Entrapment

Chief Bill Blair, speaking of the Queen and Spadina incident, is reported to have said "police asked people in the area to leave the area three times."

(Original photo by Jonas Naimark.)

How were people to leave? Your forces had them boxed in, deliberately, a situation which was repeated several times throughout the summit.

The ISU must have ordered the arrest of anyone who was on the streets, that alone being a 'breach of the peace'. Your forces herded people together to make arrests easier for themselves.

Recommend this post

If you heighten 'security', deny citizens their rights

... the citizens will gather and they will challenge you.

Stephen Harper, you got things backwards; just like your buddies, who hold aggression to be the only road to peace.

You build bombs and bombs will fall. You build walls and people will tear them down. You turn Toronto into an armed camp and people will become fearful.

The mere presence of 20,000 armed personnel was the primary act of intimidation. YOUR decision, Harper, to have such a huge security presence, is the chief cause of the violence that was Toronto this weekend. YOU were the primary agent provacateur.

Recommend this post

Fairness in Representation vs. Ideological Identity

I happened upon this news story today, about (now) former Liberal Hec Cloutier planning to run as an independent in the next federal election.

"I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: 'Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you're the only one who can win the seat back for us.' I said I will consider running, but 'I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents'," Clouthier recalled.

"He said: 'I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.' I said: 'No, I've been there, done that.' I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again."

I tweeted the link to the article, adding the comment "Canadians need more politicians like this."

I got a common reply, of the type: 'S/he supports (or is against), or would vote in favour of _____.' (Fill in the blank, e.g.: the gun registry, abortion, censorship, strict environmental laws, Canada's military presence in Afghanistan....

The underlying message of such comments? That anyone who supports _____ or, regardless of personal conviction, would vote in support of _____, is ipso facto a poor candidate for political office; this, despite the majority of constituents in the riding being in support of _____.

Which brings one to a dilemma. In some cases*, fairness in representation aligns well with ideological identity. That is, the Member of Parliament or provincial representative and the political party of which s/he is a member represent the majority view of constituents in that riding.

But what of cases when they don't? What should a politician do? Represent the wishes of the majority of constituents, even if the representative or his/her party may disagree? - and even if the majority outside the riding may disagree? Or should the representative of the people of that riding vote the (national, provincial) party line?

See, to me, it's no dilemma at all. In a properly-functioning democracy, politicians represent the people. (Nothing in the Canadian Constitution says that political parties have a right to representation!)

If the wishes of the majority in a riding run counter to the wishes of others in the riding, then it's up to the dissenting minority, most particularly in the riding, to work to persuade the others. If the dissenters want to enlist outside help, that's fine, as can the opposing side. At least the two sides are listening and talking to one another, which so often doesn't happen now.

That's what democracy is about. It's messy and sometimes inconvenient.

In a properly functioning democracy, we shouldn't be running roughshod over other people's views. Most particularly, we shouldn't permit unfair political representation of the people just because the people in question hold views contrary to ours.

* I write in some cases because our antiquated voting system and the unwillingness of 'the people's representatives' to cooperate ensure that the majority views of Canadians remain, in fact, unrepresented in our houses of government.

Recommend this post

If the Liberal Party Aims to be Rid of the Elitist Label

... then it had better rethink postures like this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snubbing opposition parties by ending a long established practice of inviting foreign heads of state to meet with them.

No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has met with U.S. President Barack Obama and he also met Mexican President Felipe Calderon in May.

“It seems totally normal to me that the leader of the official opposition would have meetings, and the leaders of the third and fourth parties would not,” Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron said.

Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.

If the label fits, wear it: elitist.

Recommend this post

G8 'Signature Environmental Project' Dims

Fifteen solar lamps - at a cost of $207,900 - were supposed to light the way for G8 participants. HarperCo didn't grant the contract for this "signature environmental project" until May 25th. The company charged with supplying the lamps can only provide five lamps within the allotted time. The problem is partly due to the rocky terrain - otherwise known as The Canadian Shield.

Steve Rennie, of The Canadian Press, notes that "the same money could buy almost 14,000 solar-powered Noma garden lights at Canadian Tire. Those lights cost $15 each."

Recommend this post

Alert for USians Living In or Travelling to TO

Yup. Despite one billion loonies spent by HarperCo on security for the coming G20 summit, Washington has deemed it necessary to issue a travel alert. USians who live in or intend to travel to Toronto between now and June 28th are advised to "avoid protests" and avoid downtown TO altogether.

Recommend this post

Afghan Document Deal No Deal for Canadians

Ralph Goodale has just said in the House of Commons that the success of the agreement will depend on the "honest behaviour" of all parties involved and he vowed that the Liberals "will continue to be alert and vigilant in the process."

Bwahahahaha...

According to Goodale, "all relevant and necessary information will be available."

Relevant and necessary, as determined by whom?

That would be jurists, not Members of Parliament who are the people's representatives. Jurists will review all material - minus legal documents and cabinet records which are to be automatically excluded from the get-go - before ever an MP's eyes should fall upon it.

