Virtual Idiot?

Unless an agreement is reached before Monday, the House of Commons will resume business as usual with all 338 MPs along with their staff, clerks, interpreters, security and cleaners, returning to work in Ottawa.

The Liberals are also proposing one additional session be held each week with another lengthy question period, but this one would be held virtually.

Andrew Scheer and his Conservatives, meanwhile, are pushing for three in-person sittings per week to hold government accountable for its pandemic response — down from four sittings they were demanding earlier in the week.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/04/18/trudeau-hopeful-for-deal-with-opposition-parties-on-house-of-commons-re-opening/#.XpwzKsIpD3j

It seems that Scheer just does not get it, remember this is the fellow who packed the special flight bringing a couple of leaders to Ottawa for the last special session with his wife and kids.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/challenger-flight-may-scheer-qualtrough-1.5530542

Meanwhile as I said before there is no need with modern communication methods for our MPs, who reside in and represent riding's far from Ottawa, to be in the room to have input to decisions being made.
https://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/2020/04/virtual-parliament.html

Its NOT a time for political posturing Mr Scheer, give it a rest!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Virtual Parliament?

The current situation has brought many questions to mind for us all with the majority connected with our governance in one form or another be it provincial heath departments or national financial supports. Yesterday a small group of federal MPs gathered in Ottawa to pass some necessary measures to support Canadians at this difficult time as many of us, and I presume most MPs, looked on via electronic media of one sort or another. Some discussion has taken place both here and elsewhere as to whether a 'virtual' Parliament can be set up to minimize the direct contact between between not only them but the necessary support staff to hold a parliamentary session.

It seems to me that with modern communication methods available that there are few road blocks to such arrangements not only during these difficult times but in the future. Many businesses and individuals communicate world wide without leaving their armchairs why cannot our provincial and more importantly our national governments make more use of this option. The public portions of their discussions are already broadcast and available on line in one form or another so why cannot their input be also done via electronic communication methods with the two individuals who 'have the floor' and the Speaker being shown in a video feed in addition to those who are actually in a position to attend in person.

Sure there would be some logistical challenges in setting up a way to 'recognize' who has the floor but as I understand it those that rise to speak during question period and other publicly available discussions are by enlarge pre-selected by the party hierarchy so switching quickly between several hundred feeds would not be necessary. I find it hard to believe that many, if not most, MPs do not use both email and video conferencing extensively for their day to day operations particularly those who are far from the central power base in Ottawa.

Perhaps the extensive House renovations to accommodate more elected representatives is not really needed? Something to think about as our world undergoes a substantial shakeup and reevaluation.

Update
Further to this sort of idea see what is now being done by the current caucus.... 

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Broken System?

Recent events and reports have made it clear that our system of governance has some major flaws in it as it currently operates, whist efforts to improve the way we elect our representatives have failed it is becoming increasing obvious that those we do elect have very little power to effect outcomes. I will not try to dissect the current cluster fk that is occurring in the seat of power, ably assisted by much over the top 'reporting' and 'opinion pieces' from various sources on line and off but will comment upon what I view as what is perhaps the root of the problem.

We all know that irregardless of the possible desire to enact change for the better by those who elect to put their names forward to represent us in the halls of power this wish and attitude is quickly suppressed by the realities of how the 'system' works both publicly and privately. Events in recent weeks have highlighted how those at the very top of this unstable pimarimid attempt to maintain strict control over the actions and public utterances of those below them be they 'in cabinet' or simply warming a seat on the government or opposition benches. Expressions of difference of opinion from 'the party line' are strongly discouraged, understandingly given the importance and power we seem to give to the idea that, although incorrect in theory, that we are electing a representative of a Party not an individual to represent us the public residing in his or her district.

Let us be clear here, this behavior is not limited to any particular Party or for that matter to federal or provincial politics, it is replete across out entire electoral system. There is little we, the public can do to change this, for with perhaps the exception of one particular party who currently has but one seat and has not had the opportunity to show us how they would govern, the only choices we have is to vote for one of these 'party representatives'! At this point the best we can hope for IMHO is a minority government where there will at least be some need for all concerned to at least try to govern for the people not the party. To say that I am not optimistic and should be considered highly cynical in my published scribbling at this point is putting it mildly!

The only thing I am sure off at this point is that the BS issuing out of political commentators both official and unofficial is going to get very deep by fall. Get your hip waders ready!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Much ado about nothing?

Does anyone believe that most, if not all, large national and international companies seeking to do business with overseas entities such as Saudi Arabia do not provide 'incentives' to the principals involved?

Does anyone believe that without such 'incentives' said companies would not receive the contracts but would be passed over in favor of those that do 'grease the wheels'?

Does anyone believe that all governments, past, present and of any political stripe do not 'encourage' and / or turn a blind eye to such practices when large contracts that benefit Canadian companies and jobs are at stake?

Does anyone believe the the opposition Conservatives who signed a deal with said corrupt overseas government for a London, Ontario company to supply military equipment to them will not pretend moral outrage at such actions.

Does anyone believe that JWR was not under immense pressure to find a way to avoid having such a large employer of Canadians be effectively removed from carrying on government related business in Canada?

Does anyone believe that JWR was not removed from her post as AG in direct response to her unmoving decision regarding the SNC-Lavalin prosecution?

Does anyone believe that much of the 'outrage' by both the Conservatives and the NDP is not politically motivated and will be kept 'in play' right up to election time?

Does anyone believe that the AG's role should not be separated from government control and influence and any political influence and not be a member of cabinet?

The whole fiasco is not over yet by a long shot and I predict that the court proceedings will drag on till AFTER the election at which time, irregardless of what party is then in power, a way will be found to 'rescue' SNC-Lavalin and save Quebec jobs.

'A deal to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal liability could still be on the table amid a furor over whether the Trudeau government tried to meddle in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, the Star has learned.

“My understanding is when criminal proceedings are ongoing that that option is always available,” Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said in an interview.

The requirement to continually assess the strength of the prosecution case, evidence, witnesses, and changing circumstances are “an ongoing obligation” within the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) regime, as in any prosecution, she said.'

Enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Backbenchers just decoration?

In this era of hyper-partisanship, can backbenchers have an effective voice, or have they been relegated to the role of a modern Greek chorus, anonymous figures advancing a pre-determined story?

