Sunday, September 28, 2008

Olivia Chow: A strong record of getting nothing done

I have the misfortune of being represented by Olivia Chow in the great Parliament of Canada. Part of what makes this unfortunate is that I am, from time to time, subjected to her political literature. I received a particular asinine piece just the other day.

It begins;

I’ve loved being your MP...

That’s nice, it’s always good to hear that someone enjoys their job but why should I care? Oh there’s more;

...because serving our community gives me the opportunity to help people...

What else could serving someone be but helping them? Basically you are saying doing something gives you the opportunity to do that thing. Again why should I care?

...and to get results for Toronto. Together we can make great things happen.

Now we’re getting somewhere! Okay you get results for me and my community by not only serving us but helping us too! Can you give me a concrete example?

Wrote ‘Canada’s Early Learning and Child Care Act’ and led it through two successful votes in Parliament.

Umm...It takes three votes in the House of Commons for something to be passed. That means you didn’t get it done, you almost got it done, which means you didn’t get it done. Okay so bad example, do you have anything else?

Olivia’s proposal to establish an office to recognize overseas education was implemented by the government.

I’m pretty sure you were not the first one to suggest something like this, nor were you the one to implement it. So what exactly was your accomplishment here? Was it that you thought it was a good idea?

Secured permanent federal funding for the Harbourfront Centre and waterfront revitalization.

I don’t remember her name being connected to any such announcement. I called their campaign office to find out how she was involved. That was two days ago, I’ve yet to hear back from them.

Helped over 1000 people in our community cut red tape and get results.

I’ve worked in an MP’s office. That’s 50% of an MP’s job. If Tony Ianno hadn’t lost he would have been doing the same thing. Not a good reason for someone to vote for Ms. Chow.

Launched the Children’s Health and Nutrition Initiative to fight child poverty and obesity by providing all children access to healthy food.

This isn’t an existing program. It’s something that the NDP has proposed. Is Olivia Chow really claiming a proposed program from the fourth party as an accomplishment?

Worked with Jack Layton to launch a Youth Safety and Crime Prevention Plan which focuses on youth employment and banning handguns in Toronto.

It’s nice that she gets to work with her husband, but again proposing something is not the same thing as doing something.

Consistently opposed the war in Afghanistan and passed a motion to let war resisters in Canada.

If her claim is that she ‘get things done’ then merely opposing something is not good enough. Our troops are still in Afghanistan, what has she accomplished?

After years of fighting for justice for the Chinese Exclusion Act and Head Tax, Olivia helped secure the historic apology.

She’s gone from listing non-accomplishments to outright claiming that she was responsible for what the Conservatives did. I don’t think that this is a good reason to decide your vote, but if this is your reason, you should vote Conservative.

Tabled a motion to regulate pet food in Canada to ensure safety for pets.

Did the motion pass? I’ll say it one last time, almost doing something is not the same thing as doing something.

Okay, that’s all she listed as her supposed accomplishments. Not a very inspiring list. To be fair it is hard for an MP from the fourth party to get their agenda passed, even in a minority Parliament.

Still if your campaign slogan is going to be A strong record of getting things done, you better have a strong record of getting things done. Instead she has a respectable record of trying to get things done. I guess that’s not as good of a slogan. The truth rarely is.


Alex Sloat said...

Actually, small correction for you - a bill requires three readings to pass, but First Reading is not a vote, it's merely a literal reading. Second Reading is shortly thereafter, and it's the vote in principle, after which it's shipped off to committee, and the amended version is brought back for Third Reading, at which point the Commons is done with it. Thus, two votes is in fact successful passage of a bill.

Now, of course Olivia Chow is someone I'm wholly in favour of mocking, and the rest of what you say is wholly valid, but in this case you've got your facts wrong.

Babylonian777 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Babylonian777 said...

With all do respect to Mrs. Chow/Layton (does anyone know why she didn't take her husbands name? Is that an NDP women "liberation" theme or something?.......I suspect it is).............anyways, with all do respect to her, she passes an idiot everytime I hear her speak, a well intentioned one of course.

Anonymous said...

I hope you send all this to Ms Chow's Conservative opponent for any candidates meeting. Could be useful

Ken said...

Babylonian777, her not taking her husband's last name would be about the millionth thing I would name in a list of things wrong with her, and even at the millionth spot it would be a joke. Christine Elliott and Jim Flaherty are married, no one seems to care that she didn't take his last name and I doubt it was a "NDP women "liberation" theme".

Hugh MacIntyre said...

Your right Alex, I should know better. Of course it still needs Senate approval and Royal consent but to be fair she did do as much she could.

Babylonian, nothing wrong with the woman keeping her last name.

Hugh MacIntyre said...

and that's 'you're right' not 'your right.'

Hugh MacIntyre said...

anon, deconstructing an opponent's literature sadly doesn't win elections. I really wish it did though.

Babylonian777 said...

"Babylonian777, her not taking her husband's last name would be about the millionth thing I would name in a list of things wrong with her, and even at the millionth spot it would be a joke. Christine Elliott and Jim Flaherty are married, no one seems to care that she didn't take his last name and I doubt it was a "NDP women "liberation" theme"."

Thanks for the insight, never said it was something wrong with her, and it was an aside, you will notice it was in brackets.

Anonymous said...

All her so called accomplishments aside. She is on 150K and her husband too. So we have 300K between them. Hardly kitchen table... Now when we add whatever committee she is on, and her husband taliban Jack being the leader of the NDP, we are looking at 400K plus...They are making big bucks for getting nothing done, nice job if you can get it.....argee

Babylonian777 said...

"Babylonian, nothing wrong with the woman keeping her last name."

Yea, I guess not, until you get about 8 hyphens by the time the grandkids get married. I mean, I couldn't care less if It's Jack Layton, Jack Chow, I just think the old timers had something with the way they chose their last names.

Sorry, I don't mean to digress from the topic, and I am probably speaking out of my A$$.

Curls said...

Maybe O Chow Nothing can really do something important, like standing at the foot of Bathurst Street and watch the Porter turboprop planes take off. Jack and O, two public troughing socialists.

Alex Sloat said...

Anon 10:33, committee work is part of the baseline work of an MP - virtually all of them are one a committee of one sort or another - and thus doesn't result in extra pay. Being leader of the fourth party does not come with any extra pay either - it's only the PM and maybe the leader of the Opposition that get additional salary. The only leader of another party to get extra money in a long time was Joe Clark when he was PC leader in the 90s, and forced the(near-bankrupt) party to pay him a salary. Layton, being somewhat less of a fool, has done nothing of the sort, and as such he just gets paid like a normal MP as well.

Of course, 300k/year is nothing to sneeze at, but you're adding sums that don't exist.