A Green Revolution?

In a recent interview on CTV Question Period Elizabeth May, the Green Party federal leader said that they had been getting an increased interest, and donations, in the party. Hardly a surprise as the choices otherwise are becoming increasingly hard to endorse, the Cons are IMHO so far off the wall both federally and provincially (when Doug Frord is reinforcing their unsuitability to rule anything) that its no contest. The NDP seem to be stumbling around in the dark both leadership wise and policy wise but the big hit for me in these days of folks struggling to make a living is there insistence of supporting (mostly government) unionized employees in their ever cry for more, more, more. We know that such position is based upon the need for money, money, money from said unions but that does not make it right!

That leads us to the Liberals whom I had great respect for and have refrained from criticizing because I thought that they were in fact trying to do the right thing, I can even forgive their inability to bring electoral reform to it final conclusion for as we have seen time and time again the various players will NEVER find a middle ground that satisfies even close to a majority of the electorate. What really turned me off was (as seems to be an increasing point of view) the support and eventual purchase of the old 'oil' pipeline from Alberta to the west coast and the ongoing support of the expansion of shipment of mixed tar and toxic thinners to be shipped via tanker from the waters of BC.

In short I see little alternatives despite my feeling that a vote for other than the Libs may spin the roulette wheel called electoral democracy towards the very scary and previously power hungry Conservative authoritarian regime. My reluctance to go all out and endorse all Green candidates is colored by my involvement with the local Green movement here in Grey Bruce, not that this was in any way a bad experience, they were in fact all good and caring people and their cause well worth supporting. I, along with a number of caring and concerned local folks spent considerable volunteer time updating the web presence of the GBOS Greens EDA web site in order that both members and the public could see where things stood locally as regards to to said organization. Unfortunately local supporters failed to make use of said resource and both it and the local organization seem to have faded into obscurity.

As the federal election approaches perhaps the (now largely defunct) local executive will make use of said resource (still available online) to promote and resurrect the local green movement which has seen no new content in many, many months (years in fact) but to expect a viable candidate who can do anything other than split the vote after being dormant for so long in this district is dreaming in technicolor. That all said I do hope that Greens across our nation vote in a sufficient number of MPs to shake up the status quo and perhaps even have the balance of power in what may well be a minority government. Wouldn't that be much needed a shake up!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Ho, Ho bloody Ho

This time of year is not my favorite season, yes its nice to visit family and catch up with both their recent activities and their plans for the future but the whole clamor of what is now largely a retail opportunity leave me less than enthusiastic. For far too many folks it is an excuse, or is that a perceived obligation, to spend money they cant really afford on items that have a good chance of not being used or useful to the recipient who similarly feel obliged to return the 'favor'. Me cynical and a grumpy old man? Yep!

That said I do feel 'obliged' to wish those few folks who read these pages, some of whom even take the time to comment upon my ramblings, seasonal greetings and wish them a happiness and contentment in the upcoming year. Just because I do not embrace those feeling this time of year does not mean I would wish such on others, if the state of our world locally, nationally and / or world wide both politically and environmentally bothers you, as it does me, then I suggest you do NOT read on for this is not going to be an uplifting creed.

It may make for bleak reading, but of the 162 countries covered by the Institute for Economics and Peace’s (IEP’s) latest study, just 11 were not involved in conflict of one kind or another. Then there are countries which are involved in no actual foreign wars involving deaths whatsoever - like North Korea & China – but which are fraught by the most divisive and entrenched internal conflicts. The number of authoritarian regimes that suppress their own citizens or the ethnic minorities who they consider interlopers is also considerable whether included in the above or not. The few that do not fall within those parameters are far from trouble free, much of Europe is in disarray between fending off Russian aggression and trying to agree to disagree with neighboring countries not the least of which is GB where the whole Brexit thing can only be described as the largest Cluster Fk since Cromwell's days.

North America is not immune to the political induced madness that is spreading across the globe much of it caused by individuals who seem to think they are democratic leaders but are in fact the exact opposite or quickly heading that way. Whilst the current U.S. 'leader' is perhaps the best example of such thinking where due process is just something to be ignored or circumvented and any opposition is demeaned or suppressed it is far from the only one who thinks that way. Which brings us to our own impending CF here in Ontario where the newly elected premier is cutting a swath though the checks and balances previously thought to be unassailable starting with the members of Toronto's council and a number of other 'cuts' seeming made with little or no input from the folks that citizens chose to represent them, flawed though that process may have been.

Across the country it looks no better as what appears to be an increasing division between those who do not believe in climate change or simply put the almighty dollar ahead of the ever increasing destruction of out atmosphere and life as we know it. We will not change thing overnight and the use of oil to power our economy will not substantially reduce in the short term but it should be clear by now that increasing its use is simply not on. I will leave it to others more eloquent on the subject to detail the dangers but polluting large areas by taking tar from the ground, adding more pollutants to it to send through aging pipelines to then ship it out of country where after processing and creating more pollutants much of it will be sold back to us make zero sense to me.

That our current federal leader, whom we thought was somewhat moving away from the excesses of the previous regime, seems to have been blinded by the rhetoric coming out of one particular province and bought said aging pipeline (for many mega dollars when the owners who had made their millions whined that they were pulling out) is 'disappointing'. To add insult to injury we now learn that further millions are being given to the diggers of tar because no one want to buy the crap and actually 'digging' it up and flogging it to distant suckers is no longer financially viable. In short between the world wide political situation, the idiot in charge next door to us and our own ever increasing divisions both politically and environmentally we are screwed.

Merry bloody Christmas eh.

IF I can find the fortitude (and that is highly debatable at this point) I will return sometime in the new year to cobble together what will no doubt be a long list of the questionable actions undertaken by the Ford Regime in the short time since they came to power.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy Under Ford (#2)

I struggled with finding a suitable title for this article which it seems may well be the start of a series of observations regarding the high-handedness of the new Ontario authoritarian regime so just went with the previous headline part2! Is it oppression, repression, authoritarian, bullying, despotism, simply high-handedness, all or just some of the above and if not will it become some or all of them? Time will tell but in the meanwhile here is a simple list of the actions taken by this regime in just the first month in power, it is to me a very scary foretaste of things to come.......

I will start with the pre-election actions that should have warned us of things to come.....

Ford announced his campaign would not provide the traditional media bus following him as he campaigned for the June 7 election but did produce a series of fake videos thus controlling the message and avoiding answering questions from the press. In recent days he has reinstated this closely controlled media presence by launching a new social media account to promote his agenda. A Ford campaign staffer, is the on-air presenter in the video which appears to be designed to limit questions from the press but is being paid for with taxpayer dollars..

Moving on this handy list was provided online by CTV News …....

June 29: Ford is sworn in as Ontario’s 26th premier at a boisterous ceremony at Queen’s Park. He promises his government will “blaze a new trail” and unveils his cabinet.