This is the question Hershell Ezrin asks in a short article in Ontario News Watch

“In defence of hyper partisanship, central party staff at federal and provincial levels monitor backbenchers’ social media output regularly. Faux loyalty moments like standing ovations have become “de rigueur” in Question Period. “Cheerleading” records are kept. Caucus meetings seem more devoted to unquestioning displays of loyalty than to serious confidential discussion and feedback sessions..........

Current political staff have been accused of being the disciplinarians for this alternate reality. To get ahead (trips, assignments and even promotion), backbenchers need to satisfy the enforcers that they are good team players. “

This discussion was of course brought on by the recent disagreement between a rookie MPP and her rookie leader in the Ontario legislature.

“A Progressive Conservative legislator who publicly denounced Ontario's decision to eliminate the independent office of the French-language services commissioner and a planned French-language university severed ties with the Tories on Thursday, the culmination of a dispute that saw her vote against her own party's legislation.
In a letter to the Speaker of the legislature, Amanda Simard said her decision was effective immediately, and she will remain as an independent. New Democrats and Liberals said they were not aware of any efforts to recruit her to their ranks.
"I am no longer a member of the Progressive Conservative Caucus," Simard wrote in the short letter. "I will continue to take my place in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as an Independent.

The rookie legislator, who represents a largely Franco-Ontarian riding, broke ranks with Premier Doug Ford's government over the two controversial decisions affecting about 600,000 francophones in the province.”

It has also highlighted the amount of 'control' that the Ford Regime wishes to have over the entire legislative process...

“The Progressive Conservatives fear some disgruntled MPPs are set to cross the floor to join the Liberals, the Star has learned. That’s a key reason why Premier Doug Ford is increasing the threshold for official party status in the legislature from eight MPPs to 12, a senior source says. Ford’s office closely monitors Tory members. Sources say they track who applauds in the legislature and watch for MPPs who do not quickly leap to their feet for ovations after the premier or ministers respond to opposition inquiries during question period.

“They keep tabs on everything,” said a fourth Tory .... Two party aides noted that speaking out in caucus meetings is also discouraged because they don’t want anyone to undermine team unity.

But is all of the above Premier Doug Ford‘s decision or that of his chief of staff Dean French who it is alleged effectively runs the caucus meetings and just about everything else in Fords government? French’s management style has been called into question by members of his own party and by the opposition.

Who is running the ship and where is it going, perhaps Ford is also just decoration?

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Majority not enough for Ford.

The PCs are moving to change the legislature's rules of procedure, formally called the standing orders. These rules control such things as when bills can be introduced, when opposition parties get to put forward motions, and how much debate must take place before a bill goes to a final vote.

The rules already allow the government to cut short debate on bills and push them through to a final vote without giving the public the chance to speak at committee hearings. The PCs have used this power with most of the legislation they have proposed so far.
The proposed changes make it easier for the government to do this more quickly.

Then there is this …....

Ford said he plans to hold local governments’ feet to the fire to make sure they get projects like transit and infrastructure construction done. “We’re going to actually hold people accountable,” he said, without specifying how exactly he plans to do so.
“We’re going to hold governments accountable in over 460 towns in this province to make sure they maximize their budgets in the best way they can to respect the taxpayers.”
Apparently the municipalities must be 'accountable' to Doug Fraud as he and his newly elected minions (the majority of whom have never served in government) but he is only accountable to the electorate once every 4 years according to his calculations.

Remember that........
Nearly 60 per cent of the MPPs who took their seats at Queen's Park once the legislature resumes are newly-elected. Of the 124 ridings in Ontario, 73 were won by people who have never been an MPP that being mostly newly elected PCs.

Talk about the the rabid guide dog leading the blind masses!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Fordocracy in Action

“Democracy is going every four years to elect a government…without worrying about your mandate being overturned,” said Mr. Ford.

No Mr Premier that's Fordocracy or if you prefer Dougocracy our Canadian democracy is much more than electing a new government every few years, it is a living reflection of the wishes of those citizens who charge a few individuals to represent their interests in governing our nation, province or municipality.

A liberal (as in open to new behavior or opinions) democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities

The mindset that once elected one individual or for that matter one group of individuals can then dictate the manner in which we are governed by circumnavigating our usual parliamentary and legal process is incompatible to the very idea of democracy.

To say that the people have spoken and therefore he can do what he wishes given that he has more MPPs of his ilk than any other party is total nonsense, for starters of the eligible voters who cast a vote 60% did not vote for him or his party and a further 40% did not vote for ANY person or party so of the 10 million or so voters less than a quarter actually 'supported' his regime.

It is not so much whether the size of Toronto council is too large or small or even whether the citizens would be adequately represented with the proposed reduction of seats at the council chamber. It is the manner in which it is being done and the timing of the proposed changes that is most troubling. To change the rules in the middle of an election period, be it for Toronto or any other municipality, without giving those citizens a chance to express their view on such changes and to override a judges ruling that says it is unconstitutional as currently jammed down their throats is so clearly wrong that I cannot understand how any thinking MPP can support this move.

Perhaps that is the problem, it requires a thinking person who is not under thrall of the Con mindset to see that this move not only sets Toronto's election results in doubt but may bring more frivolous notwithstanding challenges from those who would destroy Canada as we know it.

Beware the Tyranny of the majority the inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority.

 Ford believes that, in a democracy, the only thing that matters is elections. And, once elected, the winners can do whatever they want:

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

New Report on the State of our Democracy.

The Samara Centre for Democracy interviewed 54 former MPs from the last Parliament about their experience in Ottawa and found many of them questioning the very purpose of being an MP in an era when political power is concentrated in the hands of party leaders. The Samara Centre is a non-partisan charity working to improve Canadian politics.

The study focuses on the 41st Parliament, which ran from 2011 to 2015 and was led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s majority government.

The Justin Trudeau-led Liberal Party was elected to a majority government in 2015 on a platform that included promises to improve Parliament and make MPs more independent. The report notes there is anecdotal evidence from the current Parliament that many of the same problems remain.

Last year, Samara, with the assistance of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamen-

tarians, again reached out to past representatives—this time to MPs who had sat in the

41st Parliament (2011–2015) and who resigned or were defeated in the 2015 general

election.

The interviews made one thing clear: the problem of a “job with no description” has not been solved. In some ways, it has worsened. Parliamentarians are more cut off from the essential work of scrutiny, legislation and representation than before. The couple of small extracts shown below are but a fraction of this 42 page report and whilst it reflects the situation at the end of Harpers time in power it is no less relevant to today's parliament.

Leaders have grown in strength and capacity relative to the party caucus.

