacy of balancing the federal budget on the backs of Alberta and other provinces through deep transfer cuts to health care and education.”

 

The first statement seems ironic considering the current reports about the Auditor General questioning $50 million in spending by the Conservatives at the G8 on wasteful projects. The irony also extends to the fact that this government has spent the most money in recent history, creating a record deficit. The second statement makes no attempt to determine how much of the $5 million will go directly into benefits for Calgary versus the rest of the province. Deep transfer cuts to health care and education were made as Alberta emerged as the economic front runner in the country and, both of these issues are more provincial responsibilities than federal, could afford to independently support health and education efforts more so than other provinces.

 

Based on these items, do you feel that your MP represents your personal politics:

No.

 

All of these are important considerations if your MP is an incumbent and feels they should be sent back to Ottawa. How much they participate in committees, how many votes they are present for, do they toe the party line all the time, or do they visibly take an individual stance on certain issues. All of these give an idea as to how well they have represented their consituents so far. If you have an MP who’s absent for most votes, doesn’t rise to speak very often, and participates on few committees, stop and ask yourself what exactly are they doing there then? Expenses by an incumbent should also be considered. For example, if your incumbent spent $250,000 on travel to and from Ottawa so he could fly his entire family (first class) there and back, and a total of over $630,000 in expenses ($200k over the average) you should probably be asking if those expenditures represent the best use of money from constituents.

 

Also, you know, things like “is your incumbent a member of a Party found in contemp of Parliement for the first time in Candian history?” or “does your incumbent seeking re-election belong to a party espousing no government waste, rein in spending and promote full accountibility and transparency” to then be found having wasted $50 million on G8 projects not related to the G8 or G20 summit, create a record deficit and be regarded as the highest spending government in years, and actively suppress MPs from speaking openly and caught misappropriating quotes from independent bodies of Parliament to suit their own needs?

 

Sometimes these things speak for themselves.