This sham of a deal, which has enough holes to sink a ship and leaves Harper enough wiggle room for further circumventing parliamentary privilege, was predictable. As was the Liberal-Conservative dance to avoid an election.

Not predictable and disappointing to me was the assent of the Bloc.

The NDP, which has refused to sign on to the deal, has been much more forceful of late. I'm impressed and likin' it.

Recommend this post

Post-9/11 Security Hysteria Similar to Nuclear Arms Race

Post-9/11 security hysteria - which is costing Canada $1.2 billion and counting for a single shindig - reminds me of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. It's the philosophy of security or nuclear weapons hypothetically being deterrents for terra-ism or war.

However, so much security creates an atmosphere of fear; and anger at freedoms curtailed. And when people feel fear and are incensed by the injustice imposed by the State, terra-ism and war become more, not less, likely.

Recommend this post

He Talketh Out of Both Sides of Mouth

Liberal MP Joe Volpe tweets: "I stand with Israel. Critics would be wise to reserve judgment until all the facts are clear."

Clearly, Volpe considers his own advice to be valueless.

Recommend this post

Edmonton Sun Favours Electoral Reform

"The single-member plurality system, which allows a candidate to win without a majority of electoral support, has several other natural consequences: it leads to long periods of governance without effective opposition, as opposing parties typically receive far fewer seats than their vote count should represent. It also leads to an erosion of checks and balances over power. And it leads to public disenchantment with the consequences of under-representation, which in turn leads to not only less voter involvement, but less candidate/platform promotion, as well.

"...until abolished for political gain in 1956 by the Social Credit Party, Alberta had effective alternate voting systems that were, by Canadian standards, revolutionary. Those included single transferable votes, which let voters in Edmonton and Calgary pick MLAs based on an order of preference, with the remaining percentage of votes over what was required to win transferable to another supported candidate. Ironically, the single transferable vote system is now among more popular modern proposals to amend western democratic systems."

Hear that BC?

Our 160-member Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform got it right. After almost a year studying the various options, including our current first-past-the-post (single member plurality) system, it determined that proportional representation would best address the needs presented to it in thousands of submissions from British Columbians.

Then, after evaluating various proportional representation systems, the members of the Citizens Assembly determined that the Single Transferable Vote delivered the optimum benefit and fairness to voters - which was precisely what the majority of presenters, those not speaking on behalf of political parties, had asked for.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Majority Governments

Lorne Gunter writes in the Edmonton Sun today in general support of a Liberal-NDP coalition - provided the Bloc "doesn't hold the hammer."

I wish journalists and others would stop denigrating the Bloc. In doing so, they denigrate the people who vote for it. But that's not the point of this post. It's this:

What I would object to, strenuously, would be proportional representation foisted on the nation by such a coalition.

That would cement coalition in our future almost forever.... [M]ajority governments would be rare and coalition governments are compromise governments.

Oh, dear! To have coalition, compromise, the representation in government - not perpetually in opposition - of the majority of voters!

Get with the lingo: majority government should NOT be defined as 'government comprised of members of a single party' but 'government comprised of members that represent the majority of voters'.

Governments - minority or majority - should never be defined in terms of how many political parties they represent. To hell with parties! What about voters?!

Recommend this post

Anti-HST Petition a Sign of New Populism in BC?

[Updated]

I've written before that I support the HST, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I didn't sign the anti-HST petition.

I do NOT and have never supported the machinations by the BC Liberals to ram the HST down British Columbians' throats without ever uttering a word about it during the May 2009 election.

I've also written, extensively, about my support for democratic reform.

I am therefore heartened by the strength of the (pseudo*) populist anti-HST campaign, which has already reached the required number of signatures weeks ahead of the deadline. And I'm especially excited about this: if the conclusion is unsatisfactory (nothing binds the Liberal government to honour a referendum outcome or to introduce a bill to undo the HST), then the petitioners will begin the recall process for Liberal MLAs, one riding at a time.

I hope this augers well for future heightened voter attention to the goings-on in Victoria. It's long past time politicians thought twice about getting voters angry.

*The anti-HST petition received a lot of help from well-pocketed individuals and groups who've certain vested political interests.

ETA: If my MLA was a Liberal and despite my supporting the HST, I would sign a recall petition. Lying during an election and bringing in a policy scant weeks later - one known to press voter buttons and one that Campbell & Co. assured everyone wasn't even on the party's radar - deserves no less than firing the lot of them.

Recommend this post

Stephen Harper Does a Mr. Dithers

According to Dimitri Soudas - now banned (as are all political staffers) by HarperCo from appearing before parliamentary committees -, one Stephen Harper has done a Mr. Dithers.

No, Soudas didn't put it quite that way. He put it this way:

"The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions [between the board of internal economy and the AG re MP expenses] continue. He's also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency."

How it must hurt Harper to have mocked Iggy's backtracking - only to turn around and do it himself!

Meanwhile, Jack Layton, who heads the most progressive (?) of Canada's national parties, still cleaves to BOIE's original decision not to allow the AG to do an audit, period.

For those who like to keep score, this is how the leaders of the four parties in the House of Commons stack up on the issue:

First place, blue ribbon: Gilles Ducuppe, whose party always supported having the AG do an audit.
Second place, red ribbon: Ignatieff, who listened to his MPs and backtracked early.
Third place, white ribbon: Harper, who didn't backtrack until late in the game.
Fourth place, no ribbon: Layton, whose party continues to support the status quo.

All of which leads me to this:  

An audit by the AG is no longer good enough. Resistance by MPs has raised alarm bells. NOW I want all MPs (and senators) to post online their detailed expense reports and to back them up with links to the relevant invoices. Toronto city council is a good example of what SHOULD be done.

[H/t to @dominionpundit for reference to the TO info.]

Recommend this post

Parliamentarians Not Required to Testify at Committees

... unless required to do so by an Order of the House.

Parliamentarians cannot be compelled by committees alone, as can other witnesses. So says the esteemed Kady O'Malley in a recent Twitter conversation.

Therefore, with the Harper Government's latest salvo regarding the appearance of political staffers at parliamentary committees, Canadians face the same scenario as with the Afghan detainee documents issue:

- Committee X requires A
- HarperCo refuses A
- A member of the Opposition files a motion to compel A
- The House votes on the motion
- The motion passes
- HarperCo refuses A
- The opposition appeals to the Speaker of the House
- The Speaker takes time to consider
- The Speaker orders that HarperCo and members of the opposition negotiate a deal
- Time passes
- A deal is reached
- Committee X requires B....

Recommend this post

NOW what is our Ineffectual Opposition going to do?

The Harper Government - yes, let's call it what it is; over 60% of Canadians are unrepresented by this government - will make official on Tuesday that political staffers are now banned from testifying before parliamentary committees.

The purported reason, according to political staffer Dimitri Soudas: "Ministers are the ones who are accountable and answer to Parliament."

To Iggy & Layton, neither of whom "want an election" (the Canadians that I know DO): How are you going to work your next climb-down? Without enabling more damage to our democracy?

ETA: The manoeuvrings by Canada's political parties to avoid an election in order to ensure their own survival, actions that risk our country's democratic institutions, is why I dislike party politics and favour the Single Transferable Vote, a proportional representation electoral system. STV is not only the fairest system for voters; it also enables more independents to be elected.

Recommend this post

Federal Government Joins Online Communities

Well, sort of.

It's not like the feds have social engagement or true participation in mind. It's more infiltration.

At least that's what I glean from this: "[E]mployees in Foreign Affairs or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ... have recently been trained in online posting."

Trained?

Translation: Told what to write, based on key phrases in target comments. In other words, how to propagandize.

Recommend this post

Correction - Jean Crowder Expenses

I'd written previously that NDP MP Jean Crowder, who represents my constituency of Nanaimo-Cowichan, claimed $274,404 for 'Other' (2008-2009).

I was wrong. Crowder's expense record claims that amount under 'Staff and Other Expenses'. For Other, the record claims $16. This is better and I apologize for the error. (Reporter David Akin brought it to my attention in a tweet.)

The correction doesn't change my point, however. All MP's expenses should undergo the type of audit that Sheila Fraser does. In fact, I'd prefer that MP's detailed expenses be made public, that they be posted online somewhere.

Recommend this post

Very Impressive

This is what a coalition agreement looks like - The Coalition: Our programme for government (PDF). BBC provides the summary here.

I am particularly impressed by this, from p27 of the agreement:

"We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote."

Canadian politics and the behaviour of Canada's politicians appear so petty and small in comparison.

My thanks to Doug Saunders, European Bureau Chief of the Globe and Mail, for tweeting the above links.

ETA: Some readers appear not to have noted the point of emphasis above. I support a referendum on electoral reform whose result is based on a simple majority, not the super majorities (60 percent) that Canadian provinces have imposed. I do not support the Alternative Vote, which is another winner-take-all system, not a proportional one.

Recommend this post

Iggy Blames Opponents for Dismal Polling Numbers

Michael Ignatieff says his political foes have "done a number on me," an observation he made before seeing the latest EKOS numbers which have the Liberal Party down to 25.1 percent.

Well, the Conservatives defined Stéphane Dion before the Liberal Party got its act together too.

Who's fault, truly, was that?

Blaming one's opponents for one's own dismal showing and plummeting popularity does not demonstrate leadership.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Coalition Governments

As important as the question regarding whether the Liberal Party and NDP would consider being part of a coalition government is whether the Conservative Party would.

Why are virtually all media, journalists, other writers and democratic reformers ignoring this?

Just because Canadians won't vote in enough MPs to give a single party a majority is no reason why Canada must be stuck with perpetual minorities.

Coalition governments are majority governments.

If the Liberals and Conservatives want a majority government all they need do is be honest with Canadians and negotiate with the third- and/or fourth-place parties after an election.

Unfortunately, given the political environment Canada's party leaders have created, in collusion with most media, honesty and negotiation are unlikely democratic tools to be removed from their toolboxes. Indeed, those tools must be rusty from disuse.

Recommend this post