Unelected staffers to the leader—the “boys (and girls) in short pants”—carefully manage the party brand. As the MPs in our first round of interviews explained, any dissent from the party leadership is rare, inconsequential and swiftly punished. Step out of line, even on an ostensibly free vote, and “your name’s now on somebody’s hit list,”

The last Parliament saw by far the most use of time allocation since the tool was introduced permanently in 1968—more than double the previous high-water mark. But the problem has hardly resolved itself. In fact, the current Parliament is easily on track to see the second most frequent use of time allocation. (The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a time allocation motion as a guillotine. In fact, although the rule allows the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill , it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. )

“Committees are the best and most urgent site for reform.”

Not only are considerable parliamentary time and resources already dedicated to them, but committees also offer the best promise to empower MPs.

Committees might never be must-watch television. But they can be home to the kind of politics citizens often say they want: cross-partisan, substantive, evidence-based, civil and accessible. They could also provide a neat “package” for supporting the independence and thoughtfulness of Mps

As one MP described, before committee met, “They have precommittee meetings. And that’s not when you discuss what’s going to happen in committee. You are told

what’s going to happen in committee. And the [party] staff is all too happy to provide backbenchers with questions to ask.”

In 2018, it’s urgent that Canadians rehabilitate representative democracy as the middle

ground between daily referendums and government by unchecked elites. At the centre of

representative democracy are the representatives themselves—the critical link between

citizens and their democratic institutions.

Parliament is degraded, and as one former MP put it: “We don’t have a democracy, outside of that institution.” An intervention is needed.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

When The Senate Works As It Should.....

After years of the Conservative dominated Senate rubber stamping legislation and blocking amendments in committee we now have a situation where they are doing their job and proposing changes to a clearly flawed bill. Despite the Liberals using their majority to turn down all of the many amendments propped in the House to the Assisted dieing legislation it is fairly well established that as written it will not pass the constitutional test and the Senate has proposed a change to correct this, the reaction is perhaps predictable.
Both the Conservatives and some others are screaming that this is going to produce a parliamentary deadlock in that the minister responsible continues to defend the bill as written and shows no indication of accepting the senates recommendations. It has yet to be seen in both sides dig their heels in and compromise cannot be found bur the rhetoric that says the Senate is interfering with the process of passing this legislation is pure bloody nonsense! Their job is to study legislation in depth, including the constitutionality of it, and propose corrections to it for the House to consider, that in the past when the majority party numbers in the House and the Senate have coincided and flawed bills have not been properly examined or changed does not mean that such actions are correct or desirable. I am sure that there have also be periods when the majorities did not coincide and bills have been “held up” in the Senate before.
Although the number of “independent” senators in the chamber is not substantive (yet) the general tone of the place seems to be improving and the partisanship reducing, now if we can get the Liberals in the HoC to stop “acting like the previous government” and be more accepting of amendments to proposed legislation be it from their fellow MPs or from the Senate we might have something going right for a change. This has also happened to another bill before the Senate, the RCMP Union legislation!


Let us wait and see how the changes are dealt with when the bills are returned to to the House, it will be another definitive test of whether the election promises and rhetoric were meaningful or just that, promises and rhetoric! Step one, a totally free vote by all partys on this important issue when it gets back to the House.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Promises - Parliamentary Accountability

As promised in my post A cabinet that looks like Canada, this week I am going to take a closer look at the Liberal Government's quite modest promises as regards to parliamentary reform as listed in their platform document. Taking them one at a time they are (in shortened form):-


“Strengthen the role of parliamentary committee chairs, including elections by secret ballot. Ensure a more robust system of oversight and review for legislation.”

This one bothers me a little given that committee chairs already have considerable power over the way such meetings are conducted and can, as we have seen in recent years, use procedural actions to disrupt open discussion should they wish to. They need to be more open and accountable with rules established to ensure such partisan or personal biases cannot substantially effect discussions not more power over the process. I am not at all sure what “ a more robust system of oversight and review for legislation” means, reviewing proposed legislation is after all THE function of committees. Government House Leader Dominic Leblanc says House committees should be independent from government with non-partisan chairs and possibly no parliamentary secretary members. As with all things the devil is in the details, this one is a wait and see item.


“Liberal Caucus members will only be required to vote with the Cabinet on those matters that implement the Liberal electoral platform or traditional confidence matters.....”

Whilst more 'free' votes are highly desirable I am not sure that this actually promises that, in the short term at least most, if not all legislation could be said to “implement the Liberal electoral platform”. No MP should be “required to vote” in any particular manner, naturally those who disagree with their own party’s legislation and vote against it may face some kind of 'disciplinary' action from the party but telling an MP how to vote is wrong and antidemocratic. The ONLY vote that could result in a minority government falling should be one that specifically says “This house has no confidence in thus 'whipping' the vote would be unnecessary.....”


“Create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments.”

We do not know at this point what this “process” will be however given the restrictions placed upon the PM by the constitution, and if he truly wants to make the Senate the non partisan chamber of 'sober second thought' then taking advice, or even better, candidate recommendations from outside government is the only alternative. I have said before that given that Senators are meant to be representative of the province in which they reside that it seems appropriate that said provinces should be able to propose at least some of those candidates. Once again this is a wait and see what the 'process' involves but is far better than proposing reforms that involve opening up the constitution in a long and potentially divisive process..


“Work with all parties in the House of Commons to ensure an inclusive, representative, transparent, and accountable process to advise on appointments to the Supreme Court.”

It is my understanding that such a process was already in place, it is just that the previous PM chose to ignore such processes.


“Introduce a Prime Minister’s Question Period, empower the Speaker to challenge and sanction Members during Question Period.”

The PM is supposed to be one amongst equals, is having a special question period just for him reinforcing the perception that he and he alone is responsible for policy? I agree that the speaker should have more power to enforce members to behave and to answer actual questions put, not go off on some unrelated time passing distraction. Good luck with that.

“Change parliamentary financial processes, ensuring accounting consistency among the Estimates and the Public Accounts, providing costing analysis for each
government bill and restoring the requirement that the government’s borrowing plans
receive Parliament’s pre-approval.”

Duh!


“Ensure that all of the Officers of Parliament – the Chief Electoral Officer, the Access to Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer etc, etc, are all properly funded and respected for doing their important work to help Canadians.”

We have seen during the last governments tenure that when you cant get rid of an officer whos reports you don’t like the next best thing is to cut their funding. We hope that they all do get sufficient funding restored to do their job effectively but must ask if there is a way to ensure that future governments cannot silence these officers by such methods.