June 30: Newly minted Health Minister Christine Elliott announces that the province will no longer fund prescriptions for people under the age of 25 who have private insurance coverage.

July 3: Ford takes his first step toward dismantling the province’s cap-and-trade program while public-sector managers learn they are now subject to a wage freeze and review of their pay.

July 4: Ford’s government puts a number of laws passed shortly before the election on hold, including new regulations for e-cigarettes and putting a ceiling on ticket prices for concerts and sporting events.

July 5: The first official meeting between Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes place, with the two leaders appearing to be on different pages on the immigration file.

July 6: Ford calls for the federal government to take over housing and settlement services for people who cross into Canada illegally. A former president of the Progressive Conservative Party is hired as a special advisor to the province on health care.

July 9: The Canadian Press reveals that a $100-million fund for school repairs has been cancelled as part of the winding up of the cap-and-trade program.

July 11: Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt retires and the utility’s entire board of directors resigns. Ford had said repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would fire Schmidt and the board, which Ontario’s premier does not have the authority to do.

July 12: A throne speech lays out a sweeping agenda for Ford’s government, including expanding alcohol sales, lower hydro bills and fighting the federal carbon tax. Additionally, the province confirms its intention to eliminate the recently introduced sex-ed curriculum.

July 16: The province introduces a new bill to give it more control over executive pay at Hydro One as Education Minister Lisa Thompson says sexual education topics taught in classrooms this fall may not entirely mirror the reintroduced 1998 curriculum.

July 17: Ford taps former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell to lead an inquiry into the previous Liberal’ government’s spending and announces that sex ed will be subject to “the largest consultation ever in Ontario’s history when it comes to education.”

July 18: Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says a meeting with her Ontario counterpart Rod Phillips left her questioning whether the province has a plan to fight climate change.

July 19: Ford and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announce that they will work together through the courts to stop the federal government from introducing a carbon tax.

July 20: Carbon pricing, asylum seekers, marijuana legalization and the flow of alcohol between provinces are among the topics discussed as Canada’s premiers meet in New Brunswick.

July 24: The province says some federal funding earmarked for mental health initiatives will be put toward training police officers on how to appropriately deal with people with mental health issues. Ontario’s financial accountability officer says his office will look into the costs of cancelling the cap-and-trade program.

July 25: Legislation is introduced to end the months-long strike at York University and to formally repeal the carbon pricing program.

July 27: On the last day of registration for candidates in October’s municipal elections, Ford announces a plan to cut Toronto’s city council nearly in half while holding off on plans to introduce elected regional chair positions in the Muskoka, Niagara, Peel and York regions. Rumours surface that the province will let private-sector operators handle the sale of marijuana

In the few days since that synopsis was penned a lot has happened as the Ford wrecking crew continues to cut a swath across the province which I will attempt to briefly outline......

Ontario's new government will cancel the province's experiment with a basic income program, the pilot project, which reached full enrollment in April, was supposed to last three years.
The government will decrease the proposed Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program payments by 1.5 per cent.
The Progressive Conservative government's production of a TV-news-style video under the banner of "Ontario News Now" is a "pure example of fake news" that aims to undercut the pillars of democracy and muzzle media, political policy experts say. A day after the video was released to the public, PC members were criticized by the media for having political staffers clap during news conferences, effectively drowning out journalists’ questions. Reporters say this was a widely-used tactic during Ford’s election campaign.
The government refused to respond to the official opposition during question period Tuesday morning after an NDP member was accused of mocking the accent of PC MPP Kaleed Rasheed. Speaker of the House Ted Arnott at one moment also chimed in and said he could not hear the mocking of the accent even with his earpiece “volume cranked full blast.”

The fabricated outrage was about not what was said, but the tone of an comment not heard by most if not all but one Con MP, appeared to be an effort to stop debate about the Con efforts to cut the number of Toronto councilors. The proposed cut whilst apparently quite within the premiers power it would seem to show very little regard for democratic process.

And so the Ford Circus marches on with the clown in chief in full destruct mode.......






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Tough Choices......

 

In my final post before Rob Fraud becomes his self appointed gods gift to all of Ontario ….... or will those of us who see through his blather actually gather behind the only other viable choice, one union loving but less corporate embracing NDP candidate? In my own riding of Grey Bruce Owen Sound I suspect that my vote will simply be like spitting in the wind as for the past 20 years the Conservatives have be in firm control locally with a minimum of 47% of the vote over that time. Even if one of the other partys did well with the number of 'alternative' candidates running and splitting the vote I suspect the outcome would be the same ...... here is the local list for this riding.

New Democratic Karen Gventer
Liberal     Francesca Dobbyn

Progressive Conservative Bill Walker

Green Don Marshall

Consensus Ontario Janice Kaikkonen

Trillium Liz Marshall

Alliance Enos Martin

Libertarian Jay Miller

It all makes me feelthat my vote is all but useless particuarly that the power of the party leader of whoever gains the most seats (not the most popular vote I note) has almost unlimited power to the point where even the elected minions of his own party have a minimal inpact upon the actual decisions made by a few 'insiders' many of whom were not actualy elected ....., me cynical, not much!

Despite all of the above I urge you to make the trek to your local poll location Thursday and mark your ballot if for no other reason to show your support for your candidate of choice or the party he or she represents ..... or perhaps more probably to show who you DO NOT want dictating polocy for the next 4 years (or less if it turns out to be a minority government).

A couple of quotes to close this post.....

“Politics: the art of using euphemisms, lies, emotionalism and fear-mongering to dupe average people into accepting--or even demanding--their own enslavement.”

― Larken Rose

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

― Winston S. Churchill 

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Stark choices.....

 

In a blog dedicated to commentary on Canadian Democracy how can I avoid discussing the upcoming Ontario Provincial election and when doing so how can I avoid being highly partisan in my comments given the increasingly divisive commentary coming from some, if not all, participants? I am not sure that is possible but at least initially I will try and just highlight the dilemma that ALL voters face, not only in this election but in all elections held under our current method of selecting our 'representatives' !

In theory we vote for a local individual who we think will represent our views in whatever legislative body they are standing for, be it national, provincial, regional or even local. In practice however it is increasingly becoming more of a matter of selecting someone who in practice 'represents' the vested interests of a group of 'politicians' (I put that in quotes because that term covers a multitude of sins) who are more beholden to their 'party' than to those who elected them. This is not true of ALL 'politicians' or individuals, there are 'independents' out there but they are few and far between and have little chance of having any meaningful impact upon our legislative process.

Presumably if you are reading this you are at least somewhat interested in our Canadian Democracy and have some knowledge of the individuals standing for office but I wonder how many of us can name those local candidates who are not currently in office, sure we can probably name the 'leaders' who's names are now in the news (the unofficial election period being well under way here in Ontario)? At least the Cons, Libs and NDP may come to mind although the names of 'other' party leaders may well escape us, listening to the evening news one would think there are no others but both the Greens and the Libertarians have quite a few candidates nominated. The delema that faces us all is this, do we vote for the local individual based upon their own strenths, the party which they 'represent' (remember they actualy represent US) or the party platform as regurgitated by the 'leader' of said party which may or may not be instituted if elected? Sorry I have no advice in that regard, I am as conflicted as all the rest of the electorate!

As we are all aware there have been several attempts both provincially and nationally in recent times to make changes to or first past the post winner takes all voting system and whilst there is some movement on a local level the wider systems remain unchanged. The delema of needing a reasonable measure of consensus and compromise to come up with a better system using a system that is highly partisan will forever remain and thus we are stuck with what we now have for the foreseeable future. We simply have to make our choices within the current choices presented, as stark and polarized as they may be!

It all make you want to have an option to say 'Non of the above' but that's not a choice given to us…... Oh, Wait …..

The NOTA Party campaigns for the 3Rs of Direct Democracy – Referendum, Recall and Real electoral and legislative Reforms that give voters control of politicians and parties. Candidates are accountable to their constituents and there are no central party policies or controls of elected MPPs beyond the binding Direct Democracy principles.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Speaking Truth to Power.

By now most readers will have read that Sen. Jeff Flake ripped Trump a new one last Wednesday in a speech in the U.S. Senate and perhaps read some extracts from that speech in news reports. If you have not already done so I encourage you to read the entire speech, it is no less applicable to other democracy's (including our own) as it is to the now questionable 'democracy' to the south.

To peak your further interest here a a few of my favorite quotes from that speech.....

“Without truth, and a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts our democracy will not last.”
 
“Despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy.”

“An American president who cannot take criticism — who must constantly deflect and distort and distract — who must find someone else to blame — is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the president adds to the danger.”

“The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated.”

“Add to that the by-now predictable habit of calling true things false, and false things true, and we have a recipe for disaster. As George Orwell warned, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

“What is the goal of laying siege to the truth? President John F. Kennedy, in a stirring speech on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America, was eloquent in answer to that question: “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
 
At the start of his speech Sen. Flake quotes former senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
MY opinion is that this senator has nailed it and that Trump is not only destroying democracy in the U.S. but negatively effecting democracy world wide. It is a fact that he has but a fleeting acquaintance with the truth! Democracy is indeed under fire in the U.S of Eh and elsewhere across the world.
Read the full speech here.....

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Demise of Democracy

A recent post by Owen over at Northern Reflections brought my attention to this highlighting an “investigation” by a long time former MP.


Both major parties have made a mockery of Canada’s electoral system, which was on its sickbed when the Liberals came to power. It’s now on life support — according to the investigations of former Liberal MP Paul Szabo.


“According to Szabo, the Liberal Party thwarts local voters to cherry-pick its chosen nominees. The campaign expense reports of some of those nominees are often late, incomplete and perhaps even illegal. Worse, many of the memberships that secured the nomination for one candidate over others were allegedly fraudulent. “


There is little doubt that the whole system by which candidates are selected is being 'gamed' by most, if not all, political partys.


“What Szabo has flagged in the federal system — the undemocratic and even potentially illegal manipulation of the nomination process — is raging at the provincial level as well. As Ontario gears up for its next election, PC leader Patrick Brown is knee-deep in charges of skullduggery bordering on corruption.
His party’s nomination system has been rife with ballot stuffing, fake memberships, fake membership forms, people registered without their knowledge, payment or permission, as well as cheating so egregious that it elicited a rebuke from one of the staunchest Tories of them all: former Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton.”


The series of (lets be nice and call them) negative ad's currently being aired in Ontario from various political partys and their supporters does nothing to make me think that the final results are not being manipulated by those with the resources to 'buy' our election process.


“Ultimately, what Szabo is addressing is nothing less than the demise of democracy. From the selection of party nominees through to election of our public officials, the will of the people has been reduced to the predatory manipulations of a few.
Whether it’s the PMO pulling strings to get its cronies nominated, a band of unscrupulous partisan techies suppressing the vote by robocalls, or a lazy and ineffective Elections Canada cutting slack when it should be bringing down the hammer on miscreants, we are not headed to a good place.”


The old adage from historian and moralist known simply as Lord Acton back in the 1800s comes to mind ....: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The ease with which large portions of our population can be 'manipulated' via various on line media by those with almost unlimited resources to do so should concern us all!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

No Consensus without Referendum say Conservatives.

“There will be no consensus that includes the Conservative party that does not include a referendum” “there is simply no flexibility of any form.”
Conservative MP Scott Reid the party’s senior member on the electoral reform committee.

Well Mr Reid how one can achieve consensus by setting preconditions, particularly ones that are all but impossible to achieve in the time frame available is beyond me. Then you have the gall to say:- “The Conservative party does not have a position,” “Our goal is to achieve a consensus, and by a consensus, I want to be clear, it would be all five parties onside, that would be the ideal,”
Mr. Reid issued the ultimatum after revealing the results of a vote Conservative MPs conducted through mailings to every household in their respective electoral districts over the summer that found 90-per-cent support for a referendum among the 81,000 voting-age constituents who participated.

Perhaps that should read 81,000 CONSERVATIVE constituents (of 5,600,000 + who voted for them last year).......
The mail-outs that went to each riding allowed for up to four votes per household.
The Conservative caucus organized the surveying of households after most of its MPs declined to take part in a town hall-style survey of citizen opinion on electoral reform.
As with the telephone town hall held by my local Conservative MP (does this count as one of the 60% of Conservative MPs who condescended to actually 'survey' their riding’s.) those surveyed seem to been carefully selected to get the results wanted.

Given the current legislation regarding referendums one can only assume that their aim is to totally destroy the process and any chance of change happening and thus remain with the status quo, which despite their assertions to the contrary is what they seem to want.

Appearing before the standing committee on procedure and house affairs, Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand was asked by Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid to elaborate on a risk highlighted in the agency’s 2016-17 report on plan and priorities (RPP).
In the RPP, the agency states that it isn’t currently prepared to hold a referendum.“In order to conduct a referendum, the agency would require a minimum of six months following legislative changes,”
Note - “Following legislative changes”!

“The Referendum Act is outdated — it has not been changed since 1992, which is the last time we had a national referendum. In that regard, it’s very much out of sync with the Elections Act — particularly around political financing,”
“There’s no limit on contribution by any entities, so this might come as a shock.”
No kidding, a shock hardly covers it, can you just imagine the advertising promoting one system or another by the various Partys, their supporters and the various 'citizen' groups that have sprung up if there were NO limits on spending. May as well turn off your TV for six months!


“I would put before the committee that legislation enacting reform should be there at least 24 months before the election…There’s all sort of hypotheses — I don’t know exactly what the reform will be — but if it involves a (boundary) redistribution exercise, which PR (proportional representation) does by definition — this is a significant undertaking,”
Whilst I note that not all PR systems require riding boundary changes certainly Elections Canada would need considerable time to set up the practical aspects of any new system, including educating the public as to how it works. If legislative changes have to be made to the Referendum Act, which in and of itself would open a whole new can of worms, then it would seem that electoral reform would be all but imposable before the next election. Perhaps this is exactly what the CPC wants?


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Local MP to hold Teleconference.

September 27th, 2016 - MP Larry Miller will be hosting a community TeleForum for residents in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. 7pm-8pm. Residents will receive a phone call at approximately 7pm and will be given instructions on how to participate.

Larry Miller, Member of Parliament for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, will be hosting a telephone town hall meeting (teleforum) with residents of the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound on the topic of electoral reform. The teleforum will take place on Tuesday, September 27th from 7:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.
Residents will have the opportunity to listen to and join in a discussion with Mr. Miller on the topic of electoral reform including: whether a national referendum is required to change the voting system, alternative voting systems, mandatory voting and online voting. The discussion from the teleforum will inform a submission from Mr. Miller to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE).
Residents will receive an automated phone call shortly before 7:00p.m. on the 27th and will be prompted to remain on the line. Those wishing to participate must simply remain on the line. Those who miss the call but receive a message on their answering machine will be given instructions on how to participate.
"I am looking forward to hearing a number of different concerns, questions, and opinions on electoral reform," said Miller. "It is my hope that a community teleforum will allow for the greatest number of participants possible. I hope that all will take the time to participate in this important discussion."
Those with questions or concerns about how to participate are encouraged to contact Mr. Miller's office.
The Sun Times reports that....
“Miller said there should be a full national referendum before changes are made to the electoral system.
He said about 80 per cent of the people he has heard from share that view.
Miller said about two-thirds of the constituents who have contacted him or responded to a question that was sent in a recent mail-out from his office have said they support the current first-past-the-post voting system.”
Personalty I am not going to bother, I have made my views known directly to the committee and I have little faith that Mr Millers report to them will accurately represent the wide variety of opinions that will no doubt been pressed by those that manage to get a minute or two to speak in the hour allowed at his teleconference.
As for the majority contacting him “supporting the current first-past-the-post voting system.” that may well be true in that the Conservative mantra is just that however this does not reflect the general feeling a cording to a number of national polls. The only reason for supporting a referendum on any changes is to further support this position in that those that do not understand a new system will undoubtedly vote for the status quo, and make no mistake some of the options currently on the table are fully understood by very few citizens.

Cross posted at The Rural Canadian
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Too Much Money?

With much speculation (Harper, will meet with Governor General David Johnston, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, Sunday at 9:55 a.m., according to a statement released late Saturday by the prime minister’s office.) that today is the day that Harper will go to the GG and dissolve parliament thus resulting in a record 11 week election period (or not) here is a quick review of the inordinate amount of money that will be spent during that time. No attempt has been made to estimate the millions spent by the Harper regime in recent months assassinating one particular opposition leader or how much of our money was spent promoting their various taxable bribes for families with children and other self promotion on our dime.

With longer campaign possible taxpayers could be on the hook for more than ususal since they subsidize the donations that fuel campaigns and then subsidize parties and their candidates again for spending that money during a campaign.

“Most of the money parties and candidates will be throwing around during the campaign comes from donations, which are worth a generous tax credit of 75 per cent on the first $400, 50 per cent on the next $350 and 33.3 per cent on the next $500.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates those tax credits are worth somewhere between $16 million and $36 million per year in foregone revenue.
Each party running a full slate of candidates is entitled to spend a maximum of about $25 million for a five-week campaign; each candidate an average of about $100,000.
But, under the recently passed Fair Elections Act, those spending limits will increase by 1/37 for each day a campaign exceeds 37 days. That’s an extra $675,000 per day for each party’s national campaign, an additional $2,700 per day for their candidates.
A campaign that is double the minimum length would effectively double the spending limits and, theoretically, double the amount of money parties and candidates stand to be reimbursed, at up to 50 per cent for parties and up to 60 per cent for candidates, — by taxpayers — when it’s all over.
The rebates handed out to parties and candidates after the five-week election campaign in 2011 were estimated by Elections Canada to be over $60 million, presuming most of their funding came from individual donations a further $60 million or so in tax deductions would also be available to those individuals. With an extended election period the various rebates, tax deductions and extra administrative costs of longer office leases for returning offices, staff and equipment, estimated at $375 million for a 37day campaign, could easily approach $100 million.
A third party can spend a total of $205,800 across Canada during a 37-day campaign, and no more than $4,116 in any riding, this total however would increase by a little over $5500 per day for a longer election period. A number of rules as to what and who falls into this category exist.


Then there is this courtesy of Montreal Simon

Many, if not most, of these cheques will go towards community projects that desperately need some federal funding, some of which have been waiting for years for funding, its not the expenditure thats the problem its the timing! This ploy to buy votes is so obvious and blatant that no one should fall for it, but many will actually believe that line “well now we have balanced the budget we can afford it” line, this despite the PBO assertion that that we are in fact in the hole still and that the economy is tanking!

As I have said here before I am coming to the conclusion that the limits on party and candidate spending, contributors tax deductions, and party and candidate reimbursement, should all be further restricted not increased as was brought in by that “Fair” Elections Act. If we are to have “Fair” elections the impact that “big money” has upon what the electorate hears about a particular party or candidate must be restricted and the ability of parties or candidates with less access to large war chests, such as those with support in less affluent riding’s, to put their platform before the public must be enhanced.

There are ways that they can put their ideas and platforms before the general public across the country without any cost to the public purse or their own coffers – one such is called 'debates' and although many will have limited circulation there WAS one that was available across the country. Now it seems that Mulclair has joined Harper in laying down 'conditions' tor any debates that he participates in that will kill the TV Consortium’s proposed October debate and further sideline the only Leader whom they all seem scared to debate. How can any leader who supports democracy (we know Harper does not, but Mulclair purports to) agree to debates that do not include ALL party leaders who have a seat in The House and support in every province.

Unfortunately little can be done to restrict advertising by individuals, groups or parties outside the election period, in a democracy folks are free to express their opinion and spend their money how they wish, but I sure want MUCH stronger, enforceable, rules upon government self promotion advertising and an independent body to vet such advertising BEFORE it hits the airwaves. Well I guy can dream cant he?

Sadly there is a real danger that the guys who spend the most money on attack Ads, self promotion and spreading lies and innuendo will be the ones to buy the most votes, would but that were not true but far too many folks are easily fooled.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Will the Writ be Dropped Early?

Most elections have been fought over the now-typical five-week period, but the 36 day writ period is merely a convention and we all know how much respect Harper has for parliamentary convention. Rumours are surfacing that “The Conservatives are said to have a cunning plan to extend the campaign this time around for their own partisan advantage.”
The typical 36-day campaign (commencing Sept 13^th) would limit the amount parties are able to spend to about $24-million, this would increase to around $45-million if the writ were dropped on Aug 9^th or $40 million if the PM visits the governor general on Aug 20^th.

“The maximum amount that is allowed for election expenses of a registered party for an election is the product of $0.735 multiplied by the number of names on the preliminary lists of electors for electoral districts in which the registered party has endorsed a candidate”
“However “If an election period is longer than 37 days, then the maximum amount......is increased by adding to it the product of one thirty-seventh of the maximum amount...(from above).... and the number of days in the election period minus 37.” (In other words increased in direct proportion to the number of days in the election period)

Whilst the electioneering and advertising has already started and has been for some time once the writ is dropped several things change. Firstly registered political parties are subject to the above spending rules however they will also get reimbursed from the public purse for 50% of said expenses subject to certain restrictions.

“The Chief Electoral Officer shall provide the Receiver General with a certificate that sets out the amount that is 50% of the registered party’s election expenses that were paid by its registered agents as set out in the return for its general election expenses if........ candidates endorsed by the registered party received at least 2% of the number of valid votes cast at the election, or 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.”
“On receipt of the certificate, the Receiver General shall reimburse the amount set out in it to the registered party by paying that amount out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

Secondly the expenditures by third partys upon advertising for or against any particular Party or Candidate is severely restricted.

“A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 in relation to a general election.”
“Not more than $3,000 of the total amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district,......( This )“only applies to an amount incurred with respect to a leader of a registered party or eligible party to the extent that it is incurred to promote or oppose his or her election in a given electoral district.”

There is however no restriction upon the Government running “infomercials” promoting existing programs however “partisan” advertising on the public dime is not permitted at any time, and we know how much notice the Harper Regime has taken of that rule don’t we! There is however a restriction as to who can contribute to a campaign.
“No person or entity other than an individual who is a Canadian citizen or is a permanent resident...... shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a nomination contestant, a candidate or a leadership contestant.
Not that such rules have stopped corporations or conservative candidates from ignoring such impediments in previous elections!

Given that the Conservatives reportedly have considerably more in their war chest than any other party there is clearly an advantage for them to extend the “election period” to increase their ability to spend more than the opposition on advertising (and get 50% of it back) and to limit advertising by groups that oppose this dictatorial and antidemocratic regime. I believe that the writ WILL be dropped early and that the Harper Regeme will spend every penny that they can get away with, of both their funds and ours, to demonize the opposition and spread their spin in an effort to retain power.

Personally I find the advertising limits far to high across the board particularly when much of the expenditure is spent simply slamming the other guy rather than presenting their “platform” and intentions if elected. This, and the elimination of the per vote subsidy clearly tilts the playing field towards established partys and more particularly the party currently in power. With Harpers ministers busy out buying the vote with announcements of infrastructure funding from funds that miraculously have suddenly become available just before the election, bribing families with backdated child benefits and spending millions of our money on self promotion and millions from their war chest on assassinating opposition leaders it is far from a equal opportunity election.

If you doubt that money talks simply count the number of anti Trudeau ads during your evening TV viewing and figure out the cost of each of those ads..... if you can stomach seeing that much BS in one viewing!


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

National Televised Debate set for October.

The group of networks known as the broadcast consortium, including CBC News, has set the English-language debate for Thursday, Oct. 8, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. ET, and the French-language debate for Wednesday, Oct. 7, from 8 to 10 p.m. ET...... despite an ongoing boycott by the Conservative Party.
In a news release, the consortium which includes CTV News, Global News, Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec and CBC News, said the broadcasters maintain their invitation to the Conservative Party, who have thus far declined, to participate.

Some criticism has been heard regarding the time slot allocated, particularly from the western provinces where it will be aired in the late afternoon, however they will also be distributed to all social media including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Google, YouTube, and CPAC.
A number of other debates have been planned by various organizations some of which have excluded both the Greens and the Bloc. Most notably Elizabeth May has not been invited to an exchange of views on the economy hosted by the Globe and Mail newspaper and Google Canada, nor one on foreign policy planned by the Munk Debates.

May has however agreed to participate in the Aug. 6 leaders debate organized by Maclean’s that will be broadcast on several television and radio outlets and stream via Facebook and YouTube and has received an invitation this week from the venerable Empire Club of Canada to a debate with other party leaders on business and financial issues – the same general focus as the Globe and Google event.
Julian Morelli, Green Party Director of Communications said “The decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the Globe and Mail and Munk debates is unbelievable given that these two institutions proclaim to be fair, open, and unbiased. “Is it coincidental that only parties that support the fossil fuel industry and pipeline expansion are invited to these debates?  Add to this that the Globe and Mail has in the past endorsed Stephen Harper – so it is not a neutral sponsor.

In an effort to shame the two organizations into changing their minds the Green Party has released a series of emails between them selves and the organizers of these debates in which they point out “this upcoming election will be the most unpredictable in history and one that will have a lasting impact on the character and makeup of Canada. At this time, public opinion suggests a minority government is probable, which provides further rationale for the inclusion of the Green Party as another voice in the development and implementation of good public policy.”
They also refer to the letter send by Stephen Harper in 2008 supporting the inclusion of “parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected” where he says:-
“The Conservative Party has always supported the concept of televised national leaders’
debates during a federal election. The only condition that we have attached has been the
participants represent parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected under their
party banner. Having one elected member is not a high bar to obtain and it helps to
ensure that the party leaders represent democratically elected representatives in the
House of Commons.”

How things have change since then, now despite the Greens meeting that criteria and Elizabeth May having led or been a significant voice in the national conversation on a wide range of important issues including C51, FIPA, democracy, proportional representation, accountability and transparency, parliamentary reform, climate change, etc she continues to be sidelined.
This despite the fact that she was also recognized this year as “Best Orator” and in the two previous years as “Hardest Working MP” as well as “Parliamentarian of the Year”.
It is unclear at this point whether Harper and May will face each other directly in any debate and we wonder how much control Harper has exerted over the G&M and Monk debates in this regard, what we wonder is he scared of, guess there is no closet to hide in at the G&M

 Update – It appears that the Macleans’ magazine’s debate scheduled to take place in Toronto on August 6^th and carried on City TV and CPAC will include Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. This is the only debate in which all four leaders are scheduled to attend.



Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Conservative MP Declines Debate

Bruce Grey Owen Sound MP Larry Miller is declining an invite to take part in an all candidates debate sponsored by the Owen Sound and District Chamber of Commerce.
He says he will be declining to participate in any all-candidates meeting that follows the traditional format, one he says simply does not work. He says he would prefer a format where each candidate is given a few minutes for opening statements and then they go to a corner and take questions directly from voters.

