"Vote Compass" Shows Who You Side With!

An excellent way to really know who you should vote for!

Well done CBC ... Click the image to start ...

Those Who FEAR Mr Harper Have Crossed a Line

This man has been suspended by his employer, Environment Canada, for writing a protest song against Mr. Harper. There is nothing rude or untoward in this video by people in a Unitarian Church chorus.

Democracies do NOT let such actions be taken by the government.

Mr. Harper and those who fear Mr Harper have crossed a line.

Shame!

Elections Canada: Castrated by Harper!

Tough words, I realize, but this piece from The Guardian itemizes the systematic way Mr Harper has disempowered the institution that (a) organizes the voting procedure under the Fair Elections Act and (b) assures that people are both registered to vote and are aware of how to go about exercising their basic human right.

Unlike in the U.S. system, people in Canada register with an independent body (Elections Canada) rather through any particular party. It is much easier to be on the voter rolls in Canada and vast swathes of the population are not disenfranchised by ad-hoc policies, such as were in place before the Voters Rights Act of the 60s in the U.S.  And sadly are in place socially in parts of the U.S. Today. Harper seems to be leaning towards a system that can skew the vote.

The Guardian piece says it well.

Could the WSJ Have Blackballed a Sweet Cat Lover in Istanbul? Response Please

The situation started innocuously enough with a lovely article last week:  "Why Istanbul Should Be Called Catstantinople: Turkish city can’t quit delighting in felines; ‘like being a cow in India’" by Joe Parkinson (Twitter https://twitter.com/joewsj)

As you can read / view, the article accentuated the good nature of the people of Istanbul and how they feed and help the cats. So far, so good.

Comfy and fed by strangers
 by the Sea of Marmara

Enjoying last winter's sun

Sadly, one of the interviewees who founded a Facebook Group called "Cihangir ... Cool for Cats" felt betrayed by the reporter and wrote a letter to WSJ as follows:

"I have just been sent this article, for which I wasted two whole days with your staff.... not only is it inaccurate but most of what was said is the total opposite of this lazy piece of 'reportage'.... I have written to Joe directly to tell him he should be ashamed of himself... he represented the piece as an article that would help the terrible situation that exists for the million or so homeless animals in Istanbul and instead he shows it as some kind of paradise... we struggle every single day with cruelty, ignorance and sickness and he was told this... I look forward to hearing from you with a view to a retraction and printing of the truth."

While one side of the story, the human/cat interest side was well portrayed, the other side about the plight of the million-plus homeless animals in Istanbul was not documented and the founder of "Cool for Cats" seems to feel rightly betrayed by the reporter.

So far there has been but silence from WSJ and Joe Parkinson. In the words of the founder this evening:

"the silence form WSJ has been deafening and coincidentally my cihangir cats profile has been suspended by facebook pending my confirmation that this is my real name.... *sigh*" (my bold and large print)

Whoa! Her profile has been suspended by Facebook. Coincidence? I do hope so.

I ask WSJ and Mr. Parkinson to respond publicly so we can allay any suspicion that WSJ would ever do such a thing as to force/ask Facebook to suspend a profile of what is a humane "cat lady" trying to help homeless animals in Istanbul. The 2500+ members of the Facebook Group would also be happy to read WSJ's response to the written request.

By the way, a better title would have used the current city name: "Catstanbul" rather than the archaic "Catsantinople".

Over to you at WSJ and also Mr. Parkinson. I do hope you find it in yourselves to respond to her letter publicly and clear up any misunderstandings.

Waiting Earnestly

Dogs too

Why Harper is Hated

These wonderful images are by an artist named Wrycraft or search Michael Robert Wrycraft on Facebook or follow @michaelwrycraft on Twitter. He has a couple of x-rated ones as well, if you are interested, which show how some people really loathe the creature.

In a nutshell, he has broken a number of laws and has tried to hide reality and himself from Canadians.

Sunday's New York Times has an excellent opinion piece called "The Closing of the Canadian Mind". The author is succinct in his dissection of Harper and his systematic deadening of the minds of Canadians. I could not put it better. Click to read.

Both the artist and the author hate Harper. As I do more and more research, I can see how easy it is.

The Lively Albatross is now firmly either in the Liberal or the NDP camp.  Meanwhile, I am sad and embarrassed to have Harper represent me as a Canadian.

Police Brutality is Merely a Symptom

Are you tired of images of police brutality that shout at us each day from headlines and the social media? Ferguson, Baltimore and so many more not exclusive to the USA.

Creative Commons Labeled for Reuse

Well, it's our fault. We let it happen when we allowed the fear-mongers to rule the narrative around the world.

Uniformed people have always existed. They have been given uniforms to "serve the people". Somehow, the meaning of "serve the people" has been corrupted, post-2001, to mean "to beat well before serving the people on platters".

Are you tired yet?

I am.
It's time to vote into office those people who value freedoms more than trumped-up security.
It's time to vote for people who believe we are not inherently "bad" and in need of corraling.
It's time to vote for people who believe in humanity.
It's time to value Athens over Sparta.

Creative Commons Labeled for Reuse

It's time to bring back police who act for the people.

Vote against fear. Vote against uniforms ruling your life.

Bill C-24: Conservatives Believe I Could Be 2nd Class!

Bill 24 was recently passed by the Conservatives to "Strengthen Canadian Citizenship". The Conservatives say the bill was enacted for two primary reasons:

1. To make it more difficult to obtain "citizenship of convenience"
2. To stop security risks to Canada

A good summary of the act / bill by the Canadian Bar Association can be seen by clicking on the Table of Contents below:

https://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

As to the first point,  "citizenship of convenience", "Grants of Citizenship" in the bill covers that point by requiring longer-term residence, knowledge of an official language and true intent to reside in Canada. In most cases, this makes sense. In fact, the government has also simplified the system as follows:

The second issue "to stop security risks to Canada" covered by "Revocation of Citizenship" above is the divisive and problematic issue here. Admittedly, the grounds for revocation are pretty clear ... why would someone fight against a country of which they are a citizen?

However, it is the legal aspect with which I, and others more important than I am, take issue. Take a look at this summary of who can lose citizenship:

Hmm, I have only Canadian citizenship but because I have lived in Turkey for a long time, I guess I am eligible to apply for Turkish citizenship. That means that even though I was born in Canada and remain Canadian to the maple leaf on my tattoo, the government could strip me of my citizenship if I was a truly naughty boy. (No plans, by the way, and to be clear, this is just looking at the legal aspect).

This bill makes me and so many others "second-class citizens"; you can be a citizen as long as we deem it ok.

Look, if any Canadian breaks a Canadian law, that person should be tried in a Canadian Court of Law and face the punishment due all Canadians if found guilty. We do not want our own Guantanamo Bay with extra-judicial decisions at the whim of a government.

So, if a citizen is born as a citizen or becomes a citizen with no fraud, that person must have all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. NO IFS, NO BUTS.

Canadians are protected by the UN's provision to stop statelessness:

and by Article 6 in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."

Once again, a law created by the Conservative Government contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and needs to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Others feel the same way: a lawyer has challenged the idea that a Canadian can be stripped of citizenship.

The "yea" votes were Conservatives while both the Liberals and the NDP voted "nay".

The Lively Albatross is beginning to see the tendency of the Conservatives to divide the country through a policy of security and fear.  

Against the Constitution? It's Against the Law!

The mission and the vision of a company must drive the policies of that company.

In the same way, the constitution of a country must drive the policies or laws enacted by the sitting government.

Canada's Constitution was "brought home" from England in 1982, replacing the British North America Act that had been in place since Canada's founding in 1867. The full content of the constitution can be accessed by clicking here (The Constitution and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)).

As stated therein, at worst, no policy can go against the constitution or it is therefore against the law:

Let's look at a couple of laws passed by the current Conservative government to see if they contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
..............

EXAMPLE 1: I'll be pedantic and replay the law that has taken away my right to vote:

Current Law:

HOWEVER:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

According to the Charter,  "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."  Therefore, this law needs to go to the Supreme Court to be thrown out on Constitutional grounds. This is the next step - more information can be obtained at http://www.letcanadiansvote.com/
......
EXAMPLE 2:

Bill C-51. See previous posting.

..........

EXAMPLE 3:

A proposal by the Conservatives to limit travel. 

While it would be odd to go to an IS-controlled part of the world (!), looking at the proposal from a strictly legal point-of-view, this law should not even be considered.

The Charter:

The law on Mobility Rights: "Section 6 protects the right of Canadians to move from place to place, and section 6(1) ensures that all Canadian citizens are free to come and go as they please. Extradition laws place some limits on these rights. These laws state that persons in Canada who face criminal charges or punishment in another country may be ordered to return to that country."

....

So why are the Conservatives promoting these bills? It would seem that their mantra about security is their preferred narrative. The economy is in the doldrums so let's get people scared even if it means contravening the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. George Orwell would be proud ...

Any company that does not attach its policies to its mission is doomed to failure.

Any government that contravenes its own Constitution is doomed to failure.

Let not Canada and Canadians fall into the trap of forgetting who we are as set out in our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Conservatives seem to have forgotten, all in the name of "security". 

C-51: 5 Points for Security or 6 Points against Freedom

The Conservatives' platform is about the economy (hey, we're in a recession!) and security. Today, let's look at one of the foundations of Conservative thinking, Bill C-51.

According to the article "Bill C-51 for Dummies", the bill was proposed by Public Safety Minister Steve Blaney as Bill C-51 "is in line with the government’s “firm commitment” to protect Canadians from jihadist terrorists who seek to destroy the values Canadians hold dear...The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies,” Blaney told the House of Commons on Feb. 18. “As we have seen, terrorists are targeting Canadians simply because they despise our society and the values it represents.”

Is there a fear that people from here ...

threaten our lives here ...

... without a lot more of this?

According to the same article, "its main provisions would facilitate information sharing among 17 (and some say more than 17) federal institutions, give police powers that would allow them to preventatively detain or restrict terror suspects, ban the “promotion of terrorism,” allow the public safety minister to add people to Canada’s “no-fly list,” and enhance the powers of Canada’s spy agency CSIS."

Sounds reasonable if security trumps certain freedoms included in Canada's Charter of Rights, according to critics.

According to a CBC article, the 5 main points are:

1. Promoting terrorism is now a jailable offence
2. There will be a crackdown on terrorist propaganda
3. More arrests without a warrant are allowed
4. More personal information is shared among departments
5. CSIS can now disrupt terrorist plots

According to the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, here are the top 6 ways our lives will be affected:

1. Your private information will no longer be private
2. Innocent words can be interpreted as terrorism
3. Online posts will be censored
4. Protesting could put you under government surveillance
5. Your travel may be restricted without explanation
6. Your material possessions may be seized

The bill is indicative of the rift we see the world over today between security and freedom. My own stand is mirrored by Benjamin Franklin's quotation (so often butchered on the web!)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

So who voted it in?

Conservatives - Everyone voted "yes" except those not voting

Liberals - Everyone voted "yes" except those not voting

NDP - Everyone voted "no" except those not voting

Bloc - 2 "no"

Green - 2 "no"

F&D - 1 "no" and 1 not voting

For the complete record on the vote, click here. For the list of Senators who voted in the Upper House, click here.

Seems simple enough. Conservatives and Liberals put Security over Constitutional Freedoms.

NDP, Greens, Bloc and F&D put those freedoms first.

That's what the hoopla is about. EXCEPT, Trudeau is backtracking a bit. Click below to see his backtracking on the vote. Or is it really?

I agree with Elizabeth May's comment that the bill will make Canadians "less safe". By further developing a narrative of "them vs. us", it plays into the hands of those who want Canada to have a less open and less accepting society. 

Creative Commons Labeled for Reuse
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal
_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security.svg

The Lively Albatross is concerned that the Canadian Parliament passed a bill the seems like "Homeland Security", further enhancing the rumour that Stephen Harper is George W. Bush Lite.

On this one, for me, it's NDP and Greens 1, Conservatives and Liberals 0.

Canadian Debate 1 - GOP Debate 0

I watched (delayed) both the GOP "Debate" and the Canadian Debate last night (today my time). I am proud to be a Canadian. Here's my take.

The leaders of the four top parties in Canada had perhaps their only English-language debate of the election last night.  CBC has learned effective marketing and has put a number in the headline of their good summary:

Quick recap:

Harper tried to make it about the economy and security. Oops, Canada has officially entered a recession on his watch. He may want to just use the security / fear card :)

Mulcair used his experience as the head of the opposition to scrap a bit. He was a bit confusing on pipelines and would accept Québec's secession at 50% +1 of the vote.

Trudeau was also confusing about pipelines but would not let Québec go as decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

May of the Greens was clear and made a point that her party is about more than the environment, pointing out her strong opposition to Bill C-51 (more on that later).

The FULL DEBATE can be accessed here:

I was impressed by all four leaders for their understanding of the issues, their reasoning and their tone. It was refreshing to watch a debate that celebrates issues over personalities.

Unlike the GOP Bizzareness south of the border. Sympathies to my US friends.

For a good take on the GOP debate, see the Borowitz Report, linked here:

The Lively Albatross is proud to be a citizen where civilized discussion is seen as a norm.

Foreign Policy - One Aggressive Policy and No Alternatives

What is Canada's role in the world?

In terms of a vision of foreign policy, only the Conservatives seem to have one. As a Canadian living abroad, I don't like it and the fact that the role of Canada has moved from peace-keeper to aggressor under the Conservatives.

Let's take a look at the Conservatives.

Pretty straight forward. The bad guys are out there and the Conservatives will continue to keep them at bay. (More on internal threats in a later post).







The Liberals are hard to pin down.

Lots about the economy but nothing about the role that Canada should play in the world.

For the NDP, it's not even an issue.

Zilch, Nada, Rien de tout.









A further search comes up pretty vague as well:




CPAC says: "An NDP government would work as an even-handed, fair arbiter abroad with a renewed focus on the UN and other international institutions, Mulcair said."











And this opinion piece from February has it about right when he says:

"Voters know what the Conservatives’ vision of Canada’s place in the world is, but the opposition parties have been silent about their own visions, thereby enabling the Tories to monopolize foreign policy issues long before the election. Is it any surprise then that Canadians – especially youth – have become disengaged and apathetic? At a time when conversations around pressing global issues abound on social media and other forums, there is a serious poverty of debate and imagination in Canadian politics on foreign policy."

I disagree with the Conservatives' vision and want at least one of the other two parties to get the guts to make a solid counter argument backed up with meaningful plans.

On a positive note, I am pleased that under the Conservatives, a full consulate opened in Istanbul and trade relations are at an all-time high with direct daily flights to Toronto and Montreal.

The Lively Albatross wants to give credit where credit is due.

Electoral Reform? Two Out of the Big Three Want It!

As the first major issue, I want to take a look at the electoral system in Canada, which is called "First Past the Post" (FPTP).

Simply put, Canada is divided into 338 districts (called "ridings"). There are 30 more ridings than in 2011. For an interactive map to see the ridings and how some have changed since 2011, click here. 

Voters in each district choose ONE member of parliament. A voter goes into a voting booth and puts ONE mark on the ballot to vote for the member of parliament (and thus the party) for the riding.

Creative Commons Labeled for Reuse:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurelrusswurm/15022723643

In this example, all eligible candidates have their name and party affiliation. At the end of voting in that riding, all the ballots are counted and only one person will be the member of parliament for that riding.

The FPTP system has the advantages of limiting extremist parties and giving a voice to more centrist ideas. Disadvantages include effectively "disenfranchising" large numbers of voters.

For a complete list of advantages and disadvantages, visit the website linked below:

As a personal example, the last time I was allowed to vote in a Canadian federal election was 1988. I lived in the St. Paul's Riding in Toronto. Here were the results:

Creative Commons Labelled for Reuse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_(electoral_district)

The Conservative candidate won with 25K votes; however, 27K people voted for other candidates and had no voice in parliament.

It is for this reason that two of the three main parties have said they will scrap the FPTP system if they become the new government in October. Trudeau announced his plan in mid-June and Mulcair has said he has always been in favour of changing the system.  For more, click the video accessed through the link below:

The Conservatives do not favour electoral reform.

I really think the FPTP system does not give voice to everyone and I would welcome reform.  I would also hope that the discussion includes giving the vote to the 1.4 million expats who currently live outside Canada (see my first post in the blog).

The Lively Albatross thinks the Conservatives are backwards on this point and looks favourably at the Liberals and the NDP.

6 Opening Salvos in the Canadian Election ... Some Substance, More Blather

First off, a comment on the digital visibility of the parties. I use a bookmarking site called symbaloo.com which allows me to graphically bookmark everything I want. So, let's look at the tiles that symbaloo.com has created for the six parties using the images supplied by each.


What's wrong with the Liberals' tech crew?! No avatar or text? They're the blank tile between the Conservatives and the NDP. Even FD has an avatar.







OK, let's look at the opening statements of each party after the announcement of an election by Stephen Harper on August 2nd, 2015. Since Harper announced it, let's start with the Conservatives.

Conservatives:

What I notice right away is that the Conservatives' site is heavily text-based; does this suggest an older voting base? I can find a YouTube channel but the videos are not embedded in the site itself. So, let me summarize the substance of the written release which can be viewed in its entirety by clicking on the document.

In general: “This is an election about leadership on the big issues that affect all Canadians: the economy and our country’s security,” said the Prime Minister. “Given the serious economic and security issues facing the world, it is appropriate that Canadians should have time to consider the alternatives before them.”

On the economy: “Our well-being depends on the economy and the wrong leader will do real harm,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Now is not the time for the kinds of harmful economic schemes that are doing so much damage elsewhere in the world. Now is the time to stay on track and stick to our plan.”

On security: “Now is not the time for political correctness, inexperienced governance or an ideological unwillingness to act,” said Prime Minister Harper. “Now is the time to face those who threaten us with moral clarity, strength and resolve.”

Overall, the thrust of the Conservatives' plan seems to be to show they have experience in the economy and the "resolve" to fight external threats. The statement also warned against the inexperience of Trudeau and his Liberals and the "ideological foreign policy" of Mulcair and the NDP.

Liberals:

Well, the tech team got this right. It is pretty easy to navigate to an embedded video which can be viewed on the site itself ...


Oh oh, at 24 seconds, it's an ad about "change" with a lot of pretty pictures of Justin (hey, Justin, your dad had substance along with charisma).




So, that fell flat but there is a link to the text "Trudeau launches campaign for real change".  Let me work with that.

“We want change that will make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians – change that will help families make ends meet, put more money in their pockets, and bring this country together,” said Mr. Trudeau. “It is time for a new plan to grow the middle class and grow the economy.”

... “This election is about our future and Liberals have the plan and the team to make a real, positive difference for Canadians,” said Mr. Trudeau. “We have a real plan that will cut taxes for the middle class, so Canadians can keep more of their paycheques. We will also create one bigger, fair, automatic, and tax-free monthly benefit that will help families with the high cost of raising their kids. Nine out of ten families will get more from our plan. That’s real change.”

So, it would seem the Liberals are all about the economy and cutting taxes to the middle class. Fair enough, it's a start.

NDP:

The NDP's video is smack-dab on the first page.

It can also be viewed on YouTube. At 5 minutes and 45 seconds, it is Mulcair starting by saying that the country can either continue with Harper or choose his "plan for change".


He starts by stating that Harper's economic plan is clearly not working. While lambasting Harper's record, Mulcair states that his plan woıuld include affordable child care. Comparing Harper's record with his own priorities, he states he would tackle climate change, recognize the rights of First Nations people, and champion the manufacturing sectors. He criticizes Harper's 8 years of successive deficits, the fact that Conservatives have been convicted of wrong-doing in each of the past three elections and the fact that Harper has the worst job-creation record of any government since WWII. He states that getting people back to work is the NDP's number one priority. He also talks about his own upbringing where he learned to back up his principles with action. He ends with the idea that we can work together to "replace fear and division with hope and optimism".

Now, now, Mr. Mulcair: substance on the first day of a 78-day election? Hmm, so far the NDP is the only one to have any.

The Greens:

It takes three clicks to find their "Vision Green":

The vision itself is a detailed account of the policies that Greens around the world promote: climate change and the promotion of a green economy, disarmament, UN millennial goals, etc. Heavy on details, this is substance on steroids.

Bloc Québecois:

Straightforward stuff: stop Harper, stay true to our convictions and work towards Québec as an independent country.

No surprises.









FD:

The FD Party calls for giving more power to the regions. Let's see how their policies develop.

So, my take on this so far is that the Conservatives and Liberals are pandering to the unenlightened in typical politico fashion. They both stress personality over policy. In the case of Harper's team, it is about the status quo and protecting the society we have (a little fear-mongering goes a long way). In the case of the Liberals, it is about that overused dogma: "change". The NDP offers substance right away as do the Greens and BQ. The NDP's vision is social democratic and thus workable in the mainstream. The Greens, BQ and FD are niche-parties.

I really don't like fear or meaningless claptrap, so as a Martian or a Lively Albatross, I would say the NDP has won the first round of opening salvos.

Negative Advertising in CANADIAN Politics! Egad!

As a first step in re-educating myself for the upcoming election, I decided to do a web search on where each major party stands on the issues. I have come to the table as the metaphorical "Martian" who will be influenced by what I see and hear.

For "major parties", I have selected those based on the numbers at the dissolution of the last parliament in mid-May.


As you can see, the party's standings in numbers of seats were:

Conservatives  159
NDP   95
Liberals   36
Bloc Québecois 2
Greens 2
FD 2
Independent 8
Vacant 4


I got stuck on the opening pages of the sites as indicators of what each party holds as most important at this point. The opening pages are as follows:

The Conservatives' page has a two-fold scroll, the first centering on donating / becoming a member, and the second bad-mouthing the leader of the Liberal Party.

The Conservatives seem to be relying on their record over the past few years, highlighting the strong leadership of Stephen Harper and the new look that Canada has of being strong. Stephen Harper is highlighted as is the call for donations and membership.






The second element is the attack on Justin Trudeau as "just not ready" to be a leader. Again, this follows the assumption that (a) Conservatives like a strong leader and (b) no Conservative would consider any other party except the Liberals. The NDP etc are not worthy of consideration. Is negative advertising part of being strong or mimicking US political strategies?



The Liberals' page is static and one scrolls down or hits on links.

Of interest here is the highlighting of the young face of Justin Trudeau and his role as an advocate for change as well as being a family man. Youth seems to be emphasized. Again a call for donations and for volunteers. My personal impression is that it reminded me of "President's Choice" ads.





The New Democratic Party's (NDP) page is static, but buttons for quick links are highlighted.


Dead centre is a button to watch a video and the "donate" button is highlighted along with "The Issues" (hmm, the first time we've seen that on a front page). The friendly tone of "About Tom" caters to the less conservative minds that are the main targets for this party.





The Green Party's page is again of the static, scroll-down type.

Highlighted is a place to add your email address, the face of "Elizabeth" (Elizabeth Who?). Again, like the Conservatives and Liberals, there is a link about "Vision".  A pretty shot of water.







The Blocque Québecois' (BQ) page is understandable only in French (the other parties have bilingual portals). It has a four-fold scroll of which I have screenshots of the first two.


The voter base of BQ comprises those who see Québec as unapologetically independent. Voila!

There is not a focus on leadership here as there is with the other parties. It's hard to find the leader's name. The buttons on the side are the usual about getting involved and watching a video.








The Forces et Democratie (FD) party's page is in French, although there seems to be an English version "Strength and Democracy" which is under construction. Honestly, it's the first time I have heard of this party so I really am a Martian here.


Their slogan seems to imply that they are an alliance of regions.  Could this be like a "states-rights" party in the US? Lots to learn.








My overall impression of the opening pages is that yes, these people are first and foremost politicians. Not a lot of substance, just the usual "vision" stuff. I would say the NDP's opening page is the easiest to get towards something of substance (the issues) while the Conservatives' was the only one with negative advertising.

Hmm, negative advertising in Canada? Not very Canadian of them!

I haven't even started :) More to come from the Lively Albatross.