“Not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances, change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end the practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny
prevent future governments from using this method to silence critical reports.'

Both of these promises are a very good start and we hope that they can indeed “prevent future governments (and their own) from using omnibus bills“ although how you 'lock in' such rules to prevent future governments from changing them back and what penalties can be put in place to prevent the rules being ignored is questionable. All the rules around prorogation, forming coalitions upon the defeat of a minority government, and similar constitutional matters need to be clarified, particularly if electoral reform takes place that results in a greater probability of more minority’s being elected.

The above is almost identical to the 'list' proposed by Ms May of the Greens as presented in the post Fixing What Harper Broke where she says “Ideally, a parliamentary committee will be mandated to review the abuses of the last ten years and recommend a full suite of measures to ensure it never happens again. “ There is the rub, any incoming government can seemingly come in and change the rules (or ignore them) as most are not enshrined in law, but for a few citizens invoking constitutional challenges it could have been much worse.
As we have seen in recent years the rules around prorogation, minority and coalition governments and even House proceedings are easily abused, and how and when such constitutional maneuverings can take place is far from clear and governed more by 'tradition' than any hard and fast rules or guidelines. Such things need to be formally documented to avoid future 'constitutional crises'. With the House setting its own rules this is not an easy task, we wish the new Liberal government well with these changes and await the recall of the House to see exactly how much the 'tone' and substance of the proceeding will change under what we hope and expect to be a more open and respectful leadership.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Senate Reform Redux

With a small minority of senators under the spotlight for spending irregularities and the Duffy trial adding a further spotlight on how the unprincipled nominated to that body can cheat the system (such as it is) there are the predictable calls for it to be abolished. NDP leader Thomas Mulclair is one such individual, he has said that if elected he will consult with the Premiers to try and come to an agreement to do so, I call this simply political expediency! He knows full well that it will be almost impossible to obtain the unanimous consent of all provinces plus the majority of the House and the Senate required to abolish this institution. He also says that he has yet to meet anyone who does not support his position on this...... what bloody nonsense! I wish politicians would not lie to make their point, whilst there are no doubt many folks that subscribe to his point of view on this some of us look at it in a somewhat more practical way and want major reform, clearly defined rules, and a non partisan way of selecting senators.


My own particular opposition to the elimination of the senate stems a great deal from the Harper Regime's actions regarding legislation since they have had a majority, whilst we know that they have a majority in both the House and the Senate and thus have basically forced bills through with little debate and no regard for the many thoughtful amendments put forward in both houses the senate has at least added to the discussion and given a little time for “second thought”. Imagine if there were no Senate and a majority government (of any stripe), what then would be the restraint upon an ideological government such as the one we have now from ramming through self serving or clearly anti-Canadian or pro foreign corporation legislation without restriction. It would bring us even closer to a dictatorship than we are now!


Although now that the brown stuff has hit the fan Harper insists that “As you know, the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses. The Senate itself commissioned the Auditor-Generals’ report and the Senate itself is responsible for responding to that report,” we know that currently that is not the case and it is for the most part a highly partisan body not known in recent years for its independent thinking.


YES, the chamber needs reform, the way of selecting members needs to be changed (Harpers choices have clearly demonstrated that) but in my view we DO need a chamber of “sober second thought”, it just that right now we have a chamber of partisan appointees some of whom have no regard for either the taxpayer or the need for the independence of the senate. I have said before on these pages that the best solution (without reopening the can of worms that opening the constitution would involve) is to have the PM voluntarily select Senators from a short list provided by the provinces, it seems that Brian Mulroney agrees with me (or I agree with him, that would be a first!). I all so happen to agree with him that some kind of independent panel / commission needs to review and establish some set rules for the way the Senate operates. As with the Liberal proposal to “create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments” the problem will be of course who appoints the panel and will Parliament and the Senate adopt any rules proposed?


One final word on this, if we were to do away with any government institution that broke the rules, whose members spent public moneys with little or no oversight and who set their own rules as and when they thought fit, then the PMO, the House of Commons and the Conservative caucus in particular would be high on my list. Last year, when Green Party Leader Elizabeth May proposed the AG come look at MPs’ books, Tory MPs vetoed her request however now all parties say they are open to the idea but have yet to actually request said audit!


Its not the Senate (or the House of Commons) thats the problem, its those self righteous appointees that are in it who have no moral compass and who do not understand the word ethical!
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

Harper History, Part 5A - Information witheld , Omnibus Budget

Mar 2010 – June 2010


If the period before the second prorogation of Parliament was deemed “dysfunctional” the period from when parliament returned in March and the following 12 months till the 2011 election should be classed as totally without any redeeming features. It includes an ongoing and never-ending series of efforts by the Harper regime to control or suppress information about or from government departments, the g20 spending fiasco, the 2010 800+ page omnibus budget that amongst other things killed many environmental protection regulations, and doing away with reliable census returns. The liberals in opposition did little to oppose such legislation for fear of bringing about an early election, some say due to almost one third of their caucus being up for pensions if hung in till the end of the year.
I hope readers will forgive me for linking to many of my previous posts for this period where many links to further information is available, the volume of hits against parliamentary democracy during this period is almost overwhelming!


Parliament returned from 2 month long prorogation on 3 mar 2010


March 2010 - Canada's new Access to Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is investigating allegations of systemic violations of Access to Information laws by federal Conservatives with staffers aledging that during morning conferances the PMO's issues management wing would routinely give "verbal directions on slowing down, delaying, stopping ATIPs altogether or 'transferring' ATIPs to the centre." Staffers who questioned or resisted orders to interfere with the ATI system, the staffer said, faced verbal abuse and thinly veiled threats against themselves and their ministers, the source recounted.
In his year end report before he resigned former ATA commissioner Mr Marleau said about the failure to update the ATI system-
"How much longer will Parliament stand by and tolerate this pervasive neglect and the attrition of a fundamental democratic right? “


Despite it being on of the major items of conflict in the 2008 parliamentary session no sooner than parliament had returned when PMO press secretary Dimitri Soudas confirmed that eliminating the subsidy, the $1.75 which political parties receive for each vote they garner during federal elections, would be part of the Conservatives' next election campaign platform.


In April - Interim information commissioner Suzanne Legault urged government agencies to take "immediate steps" to curb the persistent foot-dragging she detailed Tuesday in a special report to Parliament regarding Access to Information requests.
“Federal delays in answering queries from the public are getting worse and threaten to scuttle the right to know” she said.

On April 27^th Regarding the ongoing stonewalling by the Harper regime to provide documents about Afghan prisoners to parliament Speaker Milliken ruled that:-
“…accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts.” and that “The insinuation that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials “
Further that “in a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the house of commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and, in fact, an obligation.”


For further information on this item please see Democracy Returns?


On March 4, 2010 Harper tabled his omnibus budget bill, a behemoth 880 page document covering hundreds of non budgetary items. Under the urging of the Harper Regime parliamentarians not only failed to split the non budgetary items off but spent an average of less than 30 seconds per clause in “debating” the merits of this legislation. Some of the incidental aspects of the bill eviscerated the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
In 1994 Harper argued in referring to the Liberal 21 page budget that “the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.” Yet in 2010 his budget ran to an unprecedented 880 pages long and contained 2,200 sections. All efforts to split non budgetary items from this bill were rejected.

By May It was getting increasingly difficult to get any information out of the 'government' and David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen found this Harper quote from 5 years earlier:-
“Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions, and incompetent and corrupt governance can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.” He goes on to say that if Harper truly believes that then we can only assume that his aim is to create an “incompetent or corrupt government” and ensure that “parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions” for getting information from the Harper Regime is a bloody ordeal! This sums up the general feeling of many of us at the time.

In June Having just reached an agreement to work together behind closed doors in deciding what secret information related to Canada’s treatment of Afghan detainees can be released to the public the Conservative cabinet decided to ban its political staffers from appearing as witnesses before committees. This once again set of further acrimony between the government and the opposition and further blocked the committees efforts to investigate the allegations.

Finally on 22 June 2011 almost a year after the special committee was formed and over 2 years since the issue first came to light approximately 4,000 documents were released by the government however an estimated 36,000 pages still were not released in a less-redacted form.
The 'games' continued through June with “Two government officials playing cat-and-mouse with a Commons committee bailiff trying to serve them a summons. MPs at the ethics committee are hearing how Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications, and another political aide, did not return repeated calls from the bailiff over two days. The bailiff also told the committee clerk that he had shown up at their government offices, but was barred entry and could not deliver the summons.”
For more on this please see Delay, Obstruct & Spin and More Contempt

Due to the amount of Contempt for Democracy to be detailed during this period covering the last half of this Harper minority government it has been split into two sections. The second half covering the G20 fiasco, the killing of the climate bill and the lead up to the election will be published in the near future.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Sorry, Your Partisan Slip is Showing

We know that the House public safety committee has been 'studying' the government's anti-terror bill and that despite the long list of influential and knowledgeable people wishing to speak to the dangers of this bill to our freedoms and privacy the list of those permitted to participate was severely restricted. We also know that throughout the process the Conservative members routinely defended the bill as written and showed no interest in amendments proposed by various presenters. They even deliberately blocked the Leader of the Green Party, who later was permitted to present but not speak to, multiple amendments from presenting her views on the bill.

While Ms. May was a regular attendee of committee hearings during its study of Bill C-51, Conservative MPs blocked her every attempt to ask a single question. Although any MP has a right to sit at committee, participation is at the discretion of the Chair. During these hearings, the Chair chose to put Ms. May’s requests to the floor for unanimous consent, which was summarily denied by her Conservative colleagues.
The process by which Green MPs submit amendments to committee is one created by PMO to deprive Green MPs from‎ presenting amendments to the House of Commons at Report Stage. Ms. May used this right effectively in opposing Bill C-38 in spring 2012. Since the fall of 2013, due to identical motions passed by Conservatives in every committee, Green amendments are deemed to have been moved at committee. Ms. May and Mr. Hyer will be given time to present each amendment but are not allowed to vote.

However now with intense pressure from both the public, forem Supreme Court Judges, Academic and even former Prime Ministers and word coming down from above it seems it is suddenly OK to make some of the changes proposed by those that did get to speak.

At no point during the 18 or so hours of testimony on the bill did even one of them publicly voice concerns over any of the provisions that they will now propose be tweaked in response to witness concerns.
In fact, in at least one case — removing the word "lawful" — multiple witnesses, including those who were largely supportive of the bill, had recommended exactly such a change.
Several of those witnesses pointed out that, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Liberal government of the day had initially included a similar provision in its anti-terror package, but struck it from the text after the expert witnesses of the day expressed concerns over potential overreach...............
Witnesses who raised red flags over the implications for privacy — another criticism expected to be addressed via amendment today — were greeted with similar skepticism.
Indeed, the federal privacy commissioner didn't even make the witness list.
The Tory committee members had been unwavering in their confidence that not even a comma in the bill needed changing.

But now it seems that having been 'approved' from above a few minor changes are now to be included. How many of the dozens of other amendments proposed by non Conservative MPs will be even considered let alone adopted at the senate hearings (having been rejected in committee) remains to be seen but one thing is for sure unless approved from above it simply wont happen.

At the moment, it's not clear whether the Conservative contingent will also be advised to throw their majority support behind additional, opposition-backed amendments or vote to reject certain clauses entirely, which would also result in changes being made to the bill.
A similar parliamentary plot twist occurred last spring, when after weeks of doggedly defending every aspect of Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre's controversial bid to revamp Canada's election laws, Conservative committee members found themselves introducing amendments to address precisely the concerns they had dismissed as unfounded.
One must ask the question do ANY of these Conservative MPs have a functioning brain or are they just a satellite mouthpiece of the PMO?

The biggest threat to Canadians and Canadian Democracy is not “terrorists” but Stephen Harper and his Conservative Regimes unthinking support of his desire for absolute unlimited power and control.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Harper History, Part 4 - Con Minority, Prorogued x2

Oct 2008 – Dec 2009,


With conservatives reelected with an increased minority we begin to see their true colours with increased self promotion on taxpayers money using 10%ers, the start of those iniquitous Economic Action Plan TV ads and clear disdain for parliamentary procedure. It becomes increasing difficult to obtain information from them be it by the press whose questions are carefully screened or by parliamentarians be it in the House or in committee. Any semblance of listening to alternative ideas and considering amendments to legislation is rapidly falling by the wayside.


The Conservatives were reelected Oct 14 2008 with an increased minority having spent the inherited surplus of 13.8 Billion and well on the way to the 2008 5.8 Billion deficit.


Oct. 10, 2008: In a prediction that would soon come back to haunt him, Harper says: "This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries." The country promptly plunged into recession.
Nov 2008, With the Conservatives fiscal update being strongly criticized over various contentions issues including ending the per vote subsidy and other election rule changes and with 5 years of surplus forecast despite strong signs of a recession already visible the opposition parties all threatened to vote against the measures.


Early in December the Liberals and NDP signed an agreement with the support of the Bloc on proposed coalition government to replace the governing Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper. A non confidence vote was scheduled and Harper promptly prorogued (suspended) Parliament until the end of January thus killing both the vote and the proposed controversial legislation. It would be later be reintroduced but with some of the more odious proposals removed.


In January 2009, the Government of Canada launched its much flaunted but poorly implemented Economic Action Plan , those receiving funds for projects were required to erect huge signs recognizing the 'governments' contribution to the project. The Harper regime also spent millions upon a series of advertisements touting their 'plan', a series which continued for many years past the scheduled end of the program in 2011.


In February 2009 John Baird surprised the CBC's Don Newman in the lobby of parliament by telling him that "we intend to go over the heads of the House of Commons and the Governor-General." When challenged, Mr Baird elaborated: The Conservative government gains its mandate directly from the people of Canada. Only elections count. This attitude that parliament is irrelevant continued throughout the Harper Regimes rule and is strongly evident in all their actions in The House.
With regard to the the Throne speech, he said "We're going to ask Parliament for a mandate. Once we have that mandate, we're going to consider that basically gives us the right to consider those matters confidence going forward and to get results and get things done."
Harper had signalled for some time that he has little interest in the usual process by which minorities run. Parliamentary committee work met with obstruction by conservative members. A number of key pieces of legislation that were shaped and moderated by committees died on the order paper when Harper prorogued Parliament.
The amount of public money spent on telling Canadians that 'we have a plan, we have a plan' continued to rise with $34 million budgeted for just the first quarter of 2009 slated for advertising associated with the “Economic Action Plan”, over half of their already inflated self serving Ad expenditure.
Also in February with the above in mind Democracy Under Fire was started with the first few months dedicated to fully understanding how parliament was MEANT to work. By the fall it was evident that the Harper Regime had no regard for Parliamentary Conventions and along with many other progressive bloggers I began detailing the specific wrongdoing by Harper and his inner circle.
In May Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government again received the Canadian Association of Journalists’ Code of Silence Award for “muzzling civil servants and cabinet ministers, blackballing reporters who pose tough questions and building a huge spin machine designed to staunch the flow of information.” and for “excluding [the press] from events they used to cover.”


In June Information Commissioner Robert Marleau abruptly resigned for "entirely personal and private" reasons, raising doubts about the pace and direction of reforms to Canada's access to information laws that he was spearheading. In his resignation letter he said “The President of the Treasury Board, as the designated minister under the Act, must provide the political leadership to change a transparency adverse culture.”


Throughout 2008 – 2009 the Conservatives increasingly abused the parliamentary mailing / printing privileges by exceeding the volume of 'free' mail outs permuted to individual MPs and by including partisan material in said mail outs. The 'printing' costs by Con MPs was more that double that of the other MPs.


In August it was reported that a Conservative cabinet minister says most of the folks in his party "can't wait" to put a choker on the parliamentary budget office and its dogged bloodhound, Kevin Page. The only thing yet to be decided, the minister says, is whether to eliminate the office, or put Page on a short enough regulatory leash to render him harmless. "The guy has become just a complete pain in the ass," the minister said. "We can't put up with that anymore."
In other words, Page has been doing his job far too well.


In Oct 2009 The new Parliamentary Budget Officer says in trying to see if the “action Plan” is working “Many missing data correspond to implementation and outcome indicators that the GC collects as part of its standard due diligence process and should be readily available. Failing to include these data could hinder Parliament’s ability to provide meaningful oversight of the economic stimulus package.”
It was to become standard practice for information necessary for the PBO to produce accurate estimates to be withheld or delayed thus denying MPs accurate information upon which to base their decisions regarding the country’s finances upon. Whilst the government maintained that 90% of the funds had been “allocated” it appeared that only slightly more than 10% had actually flowed throughout the summer.


In November allegations of the abuse of Afghan detainees surfaced and the opposition began to ask for documents regarding this but were stonewalled by the government as being too sensitive for parliamentarians to see them.


On 8 December 2009, General Walter Natynczyk testified before a parliamentary committee regarding the abuse of Afghan detainees contrary to the governments claims. Two days later the House of Commons passed a motion requiring the release of unredacted documents concerning the Afghan detainees to the special committee hearing the issue. However, the government refused to abide by the motion.


On 30 December 2009, Parliament was put on hold, or 'prorogued' at the request of Prime Minister Harper. According to his spokesman, he sought this prorogation to consult with Canadians about the economy however it was generally agreed that the suspension was to avoid further questions on the Afghan affair..


Next up 880 page Omnibus Budget, withholding information.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Cons V The Courts!

Andrew Coyne wonders if the Harper Regiem is deliberately challenging the Courts with their various 'unconstitutional' pieces of legislation in order to get them to overstep their bounds and make a federal “not withstanding” exception to our charter more acceptable.


Not only is the government making no apparent effort to “Charter-proof” legislation, that is by seeking the advice of Justice department lawyers on its constitutionality in advance of its introduction, as it is required by law to do, it seems if anything to be taking advice on how to offend it.
It is impossible to read the several dubious provisions of Bill C-51, the Conservatives’ anti-terrorism legislation — allowing the police to detain people on suspicion an act of terrorism “may” be about to occur; permitting intelligence officers to break the law, bizarrely, with the permission of a judge; banning the promotion of terrorism “in general” — in anything but this light.
Certainly the manner in which they proceed in parliament seems to indicate that they have no tolerance for anyone who questions their judgement and a clear disdain for any process or restriction upon their proposed new laws.


It is no secret that many Conservatives have long chafed at the notion that acts of Parliament should be subject to constitutional override. It wasn’t the Court’s judgment they questioned — it was the whole concept of judicial review. For these Conservatives, the remedy, short of abolishing the Charter, has always been the notwithstanding clause: Section 33, allowing governments to pass legislation in defiance of the Charter, provided they declare openly they are doing so, and with the stipulation that the legislation must be renewed every five years to remain in effect.


As Andrew says, once the precedence has been set then they will have no compunction with using such means to get their own way again, as has been shown time and time again over the last few years. It is this slow nibbling away at our democratic processes that has let them gradually destroy the check and balances upon power to the point where we teeter on the edge of a dictatorship.


The stated ambition of many judicial conservatives, then, such as the panel of legal scholars that appeared at last week’s Manning Conference, has been to revive it: not merely to invoke the clause in this or that case, but as often as possible, and thus to re-establish the primacy of Parliament, as they see it, over the Charter, and the Court.
I do not think it is too far-fetched to suppose that that is the Harper government’s objective. They will pick their opportunity carefully. They will not do so, I do not think, over the assisted suicide decision, where they are on the wrong side of public opinion. But on something unassailably popular, like a crime bill, or an “Anti-Terrorism Act”? And once they’ve broken the taboo, it is not hard to see them doing it again, and again, until the point has been made.
Given the past behaviour of this regime it is not much of a stretch to believe that they would consider such a move to circumnavigate our existing laws, the courts and our constitution.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

In Government We Trust?

As I review the actions of the Harper Regime since coming to power for my Harper History Series, an undertaking that one must take in very small bites if one is to retain one composure and sanity, I have been thinking a great deal about the choices before us and why we support one lot over the others.

Whilst a great deal may rest upon what each individual or party says they are going to do or has done I am coming to the conclusion that TRUST may well be an increasing part of the reason to vote for one or the other, and mistrust of them all a big part of why an increasing number of folks simply do not bother with it all!

Can we TRUST any of them to actually do what they say they will? Clearly we cannot much of the time, the current lot in particular is adept at telling us they are doing one thing and actual doing the exact oppose. They tell us, and their colleagues, that a piece of legislation will make our elections fairer with better oversight for instance when in fact it it does neither of those things. All to often those promised things that they can do without legislative changes are put off for years, even till after the next election when they may not even be in a position to do it. Unless such things increase their control or decrease access to information of course!

Can we TRUST an individual or party when they say “If you vote for us we will.....” . NO, for one thing this kind of statement is completely false as it relates to proposed legislation as such changes must be put before parliament and only if passed will become fact. Of course if, as is the current case, you have a majority in both the House and the Senate and are prepared to ignore any opposition, cut off debate, and force your MPs to vote as you dictate then perhaps you can say this. But see the previous item on that score!

Can we TRUST any of them to tell the truth when they are caught bending the rules, caught with their hands in the public purse, lieing about their involvement in election fraud or any number of thing that may reflect badly on them. Obviously NO. Our present PM in particular, who is clearly the most controlling PM in our history with a office full of hit men who do nothing without his say so, suddenly turns into Sgt 'I no nothing' Shultz when such things surface.

Can we TRUST them to follow the rules and respect parliamentary conventions. Depends upon if its politically expedient to do so, clearly the current regime has NO compunction in ignoring such things when it suits them, but rigidly enforces them when the opposition crosses the line.

Can we TRUST them to work cooperatively for the betterment of Canada. Clearly NOT, work for the betterment of themselves and their corporate friends, yes. Keep their seat warm until their gold plated pension kicks in, you bet.

Can we TRUST them to negotiate trade deals with foreign nations that do not severely restrict municipalities and government ability to choose to use local goods and services and to ban substances and practices we deem harmful. Too late, its already a done deal with China and others and is in the works with Europe.

Can we TRUST them to allow those whom we elect at a local level, who may be that rare animal 'an honest and ethical MP' to speak his or her mind and express the needs and wants of his constituents when it does not match the policies of the party with which he is a member of. NO, they will be tossed from the caucus if they dare to openly criticize a policy or vote against a piece of key legislation. With a few notable exceptions NOT a chance.

Non of the preceding means that there are not many trustworthy MPs but how many of them can we TRUST to not just spout the talking points fed to them by the party hierarchy when speaking publicly or to their constituents.
In short it is the lack of TRUST that leaves us all wondering who the hell we are going to vote for in order to rid ourselves of the most lieing, cheating, unethical, anti democratic, dictatorial regime in Canadian history. For me in this riding, where the majority of folks have blindly voted conservative for years, the choice is between the up and coming Greens who have little chance of securing this seat and one of the other opposition candidates who have a greater, but still low, chance of toppling the existing Con MP.

I TRUST that the choice will become clearer as we get closer to the election, but I doubt it!





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

“Nature Deficit Disorder”

At first glance this would seem to have little to do with our central theme here at Democracy Under Fire but when we look at the actions of the Harper Regime in creating legislation to cover protection of The Rouge Valley Park should it be transferred from the Province to Parks Canada then the link becomes clear.


The Rouge Park, a 40-square-kilometre swath of forested valleys and farmland at the eastern ends of Scarborough and Markham. The proposal is for the province to transfer ownership of it to the federal government so it can add another 10 square kilometres, linking it to the Oak Ridges Moraine and creating Canada’s first national, urban park.


The province created Rouge Park in 1990 and has established a suite of management plans and guidelines for permitted activities and development. In agreeing in prinicipal to transfer ownership to the Feds it stipulated that Parks Canada would have to “meet or exceed” the ecological protection currently in place.

Bill C-40, the classification’s new legislation, says only that management must “take into consideration the protection of [the park’s] natural ecosystems.”

And our federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq says that prioritizing ecological integrity is “simply unachievable in an urban setting,” arguing it would lead to the eviction of farmers. Conservative MP Peter Kent told Parliament that prioritizing ecological integrity would mean letting wildfires, pest outbreaks and erosion proceed unchecked. This despite the fact that such protections are already in place, and have been for some time, under provincial management.


Now we come to the antidemocratic bit ..........

On Nov. 5, the Conservative MPs on the environment and sustainable development committee voted down all 18 amendments the opposition had proposed.


Environment and Sustainable Development Committee eh, perhaps it should be renamed the Destruction of Parks Protections Committee?
We have seen this time and time again where various committees dominated by Conservative MPs have voted down EVERY proposed amendment aimed at improving a bill or seeking to find some consensus on the legislation. I find it hard to believe that all of the amendments proposed for this bill are without merit to the point where they would not be considered. It is simply yet another example of the “we are right, you are wrong” mentality of the Harper Regime whereby nothing anyone outside of the PMO says is even considered.


Ontario Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid is holding firm. “Ecological integrity is crucial. Our concern is how these lands are passed on to future generations. I can’t, in good faith, recommend a transfer until they address the concerns ignored at the parliamentary committee.”


Some observers use the term “nature deficit disorder” to describe a growing affliction among urban kids. Mr. Robb (The manager of Friends of the Rouge Watershed ) says in the 25-plus years he’s been introducing people to the Rouge Valley he’s witnessed a growing disassociation between kids and the outdoor world. The Rouge, he says, is perfectly placed to help bridge that gap. “Kids can get here on public transit,” he says. “And when they do, we can show them a good-news story about healing and setting the balance back right.”

It would seems to me that not only do the Cons have Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD) but also Democracy Deficit Disorder (DDD)

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Singing Dictator

A guest post by Pamela Mac Neil

"Music is always a commentary on society" Frank Zappa

Whenever I hear that Harpers base is made up of primarily seniors I am a bit perplexed. Not that I don't think it's true, because it is. Boomers of which I am one are now seniors, so when I think of older people or seniors, I think of the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Randy Bachman , Leonard Cohen, Dylan or Van Morrison to name a few. It is musical artists that come to my mind not just because I love their music, but because almost everything that we thought, idealized, loved, valued, hated or wanted changed as a generation, was written into the music, in fact it was the music. If the generation that created and listened to this music are now members of The Conservative Party under the rule of Stephen Harper and his regime, then B.B. King can't sing the blues. Two of the most important issues, anti-war and freedom that Harper and his government now violate are issues that boomers valued starting with their stand against war.

In the 60's Lester Pearson told President Johnson that Canada would not be supporting the US's war in Vietnam. Pearsons successor as everyone knows was Pierre Trudeau, who then opened Canada's doors to young Americans who did not want to fight in Vietnam. There were tens of thousands of them that came. Trudeau said " Canada should be a refuge from militarism." My how times have changed. Harper who supported the Iraq war and has committed us in joining with other nato allies to the air bombing of Iraq, will see to it that soldiers of conscience from the U.S. will not be able to seek sanctuary in Canada as they have been labeled "Criminally Inadmissable." Not one of the 30 to 50 war resisters who were already here and had applied for refugee status has received permanent residency in Canada. Most are in the process of or have already been deported back to the States. This is in spite of the fact that the majority of Canadians think we should allow war resisters including from the Iraq war into Canada, but when has the Harper regime ever done what the majority of Canadians want. This stand against war was reflected in songs like Dylans "Masters of War", John Lennon's " give peace a chance", Richie Havens "Handsome Johnny" , Steppenwolf "Draft Resister", Creedance Clearwater Revival "Fortunate Son" and Country Joe and the Fish "I'm- Fixin- to- Die- Rag." to name just a few of many, many, anti-war songs. It wasn't about just being against war but it was the expression of hope of a future without war.


Harper and his Regimes violation of our rights and freedoms is done through suppression, control and legislation. His definition of freedom of speech is " Freedom of Speech When I like what you Say." Scientists cannot speak freely, MP's from his cabinet and caucus cannot speak freely and pretty well anyone from his government cannot speak freely. Harper and his cronies do not always have an easy time of it though, trying to dismantle our democracy, because previous governments have created some strong infrastructures in support of freedom. Infrastuctures that were created by governments that believed in nation building. One of the most important infrastructures of course is The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This originated from the mind of a man Pierre Trudeau, who thought throughout his life about justice and about how to create "The Just Society." All of Harpers legislation that has been struck down, simply because The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has judged this legislation to be unconstitutional. The Act and the man who thought of it Pierre Trudeau, both of whom Harper has an almost pathological hatred for has stopped him from carrying out his legislative authoritarian agenda. There are many ways however where he has been able to suppress freedoms or remove rights. Ways like setting up bipartisan commitees in almost all areas of government. Committees that should be discussing and evaluating the importance of motions, programs or policy pretty well just rubber stamp whatever is on their agenda that day.

No process. Dictators and their minions don't like process, especially judicial process. So much for freedom. There is nothing more important than freedom though. I knew that at a young age and I think many people from my generation knew it. When the concept of freedom is put to music it can give a voice to a movement. There is a reason why under Stalin, in the former Soviet Union, Russians were not allowed to listen to Jazz. It wasn't because of the race card either, it was because it made people feel alive. Songs of the 60's and 70's, with the message of freedom, had an impact on society and some of them broke new ground musically. Songs like "A change is Gonna Come" by Sam Cooke, "Turn,Turn,Turn" by The Byrds, "One day we'll all be Free" by Donny Hathaway , "People Got to be Free" by The Rascals to name just a few songs that touched millions. These words of Phil Ochs are still true. "One good song with a message can bring a point more deeply, to more people, than a thousand rallies. I grew up in a culture that placed freedom at a high value.


I've given some thought to who those seniors that make up Harpers base are. Because I cannot take them serious politically, I think most, but not all are evangelical christians like Harper. That I think is the connection they have with him. Even though many of them are probably from the boomer generation, the music of their own generation, for the most part does not seem to have touched them. I don't think you're going to find any of them, as an example, listening to The Rolling Stones song "Sympathy For The Devil", or "The Future" by Leonard Cohen.Their dear leader though does seem to favor songs from that era particularly The Beatles. Like his inability to read how his behaviour is judged by the Canadian people, so he is not able to read how people judge his musical talent. Watching Netanyahu with his wife, both enduring forced smiles, when Harper sang and played piano at a state dinner in Jerusalem said it all to me. Harper sang before a room of people whose jewish compatriots contribution to music is nothing short of epic. Whether composers like Strauss, Mendelssohn, Mahler, Gerswin, Bernstein and copland, or Classical musicians like Andre' Previn, Itzhak Perlman and Isaac Stern including the more contempory artists like Carole King, bob Dylan, Mark Knoffler Don Fagen, Barbra Streisand, Neil Diamond, Simon and Garfunkel, Leonard Cohen and Billy Joel are but a few names in a list that could fill several pages. Singing and playing the piano at a family or friends wedding is one thing. Singing off key, while plunking on a piano at a state dinner when you're the PM of Canada is another thing. Unlike his tyrannical control of the message that he wants Canadians to hear or to not hear, his audience listening to him sing and play the piano cannot be controlled. This is Harper at his freest, displaying his questionable talent. Those who don't know him may think him quite brave considering he has minimal talent. For those who do know him it's just another example of him being completely out of touch. Seeing that he likes The Beatles so much he should read the lyrics to their song "The Fool On The Hill", because it's an apt description of himself , but as someone said of him, "he is a man to whom words don't mean much."

Pamela Mac Neil's main interest is studying how  ideas from philosophy and history shape politics.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers