Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:14 PM - Environment
Stefan Jetchick (CHP, Louis-Hebert, Quebec)and I have entered a discussion on Kyoto. You will find the ongoing dialogue at
Canadian Viewpoints
or
Jesus-eucharistie
Hopefully this will provide some new information for all of us.
The discussion points will be available in French at Jesus Eucaristie
The email discussions will not be translated.
I hope we all enjoy this discussion.
Vicki
| permalink
Monday, April 16, 2007, 12:40 PM - Electoral Reform
Canada is a democracy! We can all, more or less, agree on that. But what happens when certain power brokers get together to subvert the democratic process?
Liberal leader Stephane Dion and Green Party leader Elizabeth May have cooked up a deal which benefits both of them but destroys the fabric of democracy.
Mr. Dion & Ms. May have decided that Canadians, in particular residents of Central Nova Scotia and residents of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, do not get the option of choosing between the available Parties in the next election. This is different from a Party not having an available candidate in an electoral district. The intent of this is to manipulate the voters of the two electoral districts.
In the short run, we could say that it’s only two electoral districts so it doesn’t matter. But it does matter!
These are not parties which are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are parties which support a high level of government involvement in our lives; Parties which lean towards socialism or are socialist parties.
Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (in office 1968-84) once famously said that backbench Members of Parliament were "trained seals." Mr. Trudeau went on to say that, "When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they are just nobodies."
In 2002, leadership hopeful Paul Martin, announced the need end the ‘democratic deficit’ in Canada. Too much power was concentrated in the Prime Minister’s Office.
"Unfortunately, the authority of individual Members of Parliament has been allowed to erode, while power of the executive...grows," Martin said. Once serving as Prime Minister, he increased the democratic deficit.
We see a history of the Liberal leaders seeking to devalue our democratic process; seeking to concentrate the power in one person.... as long as it’s the person of their choice.
How does that tie into two political parties agreeing to not offer a choice of candidates in strategic electoral districts?
There are Electoral District Associations in each of those ridings for each of these Parties. Each of those EDAs had anticipated running a candidate in the next election. Some of them may have considered vying for the position of candidate. These people have been essentially told that for ‘the greater good’ of their Party, they may not participate in this portion of the democratic process.
This continues the Liberal disdain for democracy in Canada and shows that the Green Party is equally disdainful. They might as well tell us, “We know what is best for all Canadians. Canadians themselves aren’t smart enough to make that decision.”
They’re anticipating that Canadians are too apathetic to care whether we live in a democracy or a dictatorship.
Let’s show them that we value our participation in selecting the leaders in this country and will not accept their Machiavellian power plays.
Contact Stephane Dion, Dion.S@parl.gc.ca , & Elizabeth May, admin@greenparty.ca , (I was unable to find her personal email address) and let them know that you find their subversion of the democratic process in this country a betrayal of our democratic way of life.
| permalink
Monday, April 16, 2007, 10:53 AM - Electoral Reform
From Fair Vote Canada
On April 1, the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform picked a mixed member proportional (MMP) voting system as its preferred alternative. On April 15, the Assembly is all but certain to announce it will recommend their MMP model to Ontarians, which will trigger an October 10 referendum.
The MMP system – still subject to minor modifications – will have a 129 seat legislature with 90 riding seats and 39 at-large (or list) seats. Voters will cast two votes, one for a preferred party and one for a preferred local candidate. If a party deserves more seats than those won in ridings, it will receive additional at-large seats.
In advance of the election the parties will nominate their list candidates, as well as riding candidates. The party’s list seats will be filled by candidates taken from the list in the order presented.
The Assembly is still discussing how to ensure that parties use a democratic process for list nominations. Assembly members are currently leaning toward a requirement that parties report in advance of the election on their nomination processes and the demographic and geographic characteristics of list candidates.
| permalink
Saturday, April 7, 2007, 03:37 PM - Economy
Remember all the fuss a few years ago about whether the CPP would be bankrupt by the time the baby-boomers retire? The truth is, money is not in a separate account for retirement. This program is ‘pay as you go’. The government collects from those employed today to pay for those who are retired today.
A timely warning was issued by The Fraser Institute. The Unfunded Liabilities of our federal government, such as CPP, OAS, and Medicare are a whopping $1.3 TRILLION. They have advised that restructuring of retirement-income support programs should be initiated immediately.
Needy seniors will suffer greatly should our government fail to heed that call.
The CHP would begin immediate movement to a self-funded Canada Pension Plan.
While our government continues to increase Program obligations, they are failing to ensure that the cost of this funding is in place.
In the Debt Management Strategy of the 2007 Budget, we once again hear such language as... “increase flexibility to meet future borrowing needs” and “the Government proposes removing the existing statutory limit on borrowing”.
These are scarey words from a government which has promised more than it can genuinely afford.
The CHP supports a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget with provision for an appropriate "escape clause" to allow for deficits in the event of a national emergency such as war.
That’s responsible financial management!
| permalink
Saturday, March 31, 2007, 01:23 PM - Health Care
I was pained to read that Joe Comartin (NDP MP Windsor-Tecumseh) has proposed an amendment to Bill C-22, (seeking to raise the age of consent for sex to 16 for girls). Mr Comartin seeks to have the age of consent for anal sex lowered to 16.
He has been advised that this amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, but he is appealing the decision.
I have contacted Mr. Comartin to ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The role of government is to protect the country’s citizens. Children are also citizens of this country. Your citizenship does not start on your 18th birthday.
Surely, we have seen enough exploitation of our children in the interests of adult sexual pleasure.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases are already very high in our teenaged community and yet this MP would increase the risk.
It is a medical fact that anal sex produces greater risk of disease. I have attached a graph confirming this from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control at the end of this post.
Please, respectfully, contact Mr Comartin and ask him to withdraw his amendment to Bill C-22.
To respectfully contact Joe Comartin
Parliament Hill:
713 Justice Building, House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A OA6
Fax: (613) 947-3448
Tel: (613) 947-3445
Email: comarj@parl.gc.ca
| permalink
Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 11:20 AM - Electoral Reform
Spending Spree Hypocrisy
Fri Mar 16 09:54:07 2007
NCC Articles
By: Gerry Nicholls / The Globe and Mail
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent billion dollar spending spree highlights the hypocrisy of politicians when it comes to money.
Politicians, after all, claim to despise what they call the corrupting influence of money on the political process.
That’s why they pass laws to regulate and control money when it comes to our elections.
We now have a law on the books, for instance, making it a crime for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 to a political party.
We also have “gag laws” that essentially make it a crime for private citizens or independent groups to spend their own money to express their own views during elections.
Are these measures infringements on free speech?
Of course.
But politicians tell us these are “necessary infringements” because if citizens were free to spend their own money as they saw fit, it would lead to a society where “the rich” would “buy elections” and “unfairly” influence voters.
So where is the hypocrisy?
Well politicians seem to believe “buying elections” and “ using money to influence voters” is actually a good thing, as long as a) they are the ones spending the money and b) they are spending somebody else’s money.
Take Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent binge of spending announcements, which lead many to believe an election is in the offing.
Even the most ardent Harper apologist would have to concede these announcements, which total about $12 billion and counting, are more about helping the Conservatives win the next election than about a wise use of tax dollars.
Certainly it’s no coincidence that a disproportionate amount of the federal spending just happens to be aimed at areas which have tactical political importance.
The key electoral battleground of Quebec, for example, is now awash in federal funds, with the Conservatives promising to finance everything from local theatres to water treatment systems.
And vote-rich Ontario is also getting a lot of special attention.
Just recently the Prime Minister was in Toronto to announce with great fanfare that his government was going to spend a whopping $700 million to upgrade and expand the area’s mass transit system.
Good news for Toronto certainly.
But is it fair that taxpayers in Kelowna, BC or Gander, Newfoundland are helping to subsidize a new subway line in Toronto?
Does it even make economic sense to spend that kind of money on mass transit?
Who cares?
The important thing is the Tories need to win seats in the GTA if they are to capture a majority in the next election and if dishing out a half a billion dollars helps to achieve that goal, from a political perspective it’s money well spent.
And who knows how many other spending goodies aimed at key special interest groups will be announced in the impending federal budget.
Now to be fair, Harper is not doing anything all that unusual.
Politicians have been bribing people with their own money since the days of the Caesars in Ancient Rome.
But maybe it’s time for politicians to be a little more consistent when it comes to money and politics.
In other words, money can’t be both good and bad depending on who is doing the spending.
If it’s bad for private citizens to spend money on politicking, than it stands to reason it’s also bad for politicians.
So how about this for a new law: Make it illegal for the government to announce any new spending initiatives say six months prior to an election. (The move towards fixed election dates makes will make this easier to implement).
Such a law would certainly stop surplus-rich governments from trying to buy elections. They would also level the playing field and give all parties more of an even chance.
But if that’s too unrealistic, maybe our politicians should try something easier: scrap all election gag laws and admit that citizens should have the right to spend their own money to express their own political views.
This won’t stop politicians from cynically spending tax dollars in the run up to an election, but at least it will make them a little less hypocritical and restore an important freedom to all Canadians.
Article originally appeared: Thursday, March 15, 2007
| permalink
Back Next
