CHP York-Simcoe

Manipulation of Elections Act

Monday, October 22, 2007, 11:37 AM - Electoral Reform

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2007

The second-largest of 12 federal political parties that have yet to
elect an MP has accused the four parties already in Parliament of
manipulating the Elections Act rules to keep newcomers out.

Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, told Broadcast
Arbitrator Peter S. Grant that allocating broadcast time according to
past election results violates principles in a Supreme Court decision.

That decision, in a successful suit by the Communist Party of Canada
against the 50-candidate rule in the Elections Act four years ago,
rested on an interpretation of Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which protects political rights of citizens.

Two statements in the ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverly
McLachlin, emphasize voters' rights to be reasonably informed, and
candidates' rights to a reasonable opportunity to present their
platforms.

"It has become apparent," Gray said, "that the parties now in
Parliament intend to continue to abuse the law-making authority given
to them by the people of Canada, in order to retain power and
privilege for
themselves."

The CHP and five other smaller parties noted that changes to election
financing rules have made it much more difficult for parties outside
Parliament to raise funds—and at the same time give the four parties
now
in Parliament $30 million a year of taxpayers' money to fund their
re-election campaigns.

Recently an Ontario court rejected the 2% and 5% threshold rules for
access to public funding injected into the Elections Act by the former
Liberal government's Bill C-24; but the Conservative government has
appealed that decision. Gray said that appeal reveals "a continuation
of the 'fortress mentality' of the four parties already in the House."

The CHP has, for a decade, proposed an alternative mode of public
funding that would place the disposition of public funds in the hands
of the electorate. This plan was presented to Parliament by the former
Chief Elections Officer, but was rejected by the Standing Committee on
Elections and Procedures.

"Similar distortions of fairness have also plagued access to broadcast
advertising," said Gray. "However, the Elections Act gives a degree of
flexibility to the Broadcast Arbitrator, and that flexibility has, in
the recent past, been exercised with a view to leveling, to the
limited extent the Act allows, the playing field.

"But much more is required."

The CHP, supported by all but one of the other extra-parliamentary
parties at the meeting, asked the Broadcast Arbitrator "to appeal past
partisan interests to the better natures of Canada's MPs, asking them
to
place the public good above partisan advantage."

The broadcast provisions of the Elections Act and its election
financing provisions must be amended, they said, giving priority to
the voters' right to information priority, rather than advantage for
the parties in
the House.

"The primary objective of all the regulations that bear upon financing
and media access must be this," Gray said:"Voters have an absolute
right to have full access to adequate information about all the
electoral options available to them."
=================================================
The Christian Heritage Party is Canada's only pro-life, pro-family
federal political party, and the only federal party that unashamedly
endorses the 'supremacy of God' clause in the Canadian Constitution.

To learn more, call toll-free 1-888-VOTE CHP (1-888-868-3247) or visit
our web site at www.chp.ca
| permalink

GST decrease... decaying infrastructure...debt

Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 05:13 PM - Economy

In his Throne Speech delivered yesterday (October 16), Stephen Harper has promised to decrease the GST another percentage point. After all, the Federal Government is rolling in money!

This is while Municipalities are struggling to maintain our infrastructure. This is while we still have a debt which has mortgaged the next couple of generations. Shouldn't we be focussing on these two priorities? Shouldn't we make plans to unmortgage our children and grand children?

The Island of Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands, was bankrupt after the Napoleonic Wars: high debt; high poverty rate; high emigration; no services or infrastructure; deteriorated dikes and seawalls were allowing the island to be reclaimed by the sea. Obviously they were in dire circumstances!

The Council decided to print their own 'Island' money, hire contractors, and repair the dikes. The only problem the merchants saw was... what do they do with the "Island" money they accept? The Council agreed that all taxes could be paid with the "Island" money. Thus creating a circular system. The money was printed by the Island, used to purchase products and services on the Island, then used to pay taxes to the Island. Each year a percentage of the notes were destroyed.

The Island of Guernsey continues to use this method of building and repairing their infrastructure. Thus creating a non-inflationary method of infrastructure improvements using interest-free loans. Guernsey has a personal & corporate flat tax rate of 20%, along with personal allowances, and they have excellent infrastructure.

Canadians face decaying infrastructure, we have numerous municipal, provincial and federal needs which, under our present system, would increase our debt through borrowing from the Bank of Canada and paying interest on that money which we borrowed. In other words, we would pay interest to use our own tax dollars to repair our own infrastructure.

Our Constitution allows us to use the Guernsey model! It boggles the mind that successive governments have chosen instead to borrow money from The Bank Of Canada and to pay interest on the debt. We used the Guernsey model very effectively after WWII to deal with the return of our soldiers and to build our infrastructure. Why don't we repeat this successful strategy today?

The CHP has long advocated "Infrastructure Improvement Loans" which is based on the Guernsey model which Guernsey has used so effectively for almost 200 years.

The Frazer Institute concluded that, The fairest, most efficient, and simplest tax system upon which to base reform of the Canadian tax system is a flat tax based on the work of Hall-Rabushka. Such a system would provide enormous positive incentives for hard work, savings, and investment. The evidence suggests that the economic benefits of implementing a flat-tax system would include greater rates of economic and income growth, higher levels of capital formation and investment, and greater social welfare.

The flat-tax system would not, as many argue it would, eliminate the principle of progressivity. Rather, a flat-tax system that includes a personal exemption would enable Canada to maintain progressivity while by-passing the costs of high and increasing marginal tax rates.

Viewing such reform over the course of one's life rather than within a single year shows that nearly all taxpayers would gain from such a reform. In short, a flat-tax system of taxation presents enormous economic benefits with very few economic costs. The Hall-Rabushka flat tax should be the model upon which Canada begins to discuss and design real tax reform.

This is an opportunity to achieve both infrastructure improvement and decreased taxes.

Isn't it time that Canadians received tax relief AND good infrastructure?

****I've added as a p.s. an article in which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities implore PM Harper to help them deal with deteriorating infrastructure. from the National Post
| permalink

Sheila Copps Article

Thursday, October 4, 2007, 02:17 AM - Electoral Reform

I was going to avoid posting until after the referendum in order to keep all the articles from the newsletter on the same page but.... I just had to responds so.... make sure you get all the articles if you're reading about MMP

This article by Sheila Copps, I had to respond to

My first comment is this article is big on emotional manipulation and short on facts. If you separate the colourful adjectives from the facts we see...

Sheila has introduced the label of anyone with religious views as zealots. If you vote for MMP you are opening the door for Muslim terrorists, evangelical Christians (the heritage of Canada since 1867) and ultra-orthodox Jews. The stage is set for the horror that would result should 'those' people have a voice in this country. She tones it down in the next paragraph to cover her butt but she has already got us focussed on the idea that 'those' people should not have a voice.

Sheila does not mention that in a democratic country all people get a voice in the government not just those who represent her viewpoint. Democracy is about ensuring that eligible voters all have a voice... and the majority of people have the loudest voice, thus we vote.

The separation of church and state as she uses it is an emotional issue based in .... nothing Canadian. The church is in charge of the spiritual condition of a person, the state is in charge of governance of a country. Thomas Jefferson brought up this issue in a letter to assure Christians that in the US, after the acceptance of their Constitution, the state would not interfere in church matters. The pilgrims had fled to the US to escape government control of the church. They did not wish it to happen ever again. Thomas Jefferson assured them it would not. It has been used so often as if it were in our, or the US, Constitution but it appears in neither Constitution. Sheila is using what has become a very emotional phrase to manipulate our thoughts.

She mentions the fear of the fanatic few out to proselytize the world. The Citizens Assembly made 3% the threshold to ensure there was legitimate support for the political viewpoint. Thus, it may be a minority view but are they not still entitled to have their opinions represented in Parliament?

Sheila does not tell us where a vocal organised minority dictates for the majority. She just leaves it hanging over us as if it was an established fact. Without support it is just a way to stir us up. If we look to democratic countries, such as Canada, we vote to ensure the majority does have the power. A minority can only take over in a dictatorship not a democracy.

She is correct, more or less in saying the referendum asks whether we would like to throw out our current voting system FPTP in favour of MMP. She doesn't say, at this point in her comments, that 90 MPs are still elected by the FPTP system. (29 MPs would be List Candidates)

Now for her comments on the new system...

She has said that 1/3 of the MPPs would be chosen from Party Lists. However, what she fails to say is that they are elected by the electorate. The 4 main parties have already said the list would be voted democratically by their Party members. The electorate then decides by voting for the Party list. ie. If the Liberal list started with: Sir. John A MacDonald, Alexander MacKenzie, Sir Wilfred Laurier, etc., and the voters in Ontario didn't like that list then they would withhold their vote and vote for, perhaps, the Conservative list which contained: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George Bush, etc. Thus the voters vote in both the regional MPs and the list MPs.

Sheila then speaks of them 'nixing' the direct vote. Sounds terrible! However, a direct vote is for each voter in Ontario to cast their vote on each matter which comes before the Legislature, an unwieldy process! This is not what we're talking about.

She speaks of the Citizen's Assembly experiencing the "polarising effect of proportional voting in other jurisdictions". She brings up the Israeli Knesset, is this to support her polarising comment? The system used in Israel is not the one recommended by the Citizens Assembly, so... why bring it up? It's scare mongering.

Sheila then goes back to dexcribing Proportional (which is not what we're talking about, the CA recommended Mixed Member Proportional) "extreme religious-based parties holding the balance of power." and "institutionalizes extremist influence". Scary Stuff! Parties "with 3% of the vote is in control" O_O "That's exactly what's is being proposed". O_O (It's not! The CA recommended the same model used in Britain, Scotland, New Zealand, not the model used is Israel)

However, the only way the 3% hold the balance of power is if they are able to enter into a coalition to prop up another party. Let's say, the Liberals want to pass Legislation outlawing the public practice of religion. The Conservative Party said "no", the NDP said "yes". The Green Party said "no". The Legislature is setup in such a way that we're now sitting with a tie vote. But... the Communist Party holds 3 seats and they support the motion. They have the balance of power. However, they did not control the vote, they only had 3 votes, the piece of Legislation required Liberal and NDP support to pass. The Communist Party could not do it without the major Parties supporting the Bill. I hope that helps you see the balance of power.

We then go into counterbalancing the shortage of women in office which she says is brought about by the 'nomination process controlled by political parties'. If the process were not controlled by the Political Party then those who wish would go out to all Party's meeting, vote the party lists and ensure they were all the same thus ensuring we have a one party system.... a dictatorship. The same can be said about her "independent thinkers need not apply". However, she is trying to remove any representation for independent thinkers by intimating that they are religious zealots etc. If they don't think like Sheila, if they espouse different values than her Liberal ones, they "need not apply".

"Robbing citizens" O_O Emotional but no facts to support it.

Again she says that the selection of Party Lists is not given, however, the major Parties have already weighed in on the fact that they will do it democratically. She says that "the party controls the lists". Again, if they didn't, their political ideology could be lost. If all those 'religious zealots' went out en masse, to each Party then we would end up with Party Lists made up of religious zealots rather than Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green.

Sheila uses the French model. However, that gives us the same lack of representation for diverse viewpoints which is lacking now. If the Liberals and NDP ended up in the final vote... a week later. She says that has majority support because it's a majority government. Some people would be unable to vote for either left wing Party because they couldn't support the positions of either. This would further decrease voter participation. It's not majority support, it's just representation for only the one position and the minority report is silenced.

Sheila then goes back to emotional rhetoric. "empowers extremism and curries party favours". She still hasn't supported that!

I've tried to work through the whole article so it won't look like I'm dodging the question but the bottom line is... Sheila has not offered facts to support her position. She has used emotional words to manipulate us. Offered as facts, a system which is not the one recommended by the Citizen's Assembly then shot it down. It may look like she shot MMP down but.... she was shooting for pigeon and shot an eagle. Thus it wasn't a successful hunting trip.

| permalink