And so it starts where Conservative candidates, many of whom avoided all candidates debates in 2011, play follow the leader and will only “debate” where the format suits them. Certainty in smaller communities where a limited number of voters show up for such debates the ability of voters to directly ask the candidates questions is helpful but with much more than a handful of folk present the table to table private chats that Miller prefers is hardly practical. Such a format also permits candidates of any party to make promises and assertions without being challenged by their opponents and without the press being able to properly cover such statements.
We wonder if Mr Miller is perhaps not so comfortable spouting the lines provided by the PMO and various ministers, wants to avoid making publicly embarrassing statements as he has in the past or simply cant remember his lines! Certainly there is nothing wrong with requesting changes to debate format but to avoid debates that dont suit your personal preference seems to very much reflect the conservatives and their leaders mind set of my way or no way.

The Conservative MP issued a statement in May of 2011 just after his re-election to Parliament, saying these debates have simply become a contest between candidates to see who can get the greatest number of supporters out to cheer and jeer. He says they are only attending to cheer louder than the supporters of other parties or embarrass another candidate with planted questions. Miller says this was made clear to him at a debate during the last campaign when he asked the crowd of 300 people if anyone was still undecided on who to vote for, and only about a dozen people put up their hands.
See his letter to the Editor and hear his statement to Bayshore news.

Look for much more of this sort of attempt to control the dialogue from the Conservatives as the election approaches and increased pressure is put upon all candidates to put their positions before the public so that they can make an informed choice.

UPDATE June 24th

Miller now says he'll take part in the one urban debate in Owen Sound on October 1st and likely one rural one. However he says he won't take part in a series of debates like there was in 2011. He says the fact that the debate will be televised several times by Rogers means it will be available to people who normally can't get out to these meetings and that swayed his decision.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Buying Your Vote

Rumours circulating that Harper will extend the official campaign period by calling the election early may well have some merit given that his “Fair” Election Act specifically allows more spending on advertising during such extended period.
The Fair Elections Act also increases election spending for political parties, candidates and nomination contestants. Using last election’s numbers, it would mean slightly more than $1 million for each political party that runs candidates in each riding ($0.735 for every elector instead of $0.70)
But the real change is that election expenses, which used to be capped for the entire campaign period, will now increase by $650,000 each day after the normal 36-day writ.
And who gets to decide how long the election lasts? That would be the government, currently the Conservative Party of Canada.

Remember that for every dollar spend DURING an election period political parties receive a 50% rebate paid for out of our tax dollars. They will however no longer receive any monies based upon the number of votes they receive. That sloping “level playing field” has now turned into a mountain slope!


Based on projections from the 2011 election expense limits, the party spending limit for a minimum 37-day campaign on Oct. 19, 2015, would be roughly $22-million for parties that run candidates in all 338 ridings.
A decision to issue election writs at the end of August rather than in mid-September would give parties with the means the ability to spend at least $8-million more during the writ period for this election for expenses that would qualify for a 50 per cent reimbursement from Elections Canada........
Campaign advertising prior to the election period would not qualify for the reimbursement from taxpayers, but would follow closely on the heels of a multi-million-dollar ad campaign the Finance Department placed, with the direct approval of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Cabinet, to run from May 4 until Sunday, Aug. 4.
Monies spent before the writ is dropped are not eligible for taxpayer refunds however the Harper regimes ongoing expenditures of tax payers cash for his self serving advertizing and spin machine from various government departments is 100% paid for by us, not the Conservative party.

How big is the propaganda machine? Well, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation reported last year the government employs no fewer than 3,300 communications staffers whose primary function is to make the government look good. The cost to taxpayers is $263 million a year.

The total number of journalists in the press gallery — your independent watchdogs on government — is less than 300. And no newspaper, television network or other Canadian media outfit has anything like the funds the government has available to manufacture propaganda. With these vast resources, the government had every reason to believe it could pull a fast one . . .


The last figures available for total advertising expenditures show around $100 Million per year was spent, you may be sure that the 2015 figures will be considerably higher than that.


Internal documents show Finance Canada is planning a $7.5-million ad campaign that will run in May.
“The campaign will illustrate how the [Economic Action Plan] is on track to positioning Canada for success in the 21st century global economy through a series of measures,” states a Public Works document.........
Last year, Finance spent $7.5-million on Economic Action Plan ads, and other departments ran similar campaigns. Employment and Social Development spent $7-million on a skills initiative campaign, and the Canada Revenue Agency spent $6-million last year on ads
Many of the ad promote measures not yet legislated or proposed for some time in the distant future and only after opposition outcry were words to that effect added to the end of the ads. Almost daily more “proposals” are being promised to naive voters who are misled into believing that these things will actually happen if only they vote for the Harper Regime. The only promise thus far kept appears to be that promise attributed to Mr Harper in 2006 that says “you wont recognize Canada when I am done with it”


Its interesting to note that one of the most effective tools to fight this massively funded media blitz is social media which cost almost nothing. One very effective response to the recent attack on the Liberal leader can be see here



Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Debate Debate Redux

The federal Conservative Party says it won’t participate in the traditional leaders’ debates run by a consortium of broadcasters.........
They are however pushing for a number of “independently staged debates” where the format can “allow more time for one-on-one debate between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau”. Apparently the NDP and Greens have no place in their plans to control the debates, however the New Democrats said they have also accepted TVA’s and Maclean’s debate invites but there is no mention of the GPC in this article.

Seems rather convenient that just as the 'consortium' decided to include Elizabeth May that the Conservatives ditches the idea of debates sponsored by the major TV networks.

“We have received debate proposals from a variety of print and broadcast media, as well as other organizations. We believe the diversity and innovation inherent in different debate sponsors and approaches is valuable,” Conservative campaign spokesman Kory Teneycke said.
“Therefore we have decided to decline the proposal from the broadcast consortium for four debates, which for practical purposes would effectively exclude other media and organizations capable of hosting debates of this nature.”
Unsaid here is 'we feel we can better control the debate when negotiating with smaller organizations, allow Mr Harper to use crib notes and limit who participates and how long they get to speak.'

Mr. Teneycke, now a communications official with the Conservative Party, is a former senior executive with the Sun News Network, a now-defunct media outlet that made no secret of its distaste for CBC, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster.
The consortium, including the CBC, has been in charge of federal election debates for decades, but parties have sometimes chafed over the format dictated by the broadcasters.

Whilst I did not agree with the consortium’s exclusion of Ms May during the last election debates I do think that their adherence and insistence on a formal set of rules so ably overseen by moderator Steve Pakin made it fair and equal for all participants. It remains to be seen if these new proposals will meet that standard but I suspect this is purely and effort to gain advantage by controlling the rules and the narrative.
“The Green Party of Canada believes that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and all national party leaders have an obligation to debate in a proven format that is easily accessible to all Canadians, including our seniors, our youth, and those living in rural and remote regions of Canada.” They have however have accepted the offer for a federal debate from Maclean’s and are reviewing others.  We believe more debates, in both traditional and new media formats, are better for Canadians.
Indeed many rural and less affluent Canadians do not have the unlimited high speed connections necessary to view on line streaming video (this writer being one of them). I have no problem with such debates being carried on a variety on mediums however I do think an effort to make them available to ALL Canadians must be made and I am not sure that the print media thus far chosen by Harper without any consultation with other partys will achieve this or be moderated in as non partisan a manner as previous debates.
The Conservatives have emphasized that they would like to participate in debates on different media, since Canadians are consuming current affairs on different platforms...............
Adding to number of debates also deadens impact of any one debate/slip up.” (read, “I can change my lies and spin in the next one to suit”)
“By choosing to outright decline the national broadcaster’s proposal of four debates in both official languages, Stephen Harper is clearly trying to fragment the audience and create a debate free-for-all that will not benefit voters.  Once Canadians understand the true motivation of the Conservatives, they will be outraged.
It was announced Thursday that the consortium debates (1 in English and 1 in French) will go ahead with or without Stephen Harper’s participation and that NDP, Greens, Liberals and the Bloc will participate!

If indeed there are 5 (or more) additional debates (several well prior to the election period) I doubt that all news networks will broadcast all debates uninterrupted or in full given that it cost them millions in lost advertising revenue. I am not sure that this is not a good thing, my tolerance for BS, lies and spin is becoming very limited as we close in on the time to make some very tough but Nation Changing decisions.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

BGOS Greens AGM

The following is presented as a service to my local Greens

The Annual General Meeting of the Bruce-Grey Owen Sound Green Party of Canada Electoral District Association will be held Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 7:00 pm at the Williamsford Mill Book Store & Cafe, 316070 Highway 6, Williamsford, ON.

A new executive is elected at the AGM. Nominations will be taken from the floor for the positions of President (CEO), Chief Financial Officer and other executive positions. The meeting is open to all Green supporters and to the general public. Green Party of Canada memberships will be available and volunteers with Green thoughts are urgently needed to support the party through the coming election and beyond.

For more information: http://www.bgosgreens.ca/
---------------------

I am reliably informed that they are having difficulty in finding individuals willing to stand on the Executive which perhaps highlights how small a percentage of voters actually join and get involved in the decision making process within political parties. Even one like the Greens where all members can impact policy issues and party governance directly by online voting upon such issues appear to have low participation at the grass roots level.


Elections Canada requires that an Electoral District Association register its CEO and CFO by May 31^st each year, failure to do so results in de-registration of the EDA, the process for registration of a new EDA is somewhat complicated and time consuming so it is important for local associations to get the information to Elections Canada before the end of this month.


Whilst some parties in some areas do better than others I have always thought that communicating information about their activities and retaining members BETWEEN election periods seems to be one of the difficulties in getting folks to become involved at election time. Whilst the primary objective of an EDA is to select and support a candidate for that area they must have a core group willing and able to identify folks to assist, be it with money or time, during said election period. It is often difficult to keep folks motivated and actively involved over the four years where their supportive role takes a back seat to more mundane activities. Those that are more visible over this period and are able to keep their parties local activities and views before the public on a regular basis will probably have more success than those who fade into the background between elections.


Why not check out your local District Association.


The BGOS Greens web site can be found here. BGOS Greens


A list of all contact information for GPC district Associations can be found here.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Like Lemmings off a Cliff

Canadians who have been taking notice will be aware that C51, the police state law, has past 3^rd reading in the house and now goes before the Senate for final reading. It will come as no surprise that the Conservatives vote en-block for the bill for even if some of them had actually read the bill and had reservations they dare not vote except as directed by the PMO if they wished to remain in caucus. It is not surprising that the NDP all voted against this deeply flawed bill for it hard to see how any who care about individual freedoms could vote for it, whether or not they were directed to vote thus is unknown.


What I find mind blowing is that the Liberal vote en-block FOR the bill, we know that they are afraid of being branded pro-terrorist by the Con spin machine but how is it that not one, not a single Liberal MP. voted against this legislation, are they also in fear of loosing their jobs if they actually use their own brains and vote as their conscience dictates. One would think at least some of these MPs had sufficient concerns about this bill and its lack of oversight provisions to vote against it, but not apparently enough to challenge the group think!


It is this group think that I want to bring to your attention in this post, it is of course nothing new, it is in fact standard practice. If one looks at how they vote on the fine website openparliament.ca you will be hard put to find a piece of legislation where our MPs actually vote as individuals not as directed by their party whip. This to me highlights one of the problem with our current parliamentary system, the political partys have too much power over those that we elect to represent us. We all understand that as a member of that party and being elected under that partys banner they will agree with and follow the BROAD interpretation of their partys platform and ideology, but this group think when it comes to voting in the house does the public and the individual MP a grave disservice.


Taken to its logical conclusion we may as well just vote for the leaders or the party (which many, if not most, citizens do already) and let them debate the bills (they would then have to read their own speaking notes) and save the millions we spend on electing and paying individual MPs. The Leader with the most votes would have the final say and be able to dictate legislation .......... OH WAIT thats sorta like the system we have now!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

More Public Money on False Ads

As the Conservative Regime move forward with their new branding efforts in an attempt to persuade the public that they are the greatest thing since the 1936 regime in Germany we learn that “the Conservative government has booked $13.5 million for an all-out blitz in April and May to advertise its 2015 pre-election budget.”

Now I have no real problem the the Conservative Party of Canada promoting their proposals on TV and radio any more than I do with any other political party doing so but that is NOT what is happening. These Ads are being issued from Government departments using public money.

“The Canada Revenue Agency is spending $6 million on a concentrated TV bulk buy this month that includes pricey NHL playoff spots in what internal government documents describe as a continuation of an existing campaign that's been running all winter.
The tax agency's $6 million in TV advertising is augmented by a $7.5 million campaign by the Finance department, all designed to promote previously announced and new targeted tax breaks.”

It must be noted that any items contained in the budget, and indeed other Con proposals are just that, proposals, and have NOT passed in the House and became law and thus any advertising promoting these items is CLEARLY partisan advertising and payment of same from public funds is illegal. The blatant use of public moneys for self promotion is nothing new from this regime but it now reaches a level that once again show clear contempt for any parliamentary rules that exist.

The watchdog group Democracy Watch has launched a letter-writing campaign to get the federal auditor general to examine government advertising, they say “The Harper Conservative government has spent an estimated $750 million of the public’s money on advertising since 2006.”
“Some of the ads have made clearly false claims, others (like the TV ads currently running during NHL playoff hockey games) have been about proposed government programs that don’t exist, and others have essentially been ads for the Conservative Party.”
They are calling for an audit by the federal Auditor General that will determine just how much of your money the Conservatives have wasted on these ads, this just as Ontario who have protections in place to prevent such abuse seeks to reduce such safeguards. Given the way in which the Cons have previously ignored reports and conclusions from the Auditor General I am unconvinced that even if such an audit did take place that the Cons would cease this undemocratic practice or refund the public money, it would however perhaps make more folks aware of how crooked this regime is!

The public advertising is just the tip of the iceberg that will come crashing into your area this summer, the PM and all those Con Ministers will be travelling the country (on you dime) flogging both the proposed budget and all the goodies promised, but may never happen, for some distant year in the future. And, it would seem providing 'photo opportunities' in Iraq and other foreign locations to highlight Canada’s rhetoric spinning leader and his oligarchical regime.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Debate about the Debate has started!

With the Conservatives quietly considering a proposal to hold up to five regional televised debates in the upcoming federal election to contrast Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s experience with rookie Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau the debate about the debates has started. Hoping to exploit Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style, some Conservative insiders believe Harper could benefit from additional debates.


In my opinion that very much depends upon how much said leaders (particularly Harper) are held to account for untruths and inaccurate assertions & allegations. One way to see that such things do not go unchallenged is to ensure that the “Hardest Working MP” in the House of Commons is there to rebut the three traditional debaters. The fact that the 2012 Parliamentarian of the year also happens to be one of the Best Orator's according to her colleagues in the House may well be why none of those three will commit to insisting that the Green Party Leader participate.


It seems that the Conservatives think they can gain advantage from extra debates by “exploiting Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style”, If a politician actually straying from the scripted talking points is a liability then we have indeed reach a point where truth, openness and accountability is a victim of political spin. Without becoming too partisan I can only say this is one reason why Ms May must be included for she has yet to fall victim to this insidious disease, not only that but she regularity dispenses an antidote to it. Its called support for parliamentary democracy and involves fighting tooth and nail against any who would remove power from our elected MPs and place it in the hands of one individual and his unelected office boys. She also recognizes a cheater when she sees one, something the 'moguls' don’t seem to understand. “Stephen Harper’s staff took care to print out background notes (something specifically not allowed during the 2008 debate) on index cards, but they picked the wrong-sized cards. And no one writes in printer font. Looking over from my seat, I remember the shock of realizing he was cheating,”


It seems the Conservatives and the NDP want many debates, but sources in both parties say they also want to limit the number of participants to the “main parties,” believing that the contrast between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair would be sharper without the three other party leaders on stage. I dont know about that but I am not sure how much I could take of Mulclair and Harper attacking each other and Trudeau who I hope will not fall into that trap and instead stick to a positive message. I do know that if a sitting Leader of a party with candidates in every province across this country and support of millions of Canadians is deliberately excluded for a televised national debate then her fight for democracy has already taken a mortal blow.


The 'Leaders' would have us believe that such decisions are entirely up to the 'consortium' of TV moguls however that is not entirely true as earlier attempts from Ms May to be included in the debate reveal.
In 2008 Editor-In-Chief of CBC TV News, Tony Burman, characterized the debate process as a sham, stating that, "Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate 'unwatchable' but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the [Media Consortium] meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.
In this instance Ms May was eventualy included and “Many commentators proclaimed May’s debut in the leaders debates to be a major breakthrough for the party, and were surprised that she proved to be a strong debater on a wide range of issues.” However in 2011 Harper and the other leaders got their way and the Green Party leader was excluded with the excuse that “her party did not have representation in the House of Commons.” That excuse no longer is available so what excuse do they all have now?


If ANY of those 'leaders or media moguls care one whit for democracy they will not only 'allow' Elizabeth May to join the debate but insist right from the start that she do so. Instead we see this:=
Recently, Mulcair refused to say who should be part of the debate.
“That is something that is completely left up to the consortium, and I will follow whatever they decide,”
Trudeau said. “I look forward to having discussions about that with the consortium of broadcasters as it comes closer to it. Right now, it’s too early to say who should be in,”
Troy Reeb, the vice-president of news for Shaw Media, said Global News’ position is that the more debates that can be organized, the better it is for Canadian democracy.
“If, however, the parties determine, as they have in the past, that they are unwilling to have their leaders attend multiple debates,” Reeb said in an email, “then we stand prepared to work again with other broadcasters to ensure any single English-language debate reaches the widest audience possible.
“Questions of format and who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
“who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
So its NOT just up the the Media but is the subject of 'discussion', come on Trudeau and Mulclair step up and speak out for democracy and insist upon the debates include all sitting party leaders (with national support?) participate, we know Harper will not!

EDIT It is interesting to note in the context of the above that the CBC (and other TV conglomerates) has refused to air an advertisement from The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that is critical of Stephen Harper and his cuts to everything.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Balancing Act Important For Democracy

A guest artile by Jared Milne
I’m currently reading Brent Rathgeber’s excellent book “Irresponsible Government: the Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada”, which describes the methods that Canadian prime ministers have used to consolidate power in the Prime Minister’s Office, and force their Members of Parliament to follow all of their directions. MPs are now expected to only obey the prime minister, instead of keeping him and his Cabinet accountable the way Canada’s system of responsible government has traditionally required.

Many Canadians have been increasingly turned off by this system of top-down control. Samara, an organization dedicated to strengthening Canadian democracy, has noted that many Canadians believe that Canadian politicians and parties only want their votes, and don’t care about listening to their concerns. MPs are only seen as representing the views of their parties, instead of their constituents. Samara also found that even many MPs themselves came to feel that their efforts to represent their constituents were hampered by the dictates of their political parties. Many citizens told Samara that they had become disengaged from politics because they didn’t feel that it was really addressing their needs, and made them feel like outsiders. Significantly, many MPs also came to feel as though they became outsiders in their own parties.

Stephen Harper is not the first prime minister to increasingly centralize control in the Prime Minister’s Office. However, it’s been said that he has continued this trend because of the experiences of the Reform Party in the 1990s, when some of its candidates made statements that were later used by its opponents to smear the Reformers as bigoted and intolerant. These types of “bozo eruptions” can be a major political hazard, such as in the 2012 Alberta election. The statements made by Wildrose Alliance candidate Alan Hunsperger about gay people dying in a “lake of fire” are widely seen as a major factor in the Wildrose’s defeat.

The Reform party and the Wildrose both prided themselves on engaging their grassroots, and enabling members to speak their minds freely. This can make people feel like they’re being listened to, and their views are being taken into account by the party leadership. However, it also brings the risk that those views can be used by the party’s electoral opponents to make them look bad and turn voters off.
The challenge for political leaders, then, becomes how to listen to citizens’ views and make them feel as though they’re being listened to, while also determining which ideas are the best ones to act on and how they will be perceived by the public.

This would require a complicated balancing act, and not everyone would be happy with the results. However, it would still be better the current trend of centralizing power at the top of the party leadership, which then dictates how Members of Parliament vote and exercises top-down control on them. That trend has only turned countless Canadians off of politics, and weakened our democracy as a whole.

Jared Milne is a writer, researcher and public servant living in St. Albert, Alberta. His major interests including Canadian unity, nationalism and history, particularly regarding how Canada's incredibly rich past has affected the present we live in today.
-This article was published in the St. Albert Gazette on January 14, 2015 and is available online at http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20150114/SAG0903/301149997/0/sag. 

 
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers