I make no effort in these pages to
opinionate on things as they happen, even when limited to just
attacks upon democracy it would be more than a full time job, I do
try and shed some light upon such issues after the fact and highlight
areas where future actions may impact upon our ability as citizens to
keep government in check. This week has been full of such issues, the
China trade deal that restricts our ability to enact laws to protect
our environment if they impact upon profits, the Auditor Generals
report that parliamentarians are not getting the information they
need from the Harper regime, the Parliamentary Budget Officer having
to sue the 'government' to get said information and the ruling by the
Supreme Court of Canada that 'clerical errors' do not constitute a
reason to negate votes. To name but a few.
What follows is a
compendium of commentary from a variety of sources on the above
issues.
A Sellout Of Our Soverignty!
The unthinkable is now before us. Our
Federal Government is undermining our security and dismantling our
rights as Canadians to determine how, where, when and whether we
develop our resources.
Yesterday, the Canadian Press reported the Harper government’s refusal to host public hearings. Elizabeth May’s October 1 request was also denied on the grounds that FIPA does not meet the test of emergency.
Grounds for Divorce
The deal apparently empowers China to
sue anyone and everyone who impedes their access to Athabasca
bitumen. That, presumably, would target the people and
province of British Columbia. We would be coerced,
through lawfare, to bend a knee to Beijing and Ottawa.
Harper has loaded the pistol and put it in Beijing's hand to hold to
British Columbia's head.
Mulcair Speaks Out
Despite repeated calls for a public
debate and study of this agreement, the Conservative Government
Regime has refused to expose this deal to any public
scrutiny. As the treaty’s terms will be in force for a
minimum of 31 years, we believe this is irresponsible.
Democracy Under Fire
Whilst there has to be some things the
government of the day can proceed with without direct parliamentary
approval we wonder how the longstanding (but perfectly legal under
existing rules) practice of approving trade deals that substantially
affect our right to self determination with only a few days necessary
from the publishing of such a deals details and the approval by
government without further consultation. Good deal or bad, that is
neither democratic nor accountable. Whilst the Harper regime is
responsible for negotiating this deal they are not responsible for
the system that makes it possible to do so without debate.
Moving on
Canada’s
parliamentary budget officer says he’ll file court action this week
over the refusal of some federal departments to hand over details on
billions of dollars in planned cuts by the Harper
government..........
Set up by the
Conservatives in 2006 as part of their government accountability
effort, the budget’s officer’s mandate “is to provide
independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s
finances, the government’s estimates and trends in the Canadian
economy.”
The Conservative election platform of 2006
“A Conservative government will:
Require government departments and agencies to provide accurate,
timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Authority to ensure it
has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to
Parliament.
“The one way to ensure that we have
some scrutiny is for Parliament to have its own set of numbers that
aren’t run through the Department of Finance filter, that don’t
answer directly to the finance minister, who also has a political
interest, a political incentive, to ensure that the numbers flatter
his or her position.” (Monte Solberg, Finance Committee, June 21,
2005)
“We believe that an independent,
non-partisan parliamentary budget office should produce forecasts of
revenues and spending which are universally available and accepted by
all parties and experts of all stripes. Such a body would ensure that
the government is genuinely accountable for taxpayers’ dollars and
that we maintain fiscal discipline at the federal level. (Stephen
Harper, Oct 6 2004)
Harper Government Winging It
In
his fall 2012 report released Tuesday, Auditor General Michael
Ferguson concluded the Department of Finance Canada often does not
take into account the impact of tens of billions of dollars of
spending and tax measures on the government’s long-term fiscal
sustainability.
The
Harper government
regime promised in its 2007 budget to publish a comprehensive report
on the government’s fiscal sustainability that would provide a
broad analysis of current and future demographic changes, and the
implications on Canada’s long-term fiscal outlook. A draft report
was prepared in 2007, but it has not been published.
Moreover,
the long-term fiscal sustainability analyses have been regularly
prepared since 2010, but have not been made public.
Democracy
Under Fire
That the PBO cannot get sufficient
information to provide parliamentarians (and citizens) an independent
and comprehensive analysis the budget past, current or future make a
complete mockery of or parliamentary system. How can any MP
opposition or conservative, vote upon a budget without knowing the
full implications of the proposals contained therein?
That Mr Flaherty says “He’s look at
money that’s not been spent. That’s what we do when we do deficit
reduction. We’re not spending that money and he wants to have a
look at money that’s not being spent, rather than the manner in
which money is spent, which is actually his mandate.” is a non
starter. Its like saying a family can cut thousands of dollars from
their budget by not buying food and calling that sustainable and
achievable budgeting!
And finally we cannot
let this week go by unless we mention the Supreme Court of Canada's
decision regarding the 'irregularities' in the voting procedures at
Etobicoke Centre.
On positive precedents
The system strives to achieve accessibility for all voters, making special provision for those without identification to vote by vouching. Election officials are unable to determine with absolute accuracy who is entitled to vote. Poll clerks do not take fingerprints to establish identity. A voter can establish Canadian citizenship verbally, by oath. The goal of accessibility can only be achieved if we are prepared to accept some degree of uncertainty that all who voted were entitled to do so.A Vote For Plutocracy
In a split decision, the Supreme Court today upheld Ted Opitz' win in Etobicoke Centre. The court reinstated 59 of the 79 votes that Justice Thomas Lederer threw out, reasoning that the only invalid votes were "instances where there was no voter's signature on the registration certificate. The signature is supposed to be the voter's statutory declaration that he or she is over 18 and a Canadian citizen."
Democracy
Under Fire
This
challenge did not allege voter fraud, although it would appear that
some attempt at such did take place, but focused upon incorrect
identification protocols and paperwork for a few voters. Having
viewed the training manual for election workers it is quite clear
that the established procedures were not followed. That these folks
are just temporary workers with minimal training is no real excuse,
better screening and training may need to be put in place. I have
seen NO information as to why the election officer in charge at this
location allowed these irregularities to take place, or indeed if the
workers were even questioned as to why they did not follow protocols.
The
good thing that may come out of this is that better training and
supervision is now being considered.
That’s
all for this week as we await the details of the latest omnibus
budget to fully emerge.
No comments:
Post a Comment