RODC continues to be a remarkable voice and a remarkable example of how citizens can truly organize and have a voice, and thereby overcome feelings of impotence and frustration.
Congratulations to the whole team for an outstanding demonstration of true Democracy!!!
Bob Sutton
Camlachie ON
=================================
December 4, 2013
Mr. Terence Young MP
Oakville, Ontario
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario
K1A0A6
terence.young@parl.gc.ca
Dear Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Plamondon, Ms May, and Mr. Terence Young,
Michael Chong’s Reform Act represents a rare opportunity to meaningfully improve our democracy and kickstart a conversation about the reforms we need to make our Parliament work better for all Canadians.
Terence: I call on you to carefully study Mr. Chong’s bill and work together across party lines to bring the goals of the Reform Act into law.
To the party leaders: I call on you to publicly confirm that your MPs will be able to vote freely on this important bill.
Sincerely,
Hart Jansson
hartjansson@gmail.com
L6K2Z6
=====================================
Letter to The Globe and Mail,
Re. It’s time for the Green Party to Pack it in (Dec. 3):
Lawrence Martin argues that the Green Party should cease to exist because the small number of votes it gets takes votes away from other parties that nevertheless might win a riding with the addition of those votes. He makes what I think is a wrong assumption. Most Green Party supporters are only going to vote for the Green Party. Most dislike both the Liberals and the NDP. If they don’t vote Green, they would stay home. So this is not the answer to the problems with Canada’s messed up electoral system.
I suggest that the real problem is that a party can form a big majority in the House by garnering only 39 per cent of the popular vote. The way to overcome this problem and make Parliament more democratic is to bring in some form of proportional representation. All those folks who voted Green in the last election were cheated. Under a truly democratic system, the party would have won at least a handful of seats. This is the kind of democracy Canada needs. Folding up the Greens would further limit the number of points of view on the House of Commons.
Nick Fillmore
Freelance Journalist/Social Activist
====================================
Letter to the Editor of the Star, November 25, 2013
Re: Mounties walk high wire in probe of Senate scandal, Nov. 25
Mounties walk high wire in probe of Senate scandal, Nov. 25
Shakespeare would have had a field day, with Stephen Harper as Macbeth, Canada as Scotland, Thomas Mulcair as Macduff, Justin Trudeau as Malcolm, Mike Duffy as Ross, and Nigel Wright as Banquo.
And the three witches? Take your pick from the following: your three favourite senators, the three Ontario stooges (John Baird, Tony Clement and Jim Flaherty), any three of the many careerists in the PMO (who would gladly snuff the boss if it would advance their prospects).
There’s also an Italian opera in there somewhere, or maybe a ballet, along the lines of Miss Piggy’s Swine Lake.
Rick Patrick, Madoc===============================
Letter to the Editor the Star Nov 25, 2013
RCMP allege PMO played greater role, Nov. 21
Quoting from this news item, “On Wednesday, (Stephen) Harper repeatedly told the Commons the RCMP had found ‘no evidence’ he knew of the Wright repayment plan.”
I suggest that the real problem is that a party can form a big majority in the House by garnering only 39 per cent of the popular vote. The way to overcome this problem and make Parliament more democratic is to bring in some form of proportional representation. All those folks who voted Green in the last election were cheated. Under a truly democratic system, the party would have won at least a handful of seats. This is the kind of democracy Canada needs. Folding up the Greens would further limit the number of points of view on the House of Commons.
Nick Fillmore
Freelance Journalist/Social Activist
====================================
Letter to the Editor of the Star, November 25, 2013
Re: Mounties walk high wire in probe of Senate scandal, Nov. 25
Mounties walk high wire in probe of Senate scandal, Nov. 25
Shakespeare would have had a field day, with Stephen Harper as Macbeth, Canada as Scotland, Thomas Mulcair as Macduff, Justin Trudeau as Malcolm, Mike Duffy as Ross, and Nigel Wright as Banquo.
And the three witches? Take your pick from the following: your three favourite senators, the three Ontario stooges (John Baird, Tony Clement and Jim Flaherty), any three of the many careerists in the PMO (who would gladly snuff the boss if it would advance their prospects).
There’s also an Italian opera in there somewhere, or maybe a ballet, along the lines of Miss Piggy’s Swine Lake.
Rick Patrick, Madoc===============================
Letter to the Editor the Star Nov 25, 2013
RCMP allege PMO played greater role, Nov. 21
Quoting from this news item, “On Wednesday, (Stephen) Harper repeatedly told the Commons the RCMP had found ‘no evidence’ he knew of the Wright repayment plan.”
I am reminded of Sgt. Schultz (of Hogan’s Heroes) who frequently claimed: “I know nothing.”
Jaggi Tandan, Hamilton
===================================
October 19, 2013
Jaggi Tandan, Hamilton
===================================
October 19, 2013
Globe and Mail
I am profoundly grateful to the First Nations defending their communities and the planet from greedy corporations and opportunistic politicians.
Fracking, as practised in the U.S., is destroying aquifers. So to the Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick, the Hupacasath First Nation of Port Alberni, B.C., and all the others who are defending the Earth, I sayChi-Miigwetch (Big Thanks).
The First Nations are our last, best hope to save this country’s most precious resource, our fresh water supply, from irreversible damage.
Heather O’Meara, Toronto
=====================================
April 19, 2013
Dear Terence,
Thank you for the invitation to meet with you in May to discuss my concerns about FIPA. Unfortunately, the decision on FIPA may be made before you are available to meet with me, so I would like to outline my major concerns now.
FIPA allows arbitrators beyond Canadian courts to review decisions that affect any Chinese-owned asset in Canada. They will then have the ability to impose huge awards to compensate for loss of profits if, for example, Canada decided to try to impose environmental, public health or resource conservation measures for the good of Canadians. In the past, the arbitrators have recognized that "fair and equitable treatment" is not well defined and have adopted an investor-favourable definition. The settlements Canada has been forced to pay under NAFTA will seem like a pittance when compared to the settlements China will be awarded under the Canada-China FIPA.
The treaty was negotiated without consultation with First Nations (see section 35 of the Canadian Constitution 1982) or the Canadian public, and with no Parliamentary debate.
According to Gus Van Harten, a specialist in investment treaties and associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, "the arbitrators could order the federal government to refrain from conduct that the government was obliged to take under a federal-provincial agreement or an aboriginal treaty", thus making FIPA unconstitutional.
Under the treaty, the investors can sue the government, but the government cannot sue the investors. This will work in China's favour since it would appear their goal is to acquire ownership of Canada's resources to be moved out and processed in China instead of in Canada using Canadian workers.
31 years is a long time to be bound by an agreement that is so harmful to our democracy and the environment, and potentially expensive for taxpayers.
I hope this more clearly describes my concerns. I will be standing with the Hupacasath in their fight against FIPA. I hope I can count on your support.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely
Heather McCann
Deserting Our Global Responsibilities to Suffering Men, Women & Children Around the World
I am profoundly grateful to the First Nations defending their communities and the planet from greedy corporations and opportunistic politicians.
Fracking, as practised in the U.S., is destroying aquifers. So to the Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick, the Hupacasath First Nation of Port Alberni, B.C., and all the others who are defending the Earth, I sayChi-Miigwetch (Big Thanks).
The First Nations are our last, best hope to save this country’s most precious resource, our fresh water supply, from irreversible damage.
Heather O’Meara, Toronto
=====================================
April 19, 2013
Dear Terence,
Thank you for the invitation to meet with you in May to discuss my concerns about FIPA. Unfortunately, the decision on FIPA may be made before you are available to meet with me, so I would like to outline my major concerns now.
FIPA allows arbitrators beyond Canadian courts to review decisions that affect any Chinese-owned asset in Canada. They will then have the ability to impose huge awards to compensate for loss of profits if, for example, Canada decided to try to impose environmental, public health or resource conservation measures for the good of Canadians. In the past, the arbitrators have recognized that "fair and equitable treatment" is not well defined and have adopted an investor-favourable definition. The settlements Canada has been forced to pay under NAFTA will seem like a pittance when compared to the settlements China will be awarded under the Canada-China FIPA.
The treaty was negotiated without consultation with First Nations (see section 35 of the Canadian Constitution 1982) or the Canadian public, and with no Parliamentary debate.
According to Gus Van Harten, a specialist in investment treaties and associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, "the arbitrators could order the federal government to refrain from conduct that the government was obliged to take under a federal-provincial agreement or an aboriginal treaty", thus making FIPA unconstitutional.
Under the treaty, the investors can sue the government, but the government cannot sue the investors. This will work in China's favour since it would appear their goal is to acquire ownership of Canada's resources to be moved out and processed in China instead of in Canada using Canadian workers.
31 years is a long time to be bound by an agreement that is so harmful to our democracy and the environment, and potentially expensive for taxpayers.
I hope this more clearly describes my concerns. I will be standing with the Hupacasath in their fight against FIPA. I hope I can count on your support.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely
Heather McCann
=============================
Mr. Terence Young, Oakville MP April 15, 2013
Dear Mr. Young,
Recent headlines about Royal Bank of Canada have directed the spotlight on policies of this government towards employment of Canadian citizens, employment of temporary foreign workers and outsourcing of Canadian jobs. We should remember Henry Ford’s philosophy that workers must be employed and be paid adequately so that they can consume the goods and services that businesses are trying to sell to them.
Our government should be promoting employment of Canadians not facilitating corporations to outsource and take the jobs off shore. Our economy will become hollowed out and fall in upon itself like a house of cards if the current trend to outsourcing continues.
Corporations look only at the short term bottom line. It is the responsibility of the government to take the long term view and regulate what is in the best interest of its citizens. As a client and shareholder, I have notified the Royal Bank that I am unhappy with their conduct. The excuse that they have used a contractor does not remove them from social responsibility. However corporations will do what government regulations allow them to do
Providing tax deductions to corporations should require employment, training and retaining of Canadian workers. The government is not being responsible when it gives tax reductions in hopes that corporations will invest and make jobs for Canadians.
The problem with the Canada Job Grant is that the Federal government will only match the funding of provincial and employer funding. Cash strapped provincial governments will find this difficult if not impossible. Employers will not be motivated when they can bring in foreign workers and pay them 15% less than Canadian workers. The federal government will spend little on the grants and still can claim that they made the offer; this is disingenuous from my perspective.
Where there is high employment, the demand for housing causes the cost of real estate and rents to sky rocket. Shortage of workers, in certain regions, is frequently related to that factor. If workers with the appropriate skills are unemployed in another region of our country, they could be offered the option of employment insurance or a subsidy for housing for the same period, while they got established in the area of high employment.
Where a genuine shortage of skilled workers exists, those foreign workers must be paid the same wages and have the same working conditions as a Canadian worker. Furthermore those workers should have an opportunity to use their three years of employment time to apply for Canadian citizenship. Those who are already working make the best adjustment as immigrants. The true benefit of immigration lies in the contributions of their children to our country. Are we not, most of us, the descendants of immigrants?
It would be my wish that the government of Canada promote, and regulate corporations in ways which are in accordance with, our strong Canadian values of fairness, social responsibility, and open transparent democracy.
Mr. Terence Young, Oakville MP April 15, 2013
Dear Mr. Young,
Recent headlines about Royal Bank of Canada have directed the spotlight on policies of this government towards employment of Canadian citizens, employment of temporary foreign workers and outsourcing of Canadian jobs. We should remember Henry Ford’s philosophy that workers must be employed and be paid adequately so that they can consume the goods and services that businesses are trying to sell to them.
Our government should be promoting employment of Canadians not facilitating corporations to outsource and take the jobs off shore. Our economy will become hollowed out and fall in upon itself like a house of cards if the current trend to outsourcing continues.
Corporations look only at the short term bottom line. It is the responsibility of the government to take the long term view and regulate what is in the best interest of its citizens. As a client and shareholder, I have notified the Royal Bank that I am unhappy with their conduct. The excuse that they have used a contractor does not remove them from social responsibility. However corporations will do what government regulations allow them to do
Providing tax deductions to corporations should require employment, training and retaining of Canadian workers. The government is not being responsible when it gives tax reductions in hopes that corporations will invest and make jobs for Canadians.
The problem with the Canada Job Grant is that the Federal government will only match the funding of provincial and employer funding. Cash strapped provincial governments will find this difficult if not impossible. Employers will not be motivated when they can bring in foreign workers and pay them 15% less than Canadian workers. The federal government will spend little on the grants and still can claim that they made the offer; this is disingenuous from my perspective.
Where there is high employment, the demand for housing causes the cost of real estate and rents to sky rocket. Shortage of workers, in certain regions, is frequently related to that factor. If workers with the appropriate skills are unemployed in another region of our country, they could be offered the option of employment insurance or a subsidy for housing for the same period, while they got established in the area of high employment.
Where a genuine shortage of skilled workers exists, those foreign workers must be paid the same wages and have the same working conditions as a Canadian worker. Furthermore those workers should have an opportunity to use their three years of employment time to apply for Canadian citizenship. Those who are already working make the best adjustment as immigrants. The true benefit of immigration lies in the contributions of their children to our country. Are we not, most of us, the descendants of immigrants?
It would be my wish that the government of Canada promote, and regulate corporations in ways which are in accordance with, our strong Canadian values of fairness, social responsibility, and open transparent democracy.
June Wright, Oakville
(June is an RODC member.)
========================
========================
Deserting Our Global Responsibilities to Suffering Men, Women & Children Around the World
by Sandy Rubinfeld. RODC Supporter
Let us be perfectly clear: the reason the Harper Conservatives have opted out of the Desertification Convention of the United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with the measly $330,000 annual contribution Canada was making towards it, nor does it have anything to do with the overly bureaucratic and frustratingly slow progress of the Convention, though it is true that a great many UN bodies are overly bureaucratic.
Let’s be perfectly frank: the Harper Conservatives did not openly and transparently inform Parliament of their plans to leave the UN Desertification Convention, nor did they ever let Canadian citizens in on their plans to desert the Convention. Canada did not even have the courtesy to notify the UN secretariat! There was no prior public consensus that the Desertification Convention was useless or served no purpose. The only reason we know that the Harper Conservatives opted out of it is that it was discovered by an Access to Information request obtained by the Canadian Press.
The Harper Conservatives would have much preferred that none of us ever knew Canada was about to become the only country in the world outside this agreement to fight droughts in Africa and elsewhere. Canada, under the Harper government, is taking an increasingly isolationist approach to many world issues, especially if they involve climate change, poverty or human rights. This isolationist approach is of grave concern to me and, I hope, to you.
Canada has limited clout as a separate nation. Heck, with 33.5 million inhabitants, Canada is the least populous country in the G8. So let’s not pretend that Canada can do anything all on its own that would have any kind of meaningful impact or significance to alleviate desertification. It’s not like Canada is offering any alternative plan to deal with desertification.
The spreading desert areas around the world and the resulting famines, starvation and death of hundreds of millions of men, women and children in the poorest countries of the world is apparently of significant enough concern to every other country in the world belonging to the United Nations that all 194 of them (now, 193) are signed on to the Desertification Convention. This convention tries to fight droughts that affect the most vulnerable people in the world, particularly in Africa. If Canada truly cared about this important issue and the lives of our fellow human beings, then we would sign on to the only known body in the world that is meeting, discussing and actively trying to deal with the problem of growing desert areas, the sole legally-binding international agreement linking environment and development to sustainable land management. Instead, we are abandoning collective world efforts to mitigate life-threatening global crises such as famine and, as former Canadian ambassador to the UN Robert Fowler states, we are “disregard(ing) the pain and suffering of the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa”.
Even if John Baird could back up his claim that ‘only 18%’ of the funding deals directly with the problem -- and this government is so averse to statistics and scientific data, that I find his figure highly dubious -- that is still 18% collected from almost every country in the UN, that is still 18% of a very huge sum, that is still a huge whack of money above the apparently Canadian approach of opting out and doing nothing. A lot of the funding goes into scientific research, so we can have accurate data on what is happening now, what is projected to happen in the future under various scenarios, and what are the best measures to thwart desertification. The funds devoted to the scientific research would not be counted by Baird as part of the 18% of funds spent on programming, yet only the myopic would see this as unnecessary.
It is condescending, arrogant and rude to refer to the important discussions at the meetings on desertification as a “talkfest”. Obviously, as situations in the world change and as the effects of climate change increase, serious discussions need to be held on its impact on desertification, what needs to be done now and prevention. To characterize this as a “talkfest” as John Baird and Stephen Harper have done is beneath contempt.
It is painfully obvious that the reasons Stephen Harper is giving for this decision are mere rationalizations and spin. So what are the real reasons? It is no coincidence that Canada opted out just one month before a major scientific gathering to be hosted by the Bonn-based secretariat of the UN convention. This meeting in late April will have in attendance scientists from all over the world (well, maybe not Canada’s scientists) discussing such things as climate change and its impact on desertification; and best practises to mitigate the increasing droughts that have been spreading across the world and destroying valuable farmland. The meeting is billed as “the first ever comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of desertification, land degradation and drought”. We all know the Harper government’s aversion to discussing climate change. Unless you have been hibernating in a cave, we have all heard of the Harper Conservatives’ extraordinary efforts to muzzle and censor federal scientists. We are painfully aware of the Conservative government’s desire to stop the free flow of scientific information to the media and to the Canadian public unless it first goes through the Harper Communications Spin Engine of Pablum & Distortion, rendering it bland and inoffensive. The very idea of scientists gathering to share information on climate change must have John Baird and Stephen Harper trembling in their bootstraps!
But the prime reason for opting out of the Convention that neither Stephen Harper nor John Baird feel you have the right to know is that the signatories to the Desertification Convention have certain responsibilities, chief among them being to report back on what each country is doing to combat its own areas of desertification and to provide concrete data on the status of poverty and of land cover in the areas affected by it. Canada does have an increasing problem with drought in the Prairies due to desertification. However, our government refuses to follow through with its obligation under the Convention “to report on activities undertaken to address the problem”. The convention also requires Canada “to ensure that desertification issues are integrated into its national sustainable development plans and policies.” The real reason we are opting out now is that the Conservative government does not want to face international humiliation at the upcoming meeting for ignoring our international obligations, doing nothing to combat desertification at home, and not having a national sustainable development plan.
Frankly, the Harper Conservatives have lost their moral authority to govern.
==============================================
Unity, not election, is needed
Published on Thu Jan 31 2013 in The Star
In Ontario we have a chance to do something new in politics and be trend setters for Canada.
You may recall that in the last provincial election, Ontario voters returned a very mixed bag of politicians, giving no party a clear majority. We voted for all of those MPPs and we wanted them all to work in Parliament and represent us — expressing their different views but coming to a consensus on how to run the province.
This was not a mandate for business as usual. This was not permission to conduct adversarial slagging matches. This was Ontarians saying, “We are sick and tired of party politics. Work out the problems and run this province for the long-term benefit of the people who live here.”
What did we get? Attack ads, bullying, and spanners in the works at every turn. Then for Christmas we got prorogation — a sort of lockout or works closure — which at least was peaceful.
Ontarians everywhere should appeal to the NDP and the Conservatives not to force further neglect and inaction by instigating another [rovincial election.
Ontario is faced with massive debt, economic decline and labour unrest. No political party wants to face those problems alone while fighting off other parties engaged in savagely attacking their flanks.
The only way forward is by collaborating, by working as a united team. What a role model Ontario could be for Canada if our MPPs could achieve that.
Tina Agrell, Oakville
====================================
January 28
Let us be perfectly clear: the reason the Harper Conservatives have opted out of the Desertification Convention of the United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with the measly $330,000 annual contribution Canada was making towards it, nor does it have anything to do with the overly bureaucratic and frustratingly slow progress of the Convention, though it is true that a great many UN bodies are overly bureaucratic.
Let’s be perfectly frank: the Harper Conservatives did not openly and transparently inform Parliament of their plans to leave the UN Desertification Convention, nor did they ever let Canadian citizens in on their plans to desert the Convention. Canada did not even have the courtesy to notify the UN secretariat! There was no prior public consensus that the Desertification Convention was useless or served no purpose. The only reason we know that the Harper Conservatives opted out of it is that it was discovered by an Access to Information request obtained by the Canadian Press.
The Harper Conservatives would have much preferred that none of us ever knew Canada was about to become the only country in the world outside this agreement to fight droughts in Africa and elsewhere. Canada, under the Harper government, is taking an increasingly isolationist approach to many world issues, especially if they involve climate change, poverty or human rights. This isolationist approach is of grave concern to me and, I hope, to you.
Canada has limited clout as a separate nation. Heck, with 33.5 million inhabitants, Canada is the least populous country in the G8. So let’s not pretend that Canada can do anything all on its own that would have any kind of meaningful impact or significance to alleviate desertification. It’s not like Canada is offering any alternative plan to deal with desertification.
The spreading desert areas around the world and the resulting famines, starvation and death of hundreds of millions of men, women and children in the poorest countries of the world is apparently of significant enough concern to every other country in the world belonging to the United Nations that all 194 of them (now, 193) are signed on to the Desertification Convention. This convention tries to fight droughts that affect the most vulnerable people in the world, particularly in Africa. If Canada truly cared about this important issue and the lives of our fellow human beings, then we would sign on to the only known body in the world that is meeting, discussing and actively trying to deal with the problem of growing desert areas, the sole legally-binding international agreement linking environment and development to sustainable land management. Instead, we are abandoning collective world efforts to mitigate life-threatening global crises such as famine and, as former Canadian ambassador to the UN Robert Fowler states, we are “disregard(ing) the pain and suffering of the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa”.
Even if John Baird could back up his claim that ‘only 18%’ of the funding deals directly with the problem -- and this government is so averse to statistics and scientific data, that I find his figure highly dubious -- that is still 18% collected from almost every country in the UN, that is still 18% of a very huge sum, that is still a huge whack of money above the apparently Canadian approach of opting out and doing nothing. A lot of the funding goes into scientific research, so we can have accurate data on what is happening now, what is projected to happen in the future under various scenarios, and what are the best measures to thwart desertification. The funds devoted to the scientific research would not be counted by Baird as part of the 18% of funds spent on programming, yet only the myopic would see this as unnecessary.
It is condescending, arrogant and rude to refer to the important discussions at the meetings on desertification as a “talkfest”. Obviously, as situations in the world change and as the effects of climate change increase, serious discussions need to be held on its impact on desertification, what needs to be done now and prevention. To characterize this as a “talkfest” as John Baird and Stephen Harper have done is beneath contempt.
It is painfully obvious that the reasons Stephen Harper is giving for this decision are mere rationalizations and spin. So what are the real reasons? It is no coincidence that Canada opted out just one month before a major scientific gathering to be hosted by the Bonn-based secretariat of the UN convention. This meeting in late April will have in attendance scientists from all over the world (well, maybe not Canada’s scientists) discussing such things as climate change and its impact on desertification; and best practises to mitigate the increasing droughts that have been spreading across the world and destroying valuable farmland. The meeting is billed as “the first ever comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of desertification, land degradation and drought”. We all know the Harper government’s aversion to discussing climate change. Unless you have been hibernating in a cave, we have all heard of the Harper Conservatives’ extraordinary efforts to muzzle and censor federal scientists. We are painfully aware of the Conservative government’s desire to stop the free flow of scientific information to the media and to the Canadian public unless it first goes through the Harper Communications Spin Engine of Pablum & Distortion, rendering it bland and inoffensive. The very idea of scientists gathering to share information on climate change must have John Baird and Stephen Harper trembling in their bootstraps!
But the prime reason for opting out of the Convention that neither Stephen Harper nor John Baird feel you have the right to know is that the signatories to the Desertification Convention have certain responsibilities, chief among them being to report back on what each country is doing to combat its own areas of desertification and to provide concrete data on the status of poverty and of land cover in the areas affected by it. Canada does have an increasing problem with drought in the Prairies due to desertification. However, our government refuses to follow through with its obligation under the Convention “to report on activities undertaken to address the problem”. The convention also requires Canada “to ensure that desertification issues are integrated into its national sustainable development plans and policies.” The real reason we are opting out now is that the Conservative government does not want to face international humiliation at the upcoming meeting for ignoring our international obligations, doing nothing to combat desertification at home, and not having a national sustainable development plan.
Frankly, the Harper Conservatives have lost their moral authority to govern.
==============================================
Unity, not election, is needed
Published on Thu Jan 31 2013 in The Star
In Ontario we have a chance to do something new in politics and be trend setters for Canada.
You may recall that in the last provincial election, Ontario voters returned a very mixed bag of politicians, giving no party a clear majority. We voted for all of those MPPs and we wanted them all to work in Parliament and represent us — expressing their different views but coming to a consensus on how to run the province.
This was not a mandate for business as usual. This was not permission to conduct adversarial slagging matches. This was Ontarians saying, “We are sick and tired of party politics. Work out the problems and run this province for the long-term benefit of the people who live here.”
What did we get? Attack ads, bullying, and spanners in the works at every turn. Then for Christmas we got prorogation — a sort of lockout or works closure — which at least was peaceful.
Ontarians everywhere should appeal to the NDP and the Conservatives not to force further neglect and inaction by instigating another [rovincial election.
Ontario is faced with massive debt, economic decline and labour unrest. No political party wants to face those problems alone while fighting off other parties engaged in savagely attacking their flanks.
The only way forward is by collaborating, by working as a united team. What a role model Ontario could be for Canada if our MPPs could achieve that.
Tina Agrell, Oakville
====================================
January 28
This is a quote from the President of the United Steel Workers. I like it!
Tina
"The federal government has been getting away with attacking legitimate institutions within Canadian society," Neumann says.
"The New Democratic Party official opposition is effective at raising concerns in the House of Commons, but the government is using its majority to ignore opposition and crush dissenting views from individuals and organizations. It is fundamentally undemocratic and Canadians are joining together as citizens to raise awareness and take action."
=================================
Letter to the Globe Editors by Hart Jansson January 24
Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
I read with interest Margaret Wente's column on global warming. I must agree that global warming and its effects are very complex, especially when it comes to predicting what will happen next. I also agree that the proposed cure can sometimes be worse than the disease, such as with biofuels. Ten years ago and more when corn was cheap and farmers were leaving their fields fallow rather than planting a crop, and the renewable resource concept was shiny and new, using ethanol to introduce a renewable component into the fossil fuel industry seemed quite sensible and forward-thinking.
Now we can see that the use of more than 40% of the US corn crop to fill gas tanks with ethanol is completely nonsensical and causing increased suffering among the world's poor due to rising food prices, not to mention causing increased deforestation which makes global warming worse. But what should be most disturbing about this situation is that it continues full-steam ahead, even when it is obvious to the average Jane and Joe that it is counter-productive. This continuation of a failed policy is not due to the global warming lobby, but due to the mega-corporations in the agriculture industry who benefit most when crop prices are high. Their immense lobbying power in both the US and Canada, and the failure of our elected representatives to represent their constituents instead of these powerful lobbies, means that these destructive policies continue, with billions of dollars going to the ethanol industry and tens of billions of profit going to the mega-agro industry who sell GMO seeds, GMO-compatible herbicides, fertilizers and the like. These companies spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions (to both / all parties) to thwart the democratic process and the application of common sense.
This is just one example of policies and practices, among hundreds, that defy common sense. Until we, as a human society, can figure out how to get back to using common sense to run our affairs, no climate model or economic model will help us. Inflated corporate rights and a broken political system in Canada and the US are driving us to destruction, global warming or not.
Hart Jansson
========================================
Letter from Chief Spence
Victoria Island, Ottawa, January 15, 2013
Att.: All First Nations Chiefs and Grand Chiefs
Re: Status of Hunger Strike and National Leadership Situation
Dear Chiefs and Grand Chiefs;
Today marks the 36th day of my hunger strike, 35th day for Mr. Raymond
Robinson of Manitoba and yesterday Mr. Jean Sock from New Brunswick
was his 28th day and his last. We owe a great depth of gratitude to
Jean for his support by joining me and Raymond in our protest. In
return we extend our full support and we respect his decision to end
his hunger strike to attend to his ailing mother, and also to be with
his youth who are struggling to comprehend our cause. We pray for his
complete recovery and we send prayers to his mother, his family and to
have a safe journey home.
With this letter, I want to make it clear once again the purpose of
our hunger strike as well as to inform all of you the state of my
health and Raymond. We also wanted to take this opportunity to express
our position of the events leading to the meeting of January 11, 2013
and the current situation we are in.
As I stated from the beginning, something had to be done to bring our
Nations immediate needs, treaty implementation issues among many other
issues to the brought attention of the PM along with the Crown in
meeting on Nation to Nation basis at the earliest time possible.
Now, that the meetings with the PM and the Governor General have taken
place, despite the fact that the Chiefs met with them separately, like
many of you the confusion has yet to subside as I continue to wait for
the details in what was actually achieved. It is without a doubt, the
events leading up to the meeting of January 11, 2013 with the PM and
the evening with the Governor General, as well as the communication
breakdown that day and into that night truly tested our unity once
again.
Along with Mr. Raymond Robinson, Mr. Jean Sock and I, we call on all
of you not to waste any more energy on determining the future of our
National Chief - for what took place for the past month is beyond us
all as individuals. We all began with a purpose, we had a plan, we
need now to refocus and stick to the original plan to propose and
follow our own agenda. This is our best chance to settle the struggles
our Nations have had to endure for far too long.
We need the National Chief as much as we need each other. With the
challenges ahead, we need to spend less energy fighting amongst
ourselves; instead we must focus on finding a common ground, a common
understanding and respecting each other's goals and objectives. We
must stand united, strengthen our unity and agree on an agenda that
works for all of us and not just the few. The politics within our camp
can wait and work itself out on its own time.
What we have endured here at the island is a small price to pay
compared to what our ancestors, our own mothers and fathers endured.
Putting aside the real purpose of our hunger strike, this was our way
to pay tribute to our ancestors who have forgone some of the harshest
periods in our history, to honor those among our Nations who continue
to struggle for the basic standard of living to this day, as well as
to raise new hope among our youth and to protect our future
generations.
From the beginning, the support and prayers from all of you, from our
grassroots, elders, women and particularly the youth brought us
comfort and assurance that we are all in this together. This must
continue.
Many of you have asked me directly or called on us indirectly to stop
our hunger strike, but as we stated before, our exit or to end this
hunger strike will be on our own terms. We ask all of you to respect
that and ask you to refocus on the spirit and the intent of this
movement.
Together, meaning the Idle No More movement, as hunger strikers,
others who are fasting for the same cause with the support of our
grassroots, our protesters, you the leaders, we have all been part of
something historic which brought in all of us a sense of pride; our
people have come together in solidarity for a common cause. The
citizens of this country have also taken notice and we have their
attention. Soon the rest of the world must to be informed and this
Government along with the Crown must accept that the only way forward
in this country is a renewed relationship with First Nations, but that
it must begin with in a meeting with both the PM and Governor General
present.
We are honored to be able to contribute to raising awareness of our
Nations pressing issues, past and current struggles, as well as the
challenges ahead. As more protests are being scheduled, we hope that
the peace be maintained and ask all of you to encourage your members
to remain peaceful and respectful.
Furthermore, we acknowledge and respect the Idle No More movement,
their founders and spokespeople for promoting awareness of the
controversial omnibus bills recently passed in the Senate. Our fights
may be different, but our dreams and hopes for our people are common.
We will assess carefully our next steps in the coming days and will
continue to remain optimistic. Our spirits are up, but we are growing
weaker by the day but we do our best to maintain our health. We ask
you to respect our choices and to leave us the decision when and if
this hunger strike should end.
My fellow Chiefs, on behalf of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Sock, we thank you
for your continued prayers and support. We ask you now to focus on the
task at hand and please do not to worry about us; our people and our
youth deserve real change and nothing more. May the Creator guide us
through the challenges up ahead.
Gichi Meegwetch,
Chief Theresa Spence
Attawapiskat First Nation
Cc: Shawn Atleo, AFN National Chief
All AFN Regional Chiefs
================================
January 11, 2013 An Open Letter to
Terence Young
Member of Parliament,
165 Cross Avenue,
Oakville, Ontario
Dear Sir:
Today I am fasting in support of the Aboriginal and First Nations people. It is time to end the broken relationship between First Nations people and Canada and the land.
I am a member of the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC). We suggest that the Prime Minister is failing Native people again, by not engaging in the mandated consultative process prior to introduction of legislation that impacts First Nations rights, and then initially refusing to meet with their leaders to discuss impending legislation.
In 2010, Stephen Harper’s government did Canadians proud by finally endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, representing a commitment from the Harper government to work together with indigenous leaders on mutual problems. In 2008, the Prime Minister apologized for Canada’s residential school policy, saying “The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.”
I applaud Stephen Harper’s decision to meet with First Nations leaders on January 11, but I would applaud louder if it had happened from goodwill and intention rather than in response to protest. I encourage you to take this as an opportunity for dialogue and re-building. The Chiefs desire a process for ongoing treaty negotiations with milestones such that there is real progress to honouring the treaty relationship.
I have already written to you about the bundling of legislation into omnibus budget bills, passed without adequate consultation and study. You have indicated that this is an efficient manner in to advance your parties’ legislative agenda. Many Canadians, beyond those participating in this January 11, 2014 International Day of Action, see that your party is undermining our democracy, the cornerstones of which are open consultation, careful study and open debate of legislation.
I, along with all members of Reclaim Our Democratic Canada, encourage you refrain from relying on omnibus bills in principle by voting against any such future Omnibus bill your party opts to advance.
Finally, many peoples of Canada, not just First Nations, are honestly concerned for our health and well-being in light of natural resource development. Economic reliance on resource extraction is proving to have a devastating impact on the environment upon which we all depend for life. The most recent case in point is the recently released Queen’s University study that proves oil sands development has a farther reaching toxic impact on our natural environment than previously thought.
The grassroots First Nations peoples behind Idle No More are calling on their leaders to stand united for Mother Earth. Economic development must be balanced very carefully with environmental protection. This one major reason I support and will continue to support this movement.
Please take this moment to reflect on what you, as our elected representative, can to do to address these issues.
Yours very truly,
Susan BerryBarrister and Solicitor
==========================================================
The Star, December 8, 2012
Wednesday Dec. 12 marks a very wonderful anniversary in Canada. When it first came to power in 2006, the Conservative government introduced the Accountability Act, “to help strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government operations.” On Dec. 12, 2006 the Federal Accountability Act received Royal Assent.
The Act also created the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide objective oversight to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy.
This Dec. 12 is a moment to reflect on what has happened in Canada since the passing of this Act.
Since December 2006, the Prime Minister has twice prorogued Parliament in order to avoid criticism and censure. He has sacked or gagged government-appointed watchdogs who were carrying out their oversight roles openly and transparently and doing their jobs too well.
He has secretly negotiated trade deals with countries likely to sue indiscriminately if Canada’s laws interfere with their ability to do business. Using gargantuan Omnibus Bills, he has rammed through draconian changes in multiple laws under the guise of a budget. He has silenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer, rendering his role superfluous and ineffectual.
What has become of objective analysis, accountability, transparency and oversight?
On Wednesday shall we celebrate the existence of the Accountability Act, or mourn its ignominious death?
Tina Agrell, Reclaim Our Democratic Canada, Oakville
============================
RODC’s Position on Prorogation
On Jan. 23, 2010, in cities across Canada, tens of thousands of Canadians braved the cold to protest Stephen Harper’s second prorogation of Parliament in little more than a year.
This fall, history seemed to repeat itself, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced not only that he was stepping down as Ontario Liberal leader, but also that the Ontario legislature would be prorogued indefinitely until a new leader is chosen.
Both governments faced a difficult, though not impossible, minority government legislature. Both prorogations occurred little more than a year after an election, and both came across as a move to secure power.
It is important to note that prorogation is a normal part of our parliamentary system. It is typically used between legislative sessions when a government has accomplished most of it agenda. It is not usually controversial, as it usually involves the support or at least consent of a majority of the legislature.
It is a procedure available to all governments and used fairly regularly, but it is the context that determines whether it is being used normally or for more self-interested purposes.
Unfortunately for McGuinty, as with Harper before him, this latest prorogation fails this crucial smell test. Prorogation in this case does not have the consent of the legislature, but seems instead to be done precisely to avoid the scrutiny of the legislature.
Prorogation under these circumstances, both in 2010 and currently, is neither normal nor legitimate.
The problems Ontario faces are serious, and they certainly won’t be going on indefinite vacation while our government is closed down. No one struggling to find a job, pay the bills or feed their families will be enjoying an indefinite holiday.
Minority governments are difficult, it is true, but it takes a willingness to compromise to make them work. Nowhere does that responsibility fall more heavily than on the shoulders of the governing party.
Constantly scheming to win a majority is not governing. It may sting, but you have to respect the people’s will and get down to work. Proroguing when the opposition is critical of the government, and avoiding the public scrutiny of the people’s elected representatives insults the democratic will of the voters.
It was wrong when Stephen Harper did it in 2010 and it is wrong now in Ontario. All Ontarians should be outraged at this insult to our democracy
====================================
November 12
Today I am fasting in support of the Aboriginal and First Nations people. It is time to end the broken relationship between First Nations people and Canada and the land.
I am a member of the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC). We suggest that the Prime Minister is failing Native people again, by not engaging in the mandated consultative process prior to introduction of legislation that impacts First Nations rights, and then initially refusing to meet with their leaders to discuss impending legislation.
In 2010, Stephen Harper’s government did Canadians proud by finally endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, representing a commitment from the Harper government to work together with indigenous leaders on mutual problems. In 2008, the Prime Minister apologized for Canada’s residential school policy, saying “The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.”
I applaud Stephen Harper’s decision to meet with First Nations leaders on January 11, but I would applaud louder if it had happened from goodwill and intention rather than in response to protest. I encourage you to take this as an opportunity for dialogue and re-building. The Chiefs desire a process for ongoing treaty negotiations with milestones such that there is real progress to honouring the treaty relationship.
I have already written to you about the bundling of legislation into omnibus budget bills, passed without adequate consultation and study. You have indicated that this is an efficient manner in to advance your parties’ legislative agenda. Many Canadians, beyond those participating in this January 11, 2014 International Day of Action, see that your party is undermining our democracy, the cornerstones of which are open consultation, careful study and open debate of legislation.
I, along with all members of Reclaim Our Democratic Canada, encourage you refrain from relying on omnibus bills in principle by voting against any such future Omnibus bill your party opts to advance.
Finally, many peoples of Canada, not just First Nations, are honestly concerned for our health and well-being in light of natural resource development. Economic reliance on resource extraction is proving to have a devastating impact on the environment upon which we all depend for life. The most recent case in point is the recently released Queen’s University study that proves oil sands development has a farther reaching toxic impact on our natural environment than previously thought.
The grassroots First Nations peoples behind Idle No More are calling on their leaders to stand united for Mother Earth. Economic development must be balanced very carefully with environmental protection. This one major reason I support and will continue to support this movement.
Please take this moment to reflect on what you, as our elected representative, can to do to address these issues.
Yours very truly,
Susan BerryBarrister and Solicitor
==========================================================
The Star, December 8, 2012
Wednesday Dec. 12 marks a very wonderful anniversary in Canada. When it first came to power in 2006, the Conservative government introduced the Accountability Act, “to help strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government operations.” On Dec. 12, 2006 the Federal Accountability Act received Royal Assent.
The Act also created the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide objective oversight to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy.
This Dec. 12 is a moment to reflect on what has happened in Canada since the passing of this Act.
Since December 2006, the Prime Minister has twice prorogued Parliament in order to avoid criticism and censure. He has sacked or gagged government-appointed watchdogs who were carrying out their oversight roles openly and transparently and doing their jobs too well.
He has secretly negotiated trade deals with countries likely to sue indiscriminately if Canada’s laws interfere with their ability to do business. Using gargantuan Omnibus Bills, he has rammed through draconian changes in multiple laws under the guise of a budget. He has silenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer, rendering his role superfluous and ineffectual.
What has become of objective analysis, accountability, transparency and oversight?
On Wednesday shall we celebrate the existence of the Accountability Act, or mourn its ignominious death?
Tina Agrell, Reclaim Our Democratic Canada, Oakville
============================
RODC’s Position on Prorogation
On Jan. 23, 2010, in cities across Canada, tens of thousands of Canadians braved the cold to protest Stephen Harper’s second prorogation of Parliament in little more than a year.
This fall, history seemed to repeat itself, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced not only that he was stepping down as Ontario Liberal leader, but also that the Ontario legislature would be prorogued indefinitely until a new leader is chosen.
Both governments faced a difficult, though not impossible, minority government legislature. Both prorogations occurred little more than a year after an election, and both came across as a move to secure power.
It is important to note that prorogation is a normal part of our parliamentary system. It is typically used between legislative sessions when a government has accomplished most of it agenda. It is not usually controversial, as it usually involves the support or at least consent of a majority of the legislature.
It is a procedure available to all governments and used fairly regularly, but it is the context that determines whether it is being used normally or for more self-interested purposes.
Unfortunately for McGuinty, as with Harper before him, this latest prorogation fails this crucial smell test. Prorogation in this case does not have the consent of the legislature, but seems instead to be done precisely to avoid the scrutiny of the legislature.
Prorogation under these circumstances, both in 2010 and currently, is neither normal nor legitimate.
The problems Ontario faces are serious, and they certainly won’t be going on indefinite vacation while our government is closed down. No one struggling to find a job, pay the bills or feed their families will be enjoying an indefinite holiday.
Minority governments are difficult, it is true, but it takes a willingness to compromise to make them work. Nowhere does that responsibility fall more heavily than on the shoulders of the governing party.
Constantly scheming to win a majority is not governing. It may sting, but you have to respect the people’s will and get down to work. Proroguing when the opposition is critical of the government, and avoiding the public scrutiny of the people’s elected representatives insults the democratic will of the voters.
It was wrong when Stephen Harper did it in 2010 and it is wrong now in Ontario. All Ontarians should be outraged at this insult to our democracy
====================================
November 12
Read More
(Sandy's comment): Freedom of the press? Then how does that align with a Conservative Minister aka MP James Bezan of Selkirk-Interlake contacting the Publisher of the Selkirk newspaper, 'The Selkirk Record', as well as the reporter's editor, to complain about 'biased reporting' done by an independent reporter hired by that paper???
As part of his 'proof', Bezan complained that she had signed the anti-FIPPA (Canada-China Investment Treaty) petition. The reporter pointed out she signed the petition as a private citizen, not as a representative of the newspaper. So, apparently the Conservatives are keeping tabs on who exactly signed, and trying to get them in trouble with their employers.
This culminated in the reporter getting fired! It is absolutely outrageous that a member of the government would interfere in such a manner with the independence of Canadian media! It is something one would expect from any tin-pot dictatorship, but here in Canada?
~ Sandy Rubinfeld
============================
The Oakville Beaver, November 7
Dear Editor,
In one week Prime Minister Harper could commit this country to the most sweeping trade deal in a generation, without debate or vote in the House.
If the Canada-China FIPA passes, it will pave the way for China’s massive companies to spend billions buying-out Canada’s natural resource companies.
Under FIPA, China’s companies can sue Canadian governments, federal, provincial or municipal, if those governments do anything that would limit the companies’ profits in Canada.
For the next 31 years the FIPA would make it possible for China’s companies to challenge the Canadian laws that create jobs, protect our environment and build healthy communities with billion-dollar lawsuits that would cost taxpayers dearly.
We should learn from the fact that Canada has already spent hundreds of millions on penalties from lawsuits launched under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Right now Belgium is facing a $3 billion suit from one of China’s companies because of a similar foreign investor agreement.
Why would you lock us into this secretive and extreme deal? It looks like short-term gains for long-term pain.
This is a Democracy. Surely Canadians have a right to have a say in the decisions that will shape our lives.
Tina Agrell
Reclaim Our Democratic Canada
================================
October 3, 2012
Although I won't be able to go to the symposium, I am very glad that it will be happening. The attendance fee is very reasonable.
How can I hear the live-streamed speeches? From the RODC site? It would be great if there were a question and answer that were done over the web or even by phone (like radio stations do). Would that be possible?
I wrote RODC recently (but I can't find the e-mail) with some ideas that I believe could, among many other ideas to be brought forward at the symposium, help restore a more democratic Canada and even bring greater democracy to Canada than before the Conservative regime.
Of course, in terms of voting in a government, a system that is more representative and fairer than 'first past the post' is one most of us would agree on... although exactly which format this would take would be up for discussion, since there are so many variations.
I am sure many of you are proposing anti-omnibus bills, since Omnibus Bills are at the heart undemocratic and don't allow citizens to see everything that is in a Bill and don't allow MPs to separately discuss and vote on each part of the Bill on its own merits.
Here are some other ideas:
• I find it ridiculous that in question period, when a Minister is in hot water, so many times someone else in the Harper regime speaks on their behalf (usually attack dogs like John Baird) even when that Minister is present. This happened when Bev Oda was questioned on the ^not in terms of defunding Kairos, when Peter McKay was questioned on the F-35 fiasco, etc.
When someone else answers for you, it becomes spin, and it affords a blanket of protection a Minister does not deserve. I would suggest to RODC to push for legislation that insists that other than in exceptional circumstances (Minister in question is not present for a documented reason such as out of the country, in hospital, sick...), that when a question is asked of a Minister, they should be the one to answer the question.
• The House Speaker, instead of usually being a partisan member of the governing Party, should perhaps instead be a non-political appointment. Perhaps someone from the legal or Judicial community, that is agreed to by all the Parties in Parliament. This person should be given real authority to sanction and discipline Members of Parliament who thwart the rules. When it is apparent that a Minister is not answering the question, but deflecting to something totally different, (for instance, recently when every Minister who rose to speak talked about Mulcair's 'carbon tax'... and this was so obviously scripted, not to mention phoney), then they should be sanctioned.
• There should be legislation governing the working of Committees, that would make it illegal to intentionally sabotage or disrupt the Committees' work. I.e. the Conservatives book on how to disrupt Committees would then be illegal.
To help enforce this, if any member of a Committee senses the work is being disrupted or sabotaged, they should have a body not connected to the government or to any Party in particular to complain to. Should the complaint prove to be valid, this special body should have the authority to sanction and discipline the offending Members.
• A friend told me (and I can't vouch for this, as I haven't checked it out) that in the Netherlands where she is from, Ministers are not elected, but are appointed because of their expertise in the various fields. This takes out a lot of the blatant politics.
It is a little ridiculous to have an Environment Minister like Peter Kent, for instance, who has no special interest or expertise in environmental issues, or a Status of Women Minister like Rona Ambrose, who apparently doesn't believe in a woman's right to control her own body.
My suggestion is that for any government department, there be two Ministers. For instance, for the Health portfolio, one of the Ministers would be in the Government Cabinet, while the other would be a non-partisan expert in the field of health. This other Minister would be above just being a civil servant, and would have full freedom of expression to offer informed opinions on proposed legislation. This would not merely be a Deputy Minister or a civil servant, who would be obliged to carry out the wishes of the Minister, but someone who would offer the Canadian public and all of Parliament an informed opinion based on experience in that field. This would be sort of a co-chair of a Board role.
• There needs to be legislation brought forward (obviously, the Conservatives won't be doing this) that protects the freedom of expression of government scientists and other government experts. They should not ever be muzzled (unless it truly is a security issue).
• Right now, a governing Party controls the whole legislative agenda. I would like to see more opportunity for the Opposition and other MPs to have set times to bring forward legislation. If it is good and needed legislation, just because a Party has a majority government, they will have a hard time declining to vote for this proposed legislation. Who knows, maybe it will increase all Party co-operation?
I have other ideas, but I think this is enough for now!
Have a great symposium! Wish I could be there...
~ Sandy Rubinfeld, Winnipeg Supporter of RODC
========================================================
A looming threat in Canada is Stephen Harper’s proposal to eliminate public funding of election campaigns. Without such funding, elections will be railroaded by wealthy contributors to campaigns. We only have to look as far as the U.S. political scene to see the consequential quagmire.
In her book The Trouble with Billionaires, Linda McQuaig provides a well-researched commentary on the treacherous path that free market ideologues have set society upon. Jeffrey Sachs further outlines the steps to eliminate corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization.
At the heart of each book is the attack on democratic institutions by multinational corporations and their wealthy overlords. Both books shine new light on our current economic woes and possible solutions to the unequal distribution of wealth within society.
Both books provide data on how the citizens of other countries are faring relatively under their particular political systems. According to these authors, citizens of the U.S., Canada and the U.K. are falling behind with no positive plans for the future.
Regardless of one’s political and social views, these authors make arguments that are worth considering by those who wish to be informed, active participants in Canadian democracy.
Symptomatic of corporatocracy is Caterpillar’s Electro-Motive lockout in London. As recently noted by Charlotte Yates, “Collective bargaining and the right to join a union are two of the building blocks of freedom of association, and democratic society. But rights in democratic societies are fragile, and vulnerable to the abuse of power. By adopting a ‘take it or leave it’ approach in its final offer to Caterpillar workers, including pay cuts of up to 50 per cent, gutting the pension plan and drastic cuts to benefits, Caterpillar is thumbing its nose at our democratic commitment to good-faith bargaining … Collective bargaining is about bargaining — by both sides. Unions compromise, just as employers must. But when employers take it into their own hands to dictate wages and working conditions, our democratic rights are threatened.”
Informed citizens need to take action and assert their democratic rights. Please, do not just sit and do nothing.
P. McGrail, Brampton==================================
January 23, 2012 Letter to the Prime Minister from BC Nature.
Dear Prime Minister,
BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists) is an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
To read the whole letter, click here.
=====================================
And yet another letter from Oakville MP Terence Young rebutting the letter by Susan Berry.
Re: Susan Berry’s letter to the editor, dated Dec. 2.
Ms. Berry stated that in my Nov. 24 letter, I claimed the objective of Bill C-10 is to uphold victim’s rights by imprisoning more offenders with mandatory minimum sentences.
This was a misrepresentation.
To read the whole letter, click here.
====================================
Letter from Senator Art Eggleton December 16, 2011
Thank you for your email letter regarding Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill.
The Conservatives’ bundling together of 9 bills that warranted independent discussion, their shutting down of debate in committee, and their rejection of all amendments while arrogantly labeling others as supporters of criminals and not victims, undermines Parliament and democratic process. They have rammed through the House of Commons a law and order agenda that is poorly thought-out, rushed and demonstrates the Conservative commitment to governing by ideology instead of facts and evidence.
This bill will impose mandatory minimums that will turn young offenders into hardened criminals. It fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. It repeats the mistakes of failed, expensive and discredited American crime policy. Police and prisons officials from states like Texas are telling Mr. Harper very clearly: We tried what you are doing but it drained the public coffers and made our communities less safe. Do not go down our failed path.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures to be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost. These policies will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion
At the end of the day we will have more crime, less justice, skyrocketing costs, prison overcrowding, less rehabilitation for the offenders, less protection for victims and less protection for the public. Liberals are committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on preventing crime and victimization.”
My Liberal colleagues and I will be voting against Bill C-10 when it is brought before the Senate.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Art Eggleton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to the Oakville Beaver, December 9, 2011
Concerns about Bill C-10
(Editor’s Note: This letter was sent to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and a copy was filed with The Oakville Beaver.)
I agree Canadians should work together to make our country a safer, more just place for everyone. However, I have grave concerns about the proposed federal Bill C-10, the crime bill that is currently being rushed through Parliament in Ottawa.
To read the whole letter, click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Omnibus Crime Bill that our Conservative government is racing to get passed is a proven failure.
Conservative Texans are warning us not to follow a failed fill-the-prisons approach to justice, and the Canadian Bar Association, representing 37,000 Canadian legal professionals, has said the Bill “would move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at great expense”.
Mandatory sentences backfire. They take precious resources from crime prevention programs and rehabilitation, and turn minor offenders into hardened criminals.
The Crime Bill will make inequality worse.
It's not tough on crime, it’s tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions, and poverty.
It targets youth for harsher punishments, and it will put more Aboriginal people in prison.
The Crime Bill threatens valuable programs.
Mandatory sentences will clog the justice system and fill prisons, forcing the provinces, who pay for most of our justice system, to raise taxes, increase debt, or cut spending on essential programs like health and education.
Across the country, Canadians are speaking out.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that Canadians support tough on crime laws, but tens of thousands of Canadians are publicly demanding their provinces refuse to pay for the Crime Bill.
Québec and Ontario have already refused to pay for a strategy that has been tried, and failed.
Canadian Bar Association penned a powerful Op-Ed, stating that Canada has some of the safest communities in the world.
“This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse.
"It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.” — Trinda L. Ernst, President of the Canadian Bar Association.
Making Canada meaner is not the Canada I want. To reduce crime we should focus on what's already working — prevention and rehabilitation — and address the major causes of crime by reducing inequality and supporting people who need help.
The Conservatives’ cruel Crime Bill will do none of this, and ultimately will make us meaner, and less safe.
Lorraine Green, Oakville
--------------------
Letter in the Oakville Beaver from Terence Young, MP in response to the letter by Lorraine Green (above)
This is a response to the letter to the editor on Nov. 18 in which a concerned citizen made unsubstantiated statements about the federal Crime Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Our goals, as a government, are to hold criminals accountable and elevate the rights of victims by introducing effective crime legislation.
Bill C-10 targets the most serious of offences.
The letter claims that mandatory minimum penalties “backfire” and Bill C-10 will result in harsh prison sentences for minor offences.
Yet C-10 addresses serious offences such as sexual exploitation of a child or the death of an innocent bystander by the stray bullet shot from the gun of a young offender.
In fact, it is house arrest that backfires because it sends criminals a message that such crimes are not severe enough to warrant serious punishment.
For example, under our current laws someone who burns down a house and receives a sentence of house arrest can go home after conviction to play video games in their own house.
The author also claims that C-10 imposes harsh penalties against all youth.
However, the legislation addresses violent young offenders. These violent young offenders are a danger to the rest of us and a danger to themselves.
C-10 will require Crown attorneys to seek adult sentences for youth convicted of serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. This will protect innocent citizens and deter offenders.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act makes no changes to mental health programs, which over the last five years have received $89.9 million.
For example, there are no changes ahead for the Institutional Mental Health Initiative, which offers treatment to offenders both while incarcerated and after they re-enter society.
C-10 also expands the use of Drug Treatment Courts for addicts.
An offender can enter these outpatient rehabilitation programs that, if completed, can result in a suspended or reduced sentence.
Furthermore, our government is providing funding for crime prevention initiatives like Pathways to Education, the National Crime Prevention Centre, the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, and the Youth Justice Fund.
The notion that crime rates are declining is the greatest misconception surrounding Bill C-10.
According to Statistics Canada, only 31per cent of crimes in Canada are actually reported.
Offences like weapons violations, child pornography, and counterfeiting are up 267 per cent since the 1960s; and violent crimes are 302 per cent higher.
This is unacceptable to my government.
The author claimed Bill C-10 will make Canada “meaner”: yet, the pain and suffering victims and their families endure is all too real and too common.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act is about protecting our families and communities from crime and creating a Canada where crime does not pay.
Terence Young, Oakville MP
Letter from Susan Berry countering the above letter.
Arguing against crime bill
======================================================
======================================================
November 18, 2011
Dear Reclaim Canada,
I'd like to add my name to this initiative's supporters, and I have a comment. The comment is on the Harper attack on science, and environmental science in particular. Not only has Harper laid off hundreds of Environment Canada employees and stripped Environment Canada of $1.4 billion in funding, almost exactly the amount his most recent budget provides in tax cuts to corporations operating in the tar sands, he has also put a muzzle on Environment Canada's scientists. Anything Environment Canada's scientists now want to comment on, publish, or release regarding their scientific findings now has to come through Harpers office for approval. That is not just a fundamental attack on democracy unprecedented in the developed world, it is a perversion of the scientific method.
As well, Canadian scientists have recently found a hole in the ozone layer over Canadian airspace (a troubling first). This is an environmental EMERGENCY and it needs examination. The only way for anyone, not just Canadians, but also the international community, to investigate this problem is through the use of Canadian data, but shortly after the discovery of the hole, Harper cut the funding to the program doing the monitoring. Not only that, his government then hounded American collaborators in this research to find out, and presumably make trouble for, the scientists that allowed this problem to become public, as shown in this Ottawa Citizen Article.
This is not just an issue of the environment, nor merely of science. It is a fundamental issue of democracy, and that is why I thought it a particularly relevant comment for your group.
Andrew Knox
Crime Bill a Proven Failure
The Omnibus Crime Bill that our Conservative government is racing to get passed is a proven failure.
Conservative Texans are warning us not to follow a failed fill-the-prisons approach to justice, and the Canadian Bar Association, representing 37,000 Canadian legal professionals, has said the Bill “would move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at great expense”.
Mandatory sentences backfire. They take precious resources from crime prevention programs and rehabilitation, and turn minor offenders into hardened criminals.
The Crime Bill will make inequality worse.
It's not tough on crime, it’s tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions, and poverty.
It targets youth for harsher punishments, and it will put more Aboriginal people in prison.
The Crime Bill threatens valuable programs.
Mandatory sentences will clog the justice system and fill prisons, forcing the provinces, who pay for most of our justice system, to raise taxes, increase debt, or cut spending on essential programs like health and education.
Across the country, Canadians are speaking out.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that Canadians support tough on crime laws, but tens of thousands of Canadians are publicly demanding their provinces refuse to pay for the Crime Bill.
Québec and Ontario have already refused to pay for a strategy that has been tried, and failed.
Canadian Bar Association penned a powerful Op-Ed, stating that Canada has some of the safest communities in the world.
“This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse.
"It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.” — Trinda L. Ernst, President of the Canadian Bar Association.
Making Canada meaner is not the Canada I want. To reduce crime we should focus on what's already working — prevention and rehabilitation — and address the major causes of crime by reducing inequality and supporting people who need help.
The Conservatives’ cruel Crime Bill will do none of this, and ultimately will make us meaner, and less safe.
Lorraine Green, Oakville
November 17, 2011
Bad language in the House or not, I love Pat Martin (NDP) for saying about the forced "Closure" of discussion on the Omnibus Crime bill that the "Tories are running roughshod over everything that is good and decent about our Parliamentary Democracy." Keep telling it like it is Pat!
October 31, 2011.
Tina Agrell
ELECTORAL REFORM: THE FIRST DEMAND FROM THE 99%
A common criticism of our movement is that we have no specific demand and that nothing unites us. This is half true. We know who we are. We are the 99% and what we want is to take the power back from the wealthiest 1%, who have hijacked our democratic state and our planet. We are unified by our desire to take the power back. This is clear as day. The single most efficient way to take the power back is through electoral reform: corporations and wealthy citizens need to have less influence over the political process and the voters who comprise the 99% need to have more.
Canadians have an undemocratic electoral system called first-past-the-post. Members in our parliament vote on legislation and a bill can pass with majority (over 50%) support. Each Member of Parliament (MP) represents a geographic region called a riding. During an election citizens vote in their riding and the candidate with the most votes becomes the local MP. Any vote for a candidate that is not elected to parliament is essentially wasted [see figure 1]. This system breeds apathy [see figure 2]. Canadians end up voting strategically and from fear, rather than voting for our principles. Worse, small parties like the Green Party have had more than 9% of popular (national) vote without winning a single riding and therefore no representation in government. This is not what democracy looks like.
Our system has allowed politicians to be less accountable to voters and more representative of the corporate class. Since it is so difficult for smaller parties to break in there is less competition and mainstream political parties can afford to alienate voters. Standards are so low politicians often win elections by smearing competitors rather than campaigning on the merits of their own platform. To make matters worse, Harper recently eliminated the automatic two-dollar campaign donation that used to accompany any vote. If we had a more democratic system then party funding should be based on the amount of support they have not the ability of their supporters to donate. Elections are won with negative ads and the party with the richest constituency has the most ads.
We have to reform our electoral system so that all of 100% of us have the exact same influence over the democratic process. We need to eliminate the first-past-the-post system and chose a more democratic option through the process of a referendum. Alternatives do exist. We need a system of proportional representation, where the percent of support a party wins, equals the percentage of representation they hold in Parliament (if the Green Party wins 9% of the popular vote then they have 9% of the seats in Parliament). The occupation movement does not have to decide the exact electoral system. We can, however, demand that only systems much more democratic than first-past-the-post are offered in the referendum. Any system that ignores the preferences of so many voters is not democratic.
If the occupation movement wants to claim to represent the 99% then we must embrace democracy. If we try to impose radical changes of any sort (even ones that arguably benefit the 99%) then we are becoming the oppressor. The only fundamentally non-oppressive demand we could possibly make is a demand for improvements to our deeply flawed democratic process. This would be a massive change, and the 1% would fight to keep the status quo, but we are the 99% and we have unprecedented momentum.
A TYPICAL RIDING OUTCOME
Figure 1:
For example, in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding during the 2011 federal election,
27, 039 voters sent the Conservative candidate to Ottawa.
The other 39, 133 votes had absolutely no impact on the federal government.
FAILURE OF THE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Figure 2:
During the federal election in 2011,
Only 31% of eligible voters submitted a vote that elected an MP,
about 30% of voters wasted their vote,
and the other 39% did not vote [right].
Another thing to consider is the number of strategic votes that were both successful and wasted [left].
Under a proportional representation system all votes would count and have an impact on the number of MPs belonging to each party in Parliament. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23, 2011
From the NDP campaign website
"Policy, Not Polls” Candidate Discussion
Presented by a trio of Oakville’s Community based political interest groups, a well attended introduction to the candidates took place. With an unusual air of civility, the audience was able to acquaint themselves with the attending candidates from the Oakvile and Halton ridings.
The NDP was represented by Lesley Sprague from Oakville and Nik Spohr from Halton. All candidates were encouraged to provide some honest and engaging insight into how they will plan to deal with some of the most critical issues facing Ontarians in this coming election: economy, health, education, environment, transportation, jobs and democratic reform.
The formula seemed to work as both the audience and the candidates enjoyed the opportunity to communicate in a convivial atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 16
· Contempt of our democratic traditions and procedures – refusing to provide information required by our elected representatives. This has led to the vote of non-confidence, which brought down the “Harper Government”, and resulted in this very necessary election.
· Deliberately misleading Canadians whose understanding of civics is sorely lacking – e.g., calling a coalition undemocratic.
· Twisting the truth – claiming that cancellation of the long form census was endorsed by Statistics Canada (this led to the resignation of the head of Statistics Canada in protest); attempting to deflect blame for cancelling federal support for Kairos (a non-denominational charitable organization supporting good work in the Middle East and elsewhere), and then denying responsibility in testimony before a Parliamentary Committee.
· Demonstrating unbridled arrogance – calling our Government of Canada the Harper Government, and using the term on official government documents.
· Accusing the opposition of employing the very deplorable tactics that they themselves use, under the proposition that the best defence is a good offense, and if you are the first accuser people will believe you over the opposition. It’s a defensive tactic that I find very offensive.
· Engaging in character assassination rather than standing for principles - the infamous “attack ads”.
· Using taxpayer money to spread propaganda about their supposed accomplishments – the ubiquitous “Canada’s Economic Action Plan” campaign.
· Punishing civil servants who exercise their responsibilities conscientiously and “speak truth to power” - e.g., the head of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor who stood up for nuclear safety (doesn’t it seem more important in the light of what has happened in Japan?); attacking the record of Richard Colvin, a conscientious civil servant who told the truth about the Afghan prisoner abuses; firing the Ombudsman for veterans’ affairs who rightly stood up for better treatment of veterans.
· Denying facts that do not support their fixed ideologies – climate change; Afghan prisoner abuse; “tough on crime” agenda in the face of declining crime rates.
· Emphasis on military spending and weaponry, massive spending on prisons, and unnecessary tax cuts for large corporations, as opposed to investment in meeting the needs of ordinary citizens.
· Accusing the opposition of being undemocratic and opportunistic and of playing political games, all behaviours practiced more frequently and more aggressively by the Conservatives.
· Cancelling two of the greatest accomplishments of the previous government, which received the unprecedented support of all ten provinces and all three territories – the National Child Care Plan and the Kelowna Accord.
· Mismanaging the Federal balance sheet – they inherited a $13 billion surplus and turned it into a $56 billion deficit through their ill-advised tax cuts and over spending.
· Holding contempt for international agreements – the Geneva Convention; the Kyoto Accord.
· Using the infamous “ten-percenter” flyers in strategic ridings, twisting the truth to spread innuendo about their opposition, including employing the insinuation that anyone who criticises any action of the state of Israel is anti-Semitic.
· Hiding behind “national security” to suppress information that might be embarrassing to the Conservative Harper Government.
· Disregarding the rights of Canadian citizens abroad, especially of those whose offense is “traveling while Muslim”.
· Ignoring or refusing to honour rulings of the courts.
· So eroding respect for Canada abroad that we were denied a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
· Removing financial support for or interfering with non-profit organizations that take principled stands on matters with which the Conservatives disagree - Kairos, Rights and Democracy.
· Blatantly disregarding the recommendations of the Federal Poverty Reduction Plan produced by an all-party committee of the House of Commons.
· Demonstrating disregard for facts – cancelling the mandatory long form census.
--------------------------------------------------
April 7
Wake up Canadians and get your heads out of the sand. We have a Prime Minister who wants to make all decisions behind closed doors, muzzle and control all media,
Prevent the free flow of information, and make secret deals behind the backs of the electorate.
If he got a majority government how long do you think it would take him to dismantle Health care?
Robert Miskey
---------------------------------------------
April 3, 2011
Thank you for your organization. I live in Jack Layton's riding, so I will vote for the NDP leader, but I am afraid of a Harper lead majority.
I don't know what Canadians are thinking to vote for this disrespectful regime. It takes my breath away. What folly!
We are a country that cares for the vulnerable and the preciousness of our earth. When did we become so short sighted and fear based? I don't want Harper to ruin my Canada.
How can we change the minds of a short sighted unconscious conservative electorate?
Sincerely, Kim Chiotti
----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
March 21
Here is a list of anti-democratic actions taken by Harper. We are going to have to do something to get this government out of power as our democracy is in shreds. If polls are to be believed (and pollsters are now admitting they are badly flawed) Harper is close to majority territory right now. Heaven help us if that happens, because if it does, our medicare is in danger, the gun registry is dead, you will never see daycare programs, teenagers will be thrown in jail for possessing 6 pot plants, just to name a few.
1. Bev Oda affair - doctors document re KAIROS funding, then lies to
Parliament. Stephen Harper stands by her. It is possible she
approved the funding and he ordered the "NOT" to be inserted, leaving
her to take the fall.
2. Prorogued Parliament twice.
3. Cancelled the mandatory long form census, making it voluntary
which means flawed data for years to come.
4. Negotiates a secret border deal with the U.S. Not even the
opposition parties know what is involved.
5. Refused to return Omar Khadr, despite the Supreme Court ruling to
bring him home.
6. Hiding information re the abuse of Afghan detainees.
7. Harper leads the most secretive and controlling government in
Canadian history, including muzzling his MPs. It's been said his own
cabinet ministers are afraid of him.
8. Spent $1.2 billion on the G8/G20 summits in Toronto. The result
was a suspension of our rights to peaceful protest, jailing over 1,000
innocent people in cages with no legal rights. Many were injured and
denied food & water for hours. Almost no police officers were charged
despite the widespread brutality, and no public inquiry was ever
called.
9. Fired several independent watchdogs if they dare speak out.
10. Will spend $9 billion on new jails despite the decrease in crime.
They now refuse to allow the opposition to see the true cost,
although they are entitled to that information on whether to pass
crime bills.
11. Will spend $16 billion on fighter jets (F35s) with no competitive
bids from any other companies.
12. Produced a guide on how to disrupt parliamentary committees,
ensuring they are shut down.
13. Losing our seat at the U.N. to Portugal.
14. All MPs are given talking points and must follow them.
15. Stuffed the senate with anyone Conservative, making sure any bill
passed by the house is then cancelled. This happened with the last
bill which was passed by all opposition parties re climate change and
environment.
16. Thew Helena Guergis out of his caucus despite no findings of
criminal behaviour. She still doesn't know why she was thown out.
17. Continues to use attack ads which smear any opposition leader
even when no election is called. They do this because it works!
18. Cancelled his own fixed election laws, calling an election when
it looks like he'll get his majority.
19. Tells the public a coalition government is an "illegal coup" when
he tried to form a coalition government himself at one time to defeat
Paul Martin Liberals.
20. He wants to cancel subsidies to all political parties, which is
sure to destroy the smaller parties like the NDPs and Greens, and
damage the Liberals. This is to ensure he has all the power he
wants. His aim is to destroy the Liberals.
21. Tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, when he was dying of cancer, to vote
to keep the Conservatives in power. In the end, he voted with the
Liberals.
Rosemarie Green
------------------------------------------------------------
March 11
I’m ready to vote down “the Harper Government” immediately. Put my name down to unseat Harper. If this is so-called ‘transparency” then I want none of it.
Bring on the election.
Edith Cartwright
-----------------------------------------------------------
March 10
I discovered this web site by accident; I heartily support everything for which this group stands.
One of the underlying causes of the abuse of Prime ministerial power is the misguided policy of political parties is the election of leaders by the whole party. If leaders were elected by the parliamentary caucus, they would pay attention to their back benchers and MPs who are closer to the parliamentary business than the electorate would feel freer to object.
Now there is no way to get rid of a prime minister except by a leadership convention or a general election.
Derek Brisland
------------------------------------------------
February 24
Thank you for including me on your mailing list. I, too, am genuinely concerned about the direction this country has taken in recent years, particularly under Stephen Harper. In a recent interview Rex Murphy categorically stated Canada hasn't seen inspired leadership at the federal level for 20 years. I would suggest 27 years. High time Canadians raised their voices decrying this woeful situation.
Peter Pellier
-------------------------------------------------
February 24
February 9
I watched the segment on CBC radio where Anne-Maria Tremonte interviews Ursula Franklin. The CBC is experimenting with video broadcasts of radio programs, and I advise this method since Ursula is worth watching as well as listening to.
To do so, go to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/video.html , then click on "Segments" and scroll down to "Ursula Franklin".
Ursula says that she has observed the erosion of the basic parliamentary democracy in Canada. Sound familiar? What she sees is decision-making shortcuts taken by Harper. a practice that leads to fascism.
She says we are losing the game, the game being the parliamentary system that involves listening to citizens, which is, of course, the purpose of scrupling.
These ideas are just a taste to get you to take a look at the interview.
Clare Henderson
----------------------------------------------------------------
January 29
Please add my name and my husband's name to your supporter list.
We look forward to democracy returning to Canada for future survival and growth without far right bullying Reformer PM Stephen Wonder's sleazy cut/cut/cut services and vulnerable groups' financial support!
Let's bring awareness of many negative policies and actions of our current federal government to the many RURAL areas who need to see the truth: from severe lack of transparency, lack of national daycare (oh great…give me $1000 and the problem goes away, eh?), global child and maternal health, including birth control and abortion and including the Third World nations of Africa, Bill C-393, international donations, climate change, obliteration of beneficial long-term community planning long form census, etc, etc
Canada has gone from world class leader on many fronts, to world class bum under Harper's regime.
Hope we don't have to resort to total revolt like Egypt's current tragic turmoil.
Folks need to be better informed, and made aware of what is really going on here in Canada in the BIG PICTURE!!
Thanks for organizing this group. Let's get the whole nation, including rural folks (especially in Ontario) engaged and knowledgeable!
Bonne chance,
Marg (Sparky) Bartlett
January 24, 2011
I have been seriously concerned about what I believe to be the deliberate drift of our democracy into a plutocracy. The evidence is world wide, not just in Canada.
It is important that we promote the kind of Canada that evolved after the Second World War and took root during the period of the 1960’s and 70”s in particular. Nearly all political parties have been a party to the decline in Canada, but all parties have members who are appalled at what is happening.
Lets put the brakes on and turn the ship of state back onto the path that Canada seemed to be going on until the 1980's when things started to take a sinister turn. It’s not too late, but we have to get moving in whatever way we feel we are able.
We need to talk to each other and find out what is wrong and how we can try to make the changes that represent a better Canada.
Sincerely, Michael Dorman
----------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2011
After a complete review of the website, I offer a couple of issues that
might be considered important:
1) taxation / poverty: this is an issue that directly affects the level
of democracy - when you have a massive disparity between the rich and
middle class/poor, you cannot have democracy or social justice
- the current government brags about how long the corporate tax rate is,
which is not inherently bad, yet we see a frighteningly wide and growing
gap between rich and poor, with a shrinking middle class ( a recent
lengthy article in the Toronto Star pointed out the myriad social
problems that result)
- the personal income tax regime has become less progressive over time
(that is the tax rates for the rich and the 'better off' are declining
and there are still plenty of loopholes, but not so for the middle class)
- there is pitifully small funding for social housing
- there should be a more progressive tax credit scheme for the working poor
- there should be adequate funding for mental health services, as a
disproportionately high number of poor are requiring these services
- I'm sure there are many more examples which could be cited / explored
2) Immigration and immigrant services: perhaps a less important issue
than 1) above, yet still significant given that we need immigration to
keep our country vital, to support the predicted shortage of workers in
the coming 2 to 3 years, and to help support the economy as the Boomers
retire in droves.
- there seems to be a cutback in funding and services for new immigrants,
- the trend to accept only the 'profit seekers' who are well educated
and well positioned in their home country and not those 'freedom
seekers' who might not have had good educational opportunities but who
could nonetheless make an important contribution both economically and
morally, as most of our forefathers did
- there have been recent cutbacks to immigration services in larger
cities, with funds supposedly being re-allocated elsewhere
Regards,
Hart Jansson
---------------------------------------------------
December 19
Please add my name to your list of supporters. I agree with your statement of objectives but would like to add the following for consideration and comment
A democratic government recognizes that its legitimacy rests with the citizens of Canada rather than wealth or corporate interests. As such the government's responsibility is to pursue the common good while protecting the rights of its citizens. Other interests only merit government consideration to the degree they contribute to the common good.
Gayle Meehan
--------------------------------------------
December 15
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude for your enthusiasm. Far too many people are growing apathetic and disillusioned and I am so happy to see other concerned citizens rise against the growing corruption and injustice within our political systems in this country. I wholeheartedly support your cause.
Ian Bushfield
---------------------------------
December 13
--------------------------------------------
December 12
Right after the Second World War, Canada became an example in the eyes of many persons throughout the World. A modern nation, with a progressive bent, and a willingness to keep the raison d'état in check when great causes were at stake. It was this generous Canada, the one of Lester B. Pearson, that fascinated the young man I was then, to the point of making it my home for the rest of my life. There used to be Canadian Blue Helmets where they were truly needed. There was Canadian help where it was necessary and not only to get Canadian plants churning. Canada could speak on the world scene and its voice was listened to, even requested by other nations. A Canadian passport was the most coveted identity document on our planet, bare none.
Since the arrival of the Harper's government, a government that has never been able to claim the support of a majority of Canadians, I see the painstakingly built heritage of the previous period being dilapidated with no apparent concern about the consequences.
To the rest of the world, and even in our own eyes, we have become yet anther tribal state, mostly preoccupied with short term material interest at the expense of a longer view. What's more, this government pretends he is in his right to impose upon us his narrow religious vision on what is Good and what is Evil while it is the very soul of Canada it is squandering. There is no one left to listen to Canada's voice. From the influential position of United States' consciousness, we have moved to become their servant. We did not had to wait long to see the result. They despise us more than ever. And with good reasons. The United Nations are now hostile to Canada, a thing never seen before when we were one of their most trusted pillar.
But it is on the internal scene that the damages are worst. For a Quebecois, federalist or independentist, one cannot fail to notice the increasing gap between federal policies and the deep expectations of the Québec citizenry and not only its francophone segment. Whenever the visions are so diametrically opposed on so many issues, such as the fire arm registry, the correctional institutions, women's rights (including abortion), the right to die with dignity, the secularity of the state, the ecology, the sustainable development, the climate changes, etc. it becomes obvious that there is now a risk that even the federalists ask themselves: "But what are we doing in a federation which is imposing upon us the negation of what we were sharing with so many other Canadians?"
This decadence has its roots in the way of doing business of the Harper's government. A government which continues to use the power levers entrusted to a minority government to reorient Canada in a direction rejected by most Canadians. From an open democratic model, our governmental system is insensibly sliding into a form of elective dictatorship where the power levers are concentrated into a single hand, that one of the Prime Minister, and where the decision processes are rendered opaque through the systematic use of dilatory measures or even plain old censorship.
I believe that Canadians and especially Quebec citizens must realize that this type of attitude from the Harper's government is not going to change without pressure from the citizens. The initiative « Reclaim our Democratic Canada » is in this direction. I wish it the success it diserves.
Michel Virard
---------------------------------------------------
December 10
-----------------------------------------------
November 29
November 24
----------------------------------------------
November 23
That being said, I also want to be more involved in your group.I think there is something very powerful and very important being discussed here and I see real social and political value.
Please keep me in the loop and please inform me of any future meetings.Until then, keep going!
Dan Gussin
-----------------------------------------
November 19
Please add my name to your list of those wanting to see more accountability, transparency, and all that a government of the people should be.
Patricia Alexander Grant
----------------------------------------------------
Thank you so very much for counting me in, you can count on me for any support.
Linda Mathews
---------------------------------------------------
Add my name to the list. I feel that everyone regardless of their political leanings should be concerned about Stephen Harper. Under the guise of democracy he is quickly becoming a dictator supported by a group of men and women whom Mordecai Richler so aptly referred to as "Yes men" and Yes women".
Doreen Seiggel
--------------------------------------------------
November 14
-----------------------------------
November 10
November 7
-----------------------------------
November 5
I have been weeping for (and ashamed of) my country of late, as our government appears to be taking us so far away from the compassionate, progressive way of looking at the world that we have been proud of. Perhaps we were seeing it with rose-coloured glasses, but it certainly was better than the way we have been moving in recent times.
I was shocked the other day to read in the newspapers that a poll showed that 69% of Canadians think our government did the right thing re Omar Khadr. Who are these Canadians who believe that it is okay to try a 15 year old for war crimes, despite having signed the convention against such treatment? That it is okay to torture a confession from a boy who was put into terrorist camps for brainwashing at 11 years old? That it is okay for our government to ignore courts, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, who said his constitutional rights are being violated? I could go on and on. It certainly is not the Canada I was led to believe I lived in.
Bert MacBain
----------------------------------------------
October 28
Congratulations on your effort to engage citizens in the democratic process.l
I'd like to see more attention to the environment plank in your platform. It is pale green and mushy. The eco-catastrophes currently occurring and pending require a more robust response that the anemic equation of the environment with the economy. In fact, our present economic order (globalized capitalism; domestically the commodity-driven export economy; personal consumption uber alles) is the cause of environmental problems and the solution will inevitably require some dramatic shifts in both how the economy functions, and how we expect it to function.
The focus on citizenship and community over the roles of producer and consumer is one place to start.
I'd also like to see a plank attending to the reality of the colonization of Canada and thus of indigenous peoples. Decolonization measures are essential for justice. Without attention to the realities of indigenous oppression at the hands of the democratic state, we really can't attend to these issues except through an assimilative formula.
Joyce A. Green, Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Regina
--------------------------
Thank you for creating a forum to give a voice to the majority of Canadians who stand for equality and justice from a social democratic viewpoint. Please add me to the movement. I am ready to work with others to create a Canada that reflects social justice.
Dr. Colleen MacQuarrie
Associate Professor, Graduate Faculty
University of Prince Edward Island
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where shall we go after the last frontier, where will birds fly after the last sky? -Mahmoud Darwish-
Until the lions produce their own historian, the story of the hunt will glorify only the hunter! - an African proverb-
Randa Farah
Associate Professor
UWO, Department of Anthropology
Social Science Centre
London, Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grassroots movement. Probably the only way to make things happen.
I fully support this movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I am astonished that there is no reference to electoral reform.
2. I am interested in peace, not peacekeeping. I want an end to war preparation and militarization in Canada
3. How can the site criticize military expenditures and yet not make a connection with the need for funding in other areas such as child care?
Brian Hopkins
(Please note the National Child Care page. Ed.)
------------------------------------
October 27
Can we reclaim our democracy without changing the method used to award seats in Federal and Provincial elections? I suggest that electoral reform is essential to resolving most if not all of the issues identified on the site.
If we change to a system of Proportional Representation, a system where 40% of the vote gets a party 40 % of the power and parties are forced to work together to govern, government policy will reflect the ideas that most of us support. Then we can get what Canadians want on climate change, national child care, etc. We will have coalitions that the majority of Canadians supported at the ballot box.
If you want to find out more about Fair Vote in Canada, go to this site http://www.fairvote.ca/
Dan Griffin
-------------------------------
A friend sent your material to me and I was astonished at how it matched my concerns about what is happening to Canada; thank you for your initiative. I was reading only today that when Gordon Wilson looked likely to become a political power in BC monied interests (corporate interests) approached him with a view to taking over the Liberal party. He rejected their advances but as history attests the monied interests took over Gordon's party and it became the opportunist party that embarrasses us today. The only explanation that I can come up with that the liberal party of Canada has not advocated your concerns is that the big-money interests are not interested in a more democratic and open Canada. If money is of paramount concern to politicians votes are even more important and if you can grow from the grassroots support for your view of Canada the politicians will follow with a sidelong glance at corporate big-money.
We see in the USA how corporate money covertly in the past but openly now is "buying" access to politicians and writing new legislation to suit themselves and their bottom line. It is most important for democracy in Canada for there to be control of money fed to politicians by special interests. There must be regulation to ensure that the mass media allow many points of view to be discussed before an election. We have the example of the recent election in Australia where a discredited party was almost able to get elected because Murdoch owns over 90% of mass media in Australia and he was against the Labour Party.
Whereas I agree with your concerns I notice that you don't mention the ideological bias against the poor, disadvantaged, mentally ill and homeless people. It is clear that the taxpayer is paying considerably more socially and financially for the ideology that says these people should not be encouraged to be indigent. The accounting that I have seen says that considerable money would be saved if the homeless were properly cared for rather than piecemeal payments for hospitalization, regulation and police control.
Roger Sandford
------------------------------
While I find some things the Harper government is doing quite appalling, I am torn about supporting your cause because I think we need to go beyond thinking about making Canada a better place, to making the whole planet better.
We are divided into separate countries so that we think in terms of "us and them", by a system that is hierarchical and unnatural - Capitaliism - the money system.
Count me as a supporter, and I will try to be as supportive as I can comfortably be, considering that my heart is in a cooperative world of free access and contribution without money. We need radical change - radical meaning getting at the root of the problems, not violent nor destructive.
Best wishes, and thank you very much for your work,
Tony Gelsthorpe
------------------------------
I got the link to your Reclaim Canada blog from my mom. I will definitely stay tuned and look forward to hearing more about this group's activities. You have my support!
I do have one critique, and that is that although most of the issues mentioned on the site are arguably most critical in Northern Canada, there was little to no mention of fighting for the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. I would like to see more discussion on that issue, including on those Canadians who are often overlooked completely - Aboriginals who live throughout Canada and in our urban centers who face barriers and discrimination.
Having said that, I think you have done a great job of summarizing and illustrating all of the issues mentioned on the site - I will pass it along to my networks.
Katherine Toms
------------------------------
October 26
-----------------------------------------
I wholeheartedly endorse your efforts: I see “Laziness & arrogance” in this government, exampled by the Gun Registry & Census nonsense’s of late. It must be the duty of Government to improve laws & regulations, not take the easy way if not in agreement and merely seek to remove or weaken the rules.
Godfrey Owen
------------------------------------
October 15
---------------------------
October 14
I support Reclaim Canada wholeheartedly! Thank you for starting this
group, I will pass it along to as many of my contacts as possible and
encourage them to join.
May Mickelow
--------------------------------
I have had the awful premonition that I (and my fellow Canadians) have been standing idly by while Rome burns. I protested on Parliament Hill in the anti-prorogation rally --- it was my first "march" in my 53 year life. But I still feel the need to rush to the barricades and turn on the hoses. Reclaim Canada is a call to arms.
Recent efforts by commentators to amass and communicate the track record of the current government have confirmed my deep concern and provided a firm diagnosis for my anxiety about the course of democracy in Canada. The tone and level of what passes for political discourse emanating from the Prime Minister's Office has done nothing to restore faith in the political system or to engage new participants into it. If Harper's intent has been to savage critics, discourage well-meaning participants, shut down journalistic inquiry and examination, muzzle public servants, denigrate expertise and knowledge and instill fear he has been extremely successful. These are also perfect conditions for instituting a dictatorship, particularly if the citizenship fails to shoulder its democratic responsibilities.
I have been dismayed at the inability or unwillingness of the opposition parties to condemn Harper's policies and actions. Without a strong alternate voice, we citizens feel abandoned.
Thank you for giving us someplace to register our concerns and to move toward action to reclaim the democratic traditions and values that have made Canada the envy of the world . . . at least until 2006.
Please add my name to your list of supporters,
Susan C. Gates
-----------------------------------------
Demokratia means rule of the people. Equality and freedom are its most important characteristics and it is a form of government meant to ensure that the state can be constrained from behaving in an arbitrary and coercive fashion.
I really like the idea that runs through this site that instead of polarized debate, with opinions written in acid or invective, policies can be arrived at by reasoned discussion.
Tina Agrell
--------------------------------------
I, too, am alarmed at the erosion of democracy as well as general civility under the current Harper government. Sign me up!
Christine Penner Polle
--------------------------------------
I was pleased you placed gender equality at the head of the list of pressing issues. Until such time as women everywhere are treated with dignity; until such time as women are equally represented in our halls of power, all the other issues you listed will continue to fester.
Peter Pellier
------------------------------------
October 13
Hello – My name is Bruce Dickson. I live in Toronto and share your understandable concerns over the wayward course that democracy has taken in our country for far too long. We have outsourced the issue to a too-conflicted political class for quite some time, now, perhaps thinking the subject too technical and recondite – only to awaken late in the day to see just how far off course that approach has led us.
So power to the people! Let’s reclaim a task that was always rightfully ours and show once more to the world just how effectively a modern and properly functioning democracy can operate in today’s world – and do it in a way that will help ensure that a self-interested minority can never hijack it again.
Count me in and all the best.
Bruce Dickson
------------------------------------
I would like to restore and reclaim our Canada, protect hard fought-for human rights and preserve the traditions and regulations of parliamentary democracy.
Mary Davis
------------------------------------
I support the efforts of Canadians everywhere who are concerned about the
erosion of democracy in our country. We must speak up and alert others to protect
the constitutional rights of Canadians and preserve a just, equitable, peaceful and free
society that we can be proud of again.
Leslie Catling
-------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the initiative to compile a list of the actions of this government that have clearly shown a complete disdain for the values Canada and Canadians have always supported and been recognized for around the world.
The latest embarrassment in not being chosen for a seat on the U.N. Security Council is a clear indication of how this government has chosen a path that is in direct opposition to what Canadians want our country to be.
I have often likened the Harper government to the Tea Party in the U.S. This is not a Conservative government in any sense of the word. It is the Reform Party, feeding on secrecy, divisiveness and derision of those with opposing views.
If the majority of us do not speak out now and encourage all like-minded citizens to get out and vote when the time comes, we will end up being saddled with this government for a long time to come as it is certain that those few who support the Conservatives will line up to vote to ensure a victory for their party of choice. This is clearly evident in the rising of the Tea Party in the U.S. Though a small minority cut from the Republican Party, they are the most vocal and garner the most press.
Your efforts to regain our country are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sharon O’Driscoll
---------------------------
October 12
Please add my name to your list of supporters. The website looks great!
It's good to finally have a list of all that this government has done to dismantle Canadian democracy and everything that Canada has stood for. The constant chipping away at the base of our democracy goes unnoticed by many people, but when you see the cumulative effect it becomes clear.
Scott Henderson
------------------------------
September 27, 2010
One of the ways that our democracy has been eroded is by the use of the omnibus bill. When a government wants to pass legislation that they know the other parties oppose, they attach that legislation onto a totally unrelated bill that contains aspects that the opposition really wants. Or they attach a non-money proposal onto a financial bill, thus making it into a confidence vote. In either case, the opposition is often forced into accepting legislation that they oppose and the government pushes through unpopular legislation.
In a fully functioning democratic parliament, every single different topic would be in a separate bill.
In a fully functioning democratic parliament, the use of omnibus bills would not be permitted.
-Elka Ruth Enola
-------------------------
I am particularly concerned about the lack of funding for programs that support violence and sexual abuse against women.
Susan Rayman
-------------------------
Gun Registry
I would love to add my name to this grassroots movement to restore democracy to Canada. I have been following all the topics mentioned on this great website and am extremely disturbed by all these events.
Another issue which is important to me is the attempt to scrap the gun registry by means of a private member’s bill. If Jack Layton allows some of his members to vote with the Conservatives, it would be disastrous! Good for Michael Ignatief for working hard to keep it. Also we must keep the war resisters from being sent back to the U.S. for refusing to fight in the Iraq war.
-Rosemarie Green
---------------------------------------
This movement can do a great service for democracy in Canada.
Let's tell our politicians that we want to move forward on participatory democracy, not backward. That we want to move forward on gender equality, not backward. That we don't want to hear about party ideology, party platforms or party anything!
We want to hear how our Parliamentarians and our Prime Minister will increase the transparency of government, not decrease it as Harper has blatantly done. We're not interested in how cleverly Harper can use the tricks he learned from the right wingers in the US to manipulate the voters with fear and uncertainty. We don't want to compare the PMO's office to authoritarian regimes.
We want the power in the hands of the people, or at the very least in Parliament, and not in the hands of Harper's unelected staffers. And let's be clear: Chretien and the Liberals were on that same backward track, albeit with more reasonable policies.
In the next election, let's ask each candidate what she will do to improve our democracy, to decrease the hundreds of patronage appointments, to make government's actions completely transparent and accountable and to put much more democratic power back in the hands of every constituent!
-Hart Jansson
---------------------------------
I strongly support this movement! Common sense, cooperation and consideration of our less fortunate Canadians (as well as other members of our global community) must take precedence over political gamesmanship as demonstrated by Stephen Harper.
-Daniella Moscovici Jansson
----------------------------------------
September 18, 2010
Two things stand out for me:
-Others besides me wants to reclaim Canada.
-Secondly, I affirm the statements "What we Stand For." #3 is currently of particular importance because I am part of a team of women across Canada working diligently to get Bill C-393 passed. The organization, National Advocacy Committee of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign advocates strongly for many of things issues mentioned.
Multi-partisan and deeply concerned.
-Elizabeth Rennie
(Sandy's comment): Freedom of the press? Then how does that align with a Conservative Minister aka MP James Bezan of Selkirk-Interlake contacting the Publisher of the Selkirk newspaper, 'The Selkirk Record', as well as the reporter's editor, to complain about 'biased reporting' done by an independent reporter hired by that paper???
As part of his 'proof', Bezan complained that she had signed the anti-FIPPA (Canada-China Investment Treaty) petition. The reporter pointed out she signed the petition as a private citizen, not as a representative of the newspaper. So, apparently the Conservatives are keeping tabs on who exactly signed, and trying to get them in trouble with their employers.
This culminated in the reporter getting fired! It is absolutely outrageous that a member of the government would interfere in such a manner with the independence of Canadian media! It is something one would expect from any tin-pot dictatorship, but here in Canada?
~ Sandy Rubinfeld
============================
The Oakville Beaver, November 7
Dear Editor,
In one week Prime Minister Harper could commit this country to the most sweeping trade deal in a generation, without debate or vote in the House.
If the Canada-China FIPA passes, it will pave the way for China’s massive companies to spend billions buying-out Canada’s natural resource companies.
Under FIPA, China’s companies can sue Canadian governments, federal, provincial or municipal, if those governments do anything that would limit the companies’ profits in Canada.
For the next 31 years the FIPA would make it possible for China’s companies to challenge the Canadian laws that create jobs, protect our environment and build healthy communities with billion-dollar lawsuits that would cost taxpayers dearly.
We should learn from the fact that Canada has already spent hundreds of millions on penalties from lawsuits launched under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Right now Belgium is facing a $3 billion suit from one of China’s companies because of a similar foreign investor agreement.
Why would you lock us into this secretive and extreme deal? It looks like short-term gains for long-term pain.
This is a Democracy. Surely Canadians have a right to have a say in the decisions that will shape our lives.
Tina Agrell
Reclaim Our Democratic Canada
================================
October 3, 2012
Although I won't be able to go to the symposium, I am very glad that it will be happening. The attendance fee is very reasonable.
How can I hear the live-streamed speeches? From the RODC site? It would be great if there were a question and answer that were done over the web or even by phone (like radio stations do). Would that be possible?
I wrote RODC recently (but I can't find the e-mail) with some ideas that I believe could, among many other ideas to be brought forward at the symposium, help restore a more democratic Canada and even bring greater democracy to Canada than before the Conservative regime.
Of course, in terms of voting in a government, a system that is more representative and fairer than 'first past the post' is one most of us would agree on... although exactly which format this would take would be up for discussion, since there are so many variations.
I am sure many of you are proposing anti-omnibus bills, since Omnibus Bills are at the heart undemocratic and don't allow citizens to see everything that is in a Bill and don't allow MPs to separately discuss and vote on each part of the Bill on its own merits.
Here are some other ideas:
• I find it ridiculous that in question period, when a Minister is in hot water, so many times someone else in the Harper regime speaks on their behalf (usually attack dogs like John Baird) even when that Minister is present. This happened when Bev Oda was questioned on the ^not in terms of defunding Kairos, when Peter McKay was questioned on the F-35 fiasco, etc.
When someone else answers for you, it becomes spin, and it affords a blanket of protection a Minister does not deserve. I would suggest to RODC to push for legislation that insists that other than in exceptional circumstances (Minister in question is not present for a documented reason such as out of the country, in hospital, sick...), that when a question is asked of a Minister, they should be the one to answer the question.
• The House Speaker, instead of usually being a partisan member of the governing Party, should perhaps instead be a non-political appointment. Perhaps someone from the legal or Judicial community, that is agreed to by all the Parties in Parliament. This person should be given real authority to sanction and discipline Members of Parliament who thwart the rules. When it is apparent that a Minister is not answering the question, but deflecting to something totally different, (for instance, recently when every Minister who rose to speak talked about Mulcair's 'carbon tax'... and this was so obviously scripted, not to mention phoney), then they should be sanctioned.
• There should be legislation governing the working of Committees, that would make it illegal to intentionally sabotage or disrupt the Committees' work. I.e. the Conservatives book on how to disrupt Committees would then be illegal.
To help enforce this, if any member of a Committee senses the work is being disrupted or sabotaged, they should have a body not connected to the government or to any Party in particular to complain to. Should the complaint prove to be valid, this special body should have the authority to sanction and discipline the offending Members.
• A friend told me (and I can't vouch for this, as I haven't checked it out) that in the Netherlands where she is from, Ministers are not elected, but are appointed because of their expertise in the various fields. This takes out a lot of the blatant politics.
It is a little ridiculous to have an Environment Minister like Peter Kent, for instance, who has no special interest or expertise in environmental issues, or a Status of Women Minister like Rona Ambrose, who apparently doesn't believe in a woman's right to control her own body.
My suggestion is that for any government department, there be two Ministers. For instance, for the Health portfolio, one of the Ministers would be in the Government Cabinet, while the other would be a non-partisan expert in the field of health. This other Minister would be above just being a civil servant, and would have full freedom of expression to offer informed opinions on proposed legislation. This would not merely be a Deputy Minister or a civil servant, who would be obliged to carry out the wishes of the Minister, but someone who would offer the Canadian public and all of Parliament an informed opinion based on experience in that field. This would be sort of a co-chair of a Board role.
• There needs to be legislation brought forward (obviously, the Conservatives won't be doing this) that protects the freedom of expression of government scientists and other government experts. They should not ever be muzzled (unless it truly is a security issue).
• Right now, a governing Party controls the whole legislative agenda. I would like to see more opportunity for the Opposition and other MPs to have set times to bring forward legislation. If it is good and needed legislation, just because a Party has a majority government, they will have a hard time declining to vote for this proposed legislation. Who knows, maybe it will increase all Party co-operation?
I have other ideas, but I think this is enough for now!
Have a great symposium! Wish I could be there...
~ Sandy Rubinfeld, Winnipeg Supporter of RODC
========================================================
Letter in the Beaver, June 12
Heroic MPs sought to oppose bill
Open letter to Oakville MP Terence Young, filed with The Oakville Beaver
I would like to thank you for your much appreciated voice on Parliament Hill to get life saving anti-retroviral drugs to victims of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Although we have not yet succeeded, you were one of the Conservative MPs who always made it clear to your government you would continue to support this effort.
We need your voice now, more than ever, to express our grave concerns about the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38, which will likely be voted on tomorrow (June 14).
As you know, the Act bundles many initiatives into one omnibus bill, which include, but are not limited to, changes in: Immigration, Environment, Natural Resources, National Policing, Food Safety, Culture, Health Care spending... and the list goes on.
This serves to make the proposed legislation unwieldy, all-encompassing and resistant to a thorough analysis by opposition parties, citizens and non-Cabinet members of the Conservative Party of Canada.
With respect, this bill must be divided into smaller, more manageable pieces to allow sufficient time for analysis, debate and compromise, prior to being passed.
Canada is a nation of distinct regions and traditions, bound by one uniting value.
We, as Canadians, cherish our human rights, our social conscience, our environmental responsibility and our status as peacekeepers on the world stage.
We believe in a society that embraces diversity, and encourages debate and opposing opinions.
Of particular concern are the proposed changes to Employment Insurance and Canada Old Age Security program.
Our most vulnerable citizens are being targeted and harmed by this legislation.
In my view, Bill C-38 does not reflect Canadian values.
Instead, it is divisive, harmful and will have significant consequences for future generations.
Omnibus Bills of this nature and size are undemocratic and a very dangerous way to run a country.
No national, provincial or municipal government should rule through massive omnibus bills.
I ask you, as my representative in Parliament, to be one of the 13 Hero Conservative MPs needed to make a difference and vote against this bill.
- Bev LeFrancois, Oakville
===================================
Letter in June 13 Beaver
Democracy is a complex issue
Re: Letter was misleading: reader, Friday, June 8, 2012, The Oakville Beaver
Ms. Barreto has taken Ms. Sandford to task for her ‘definition of democracy’, which is rather ironic.
According to Ms. Barreto, Canada is a democracy on the sole basis of holding regular elections. By that criterion, the Soviet Union and all the East Bloc countries of Europe were democracies as they, too, held regular elections.
The criteria for determining democracy are far more complicated. Her view is sadly quite common among our citizens who lack understanding of what should be the democratic process in this country.
It is hardly democratic when a party with 39 per cent of the popular vote can form a majority government and then ram through legislation in the form of an omnibus bill containing all sorts of policies, which were not in their election platform and which go against the wishes of the majority of citizens.
Democracy in this country really is facing a crisis the likes of which it has not faced before.
- George Brett, Oakville
=======================================
This letter appeared in the Oakville Beaver June 7
It’s not the time for sleepwalking
Dear Sir
I hope the readers of the Beaver are aware of the way the so called budget bill, Bill C 38, devastates many long standing and beneficial environmental laws.
Not only does it repeal the Kyoto protocol Implementation Act but also the National round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. which facilitates environmental dialogue and advice form business, academia and environmental civil society organisations. This grouping has been called unnecessary by the Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, because he considers this exchange of views can happen over the Internet.
Bill C38 will eliminate all protection for fish habitat except for commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is also repealed to be replaced by an act that gives the Minister of the Environment powers to end an environmental assessment if he/she considers it is taking too long.
It also give the national Energy Board full powers to approve the construction of pipe lines in any navigable waters and to decide what species of any kind in the path of the pipeline may be considered endangered.
The Conservative Party cannot avoid being considered the anti-environmental party and on the basis of its coverall, omnibus bill and other abuses of parliament, the anti democratic party as well.
Mervyn Russell, Chair, the Oakville/ Mississauga Kairos Group
This letter appeared in the Mississauga News
The big picture here is that our democratic rights have been jeopardized and we cannot rest until we know the facts. As Martin Luther King said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
====================================
The Letters that follow are the replies received by an RODC member who sent a letter to all Senators:
Letter from Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette
I would like thank you for your email regarding Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Crime rates have been going down for 20 years and currently the global economy is contracting, but the Harper Conservatives still want to spend billions on a backwards crime agenda that flies in the face of fact and evidence.
The Conservative attitude towards crime fails to understand the connection between the challenges of addiction and mental health and that of crime. It also clearly disadvantages the most vulnerable members of society, including Canada’s Aboriginal population.
These policies will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures to be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost.
The Liberal Party remains committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention. As Liberals, we will continue to fight against the adoption of Bill C-10.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C.
Liberal Senator
Please read on the issue: C-10: to combat crime effectively and in the long term, we cannot limit ourselves to imprisoning offenders (www.eurekablog.ca/?p=1238)
==============================
Letter from Senator Terry Mercer
Thank you for your email regarding Stephen Harper’s Omnibus Crime Legislation, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Crime rates have been going down for 20 years and currently the global economy is contracting, but the Harper Conservatives still want to spend untold billions on a backwards crime agenda that flies in the face of fact and evidence.
The Conservative attitude towards crime fails to understand the connection between the challenges of addiction and mental health and that of crime. It also clearly disadvantages the most vulnerable members of society, including Canada’s Aboriginal population.
These polices will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures will be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost.
The Conservatives however decided to use their tyrannical majority and invoked closure at every stage of this Bill, ensuring that it did not receive the proper debate that it deserves. The Liberal Party remains committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention; that is why we opposed this flawed Bill.
This fight will be a tough one, with the large Conservative majority in the Senate, but you can help.
A Call to Action
Here a few things you can do:
Add your name to an online petition that opposes Bill C-10 at http://survey.liberal.ca/c10/
Call your MPs’ offices and express your displeasure.
Call your friends and give them your MPs’ numbers and email address.
Any group, clubs, or organizations you might belong to need to be informed.
Any community leaders you know need to be engaged.
Call your provincial representative and express concern over the cost of this Bill which will be passed on to the Provinces.
Keep the chatter going at Tim Horton’s/Starbucks etc.
Remember in the 1980s when Mr. Mulroney had a large majority and he tried to alter the pensions of seniors, thousands of Canadians protested and created a situation that even a majority government had to back down.
Thank you for taking the time to write and let’s continue the fight together.
Hon. Terry M. Mercer, CFRE
Senator, Northend Halifax (Nova Scotia) | Sénateur, Secteur Nord (Nouvelle-Écosse)
613-996-2657 | 613-947-2345 facsimile / télécopieur
mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca
Senate of Canada | Sénat du Canada
Room 371 East Block | 371 édifice de l'Est | Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4==========================
Letter from Senator Jane Cordy
Thank you very much for your email. I have already spoken against Bill-C10 in the Senate before Christmas. I spoke mainly about the effect the Bill will have on those who are mentally ill and who come in conflict with the law. If you wish to read my speech and others go to the Senate website. (http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Statement/14990_Safe-Streets-and-Communities-BillSecond-Reading)
This Bill is not based on scientific evidence but rather on Conservative ideology. In fact evidence shows that this type of legislation does not work. It will not make Canadians safer but it will cost Canadians billions of dollars which could be better spent on programs that do work. Thank you for your comments and your interest in the Bill.
Senator Jane Cordy (NS)=============================
Letter from Senator Joan Fraser
Thank you for writing to me about Bill C-10, I appreciate you having taken the time to do so.
I can assure you that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am Deputy Chair, intends to do a proper study of this bill which has, I agree, many implications that need to be examined (mandatory minimum sentences and removal of judicial discretion being just some of them). You rightfully point out that we have to keep youth in mind when considering this bill.
Have you had a chance to follow the Committee proceedings? http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?parl=41&ses=1&Language=E&comm_id=11
Meetings on C-10 started last week with the Minster of Justice and Minister of Public Safety appearing. The committee resumed hearings today and continues over the next couple of weeks; the witnesses include: the Canadian Bar Association, Barreau du Québec and Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, among others. The meetings are broadcast on CPAC, or can be watched anytime online by following the committee link at http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=1&Language=E&comm_id=11
The website is updated regularly. The committee meetings are online and we encourage you follow the proceedings when they are broadcast (by clicking the ‘watch/listen’ tab on the page).
I am also providing the link to a Canadian Press article about last week’s Legal Committee meeting: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/06/pol-cp-ati-crime-bill.html.
Thank you again for your email.
Heroic MPs sought to oppose bill
Open letter to Oakville MP Terence Young, filed with The Oakville Beaver
I would like to thank you for your much appreciated voice on Parliament Hill to get life saving anti-retroviral drugs to victims of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Although we have not yet succeeded, you were one of the Conservative MPs who always made it clear to your government you would continue to support this effort.
We need your voice now, more than ever, to express our grave concerns about the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38, which will likely be voted on tomorrow (June 14).
As you know, the Act bundles many initiatives into one omnibus bill, which include, but are not limited to, changes in: Immigration, Environment, Natural Resources, National Policing, Food Safety, Culture, Health Care spending... and the list goes on.
This serves to make the proposed legislation unwieldy, all-encompassing and resistant to a thorough analysis by opposition parties, citizens and non-Cabinet members of the Conservative Party of Canada.
With respect, this bill must be divided into smaller, more manageable pieces to allow sufficient time for analysis, debate and compromise, prior to being passed.
Canada is a nation of distinct regions and traditions, bound by one uniting value.
We, as Canadians, cherish our human rights, our social conscience, our environmental responsibility and our status as peacekeepers on the world stage.
We believe in a society that embraces diversity, and encourages debate and opposing opinions.
Of particular concern are the proposed changes to Employment Insurance and Canada Old Age Security program.
Our most vulnerable citizens are being targeted and harmed by this legislation.
In my view, Bill C-38 does not reflect Canadian values.
Instead, it is divisive, harmful and will have significant consequences for future generations.
Omnibus Bills of this nature and size are undemocratic and a very dangerous way to run a country.
No national, provincial or municipal government should rule through massive omnibus bills.
I ask you, as my representative in Parliament, to be one of the 13 Hero Conservative MPs needed to make a difference and vote against this bill.
- Bev LeFrancois, Oakville
===================================
Letter in June 13 Beaver
Democracy is a complex issue
Re: Letter was misleading: reader, Friday, June 8, 2012, The Oakville Beaver
Ms. Barreto has taken Ms. Sandford to task for her ‘definition of democracy’, which is rather ironic.
According to Ms. Barreto, Canada is a democracy on the sole basis of holding regular elections. By that criterion, the Soviet Union and all the East Bloc countries of Europe were democracies as they, too, held regular elections.
The criteria for determining democracy are far more complicated. Her view is sadly quite common among our citizens who lack understanding of what should be the democratic process in this country.
It is hardly democratic when a party with 39 per cent of the popular vote can form a majority government and then ram through legislation in the form of an omnibus bill containing all sorts of policies, which were not in their election platform and which go against the wishes of the majority of citizens.
Democracy in this country really is facing a crisis the likes of which it has not faced before.
- George Brett, Oakville
=======================================
This letter appeared in the Oakville Beaver June 7
It’s not the time for sleepwalking
Reclaim Our Democratic Canada (RODC), held a rally at the Oakville Towne Square Saturday to...
I was born in Europe at the start of the Second World War.
I vividly remember Canadians arriving to liberate us. After the war, my parents brought me to this country. I became a Canadian.
I am so thankful to have grown up here and so thankful that my children grew up here as well.
On Saturday, there was a Rally for Democracy in the Towne Square.
Judging from the small number of people who attended, the media has not done its job.
I am so thankful to have grown up here and so thankful that my children grew up here as well.
On Saturday, there was a Rally for Democracy in the Towne Square.
Judging from the small number of people who attended, the media has not done its job.
We listened to some emotional speeches, including one by Bonnie Brown.
While the world is fighting for democracy, our democratic process is being threatened.
Budget Bill C-38 is a 452-page act amending some 60 different laws. It has the potential to change our country, not for the better, in my opinion.
I urge you to pay attention, do your homework, because this is serious.
While the world is fighting for democracy, our democratic process is being threatened.
Budget Bill C-38 is a 452-page act amending some 60 different laws. It has the potential to change our country, not for the better, in my opinion.
I urge you to pay attention, do your homework, because this is serious.
This is not the time for ‘sleepwalking’. Do it for your children and your grandchildren.
When it is too late, it is much too late.
- Karen Sandford, Oakville
===========================
Oakville Beaver May 19th 2012When it is too late, it is much too late.
- Karen Sandford, Oakville
===========================
Dear Sir
I hope the readers of the Beaver are aware of the way the so called budget bill, Bill C 38, devastates many long standing and beneficial environmental laws.
Not only does it repeal the Kyoto protocol Implementation Act but also the National round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. which facilitates environmental dialogue and advice form business, academia and environmental civil society organisations. This grouping has been called unnecessary by the Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, because he considers this exchange of views can happen over the Internet.
Bill C38 will eliminate all protection for fish habitat except for commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is also repealed to be replaced by an act that gives the Minister of the Environment powers to end an environmental assessment if he/she considers it is taking too long.
It also give the national Energy Board full powers to approve the construction of pipe lines in any navigable waters and to decide what species of any kind in the path of the pipeline may be considered endangered.
The Conservative Party cannot avoid being considered the anti-environmental party and on the basis of its coverall, omnibus bill and other abuses of parliament, the anti democratic party as well.
Mervyn Russell, Chair, the Oakville/ Mississauga Kairos Group
====================================
This letter appeared in the Mississauga News
Dear Editor:
Whether we like them or not, robocalls employed by political parties are a legitimate way to contact, inform and educate voters. We have learned that the robocall system has been used illegally. This has a profoundly negative effect on democracy and our freedoms.
Organized electoral fraud is a crime and a direct attack on the foundation of democracy.
Whether you voted for the Conservatives, Liberals, New Democratic Party, Green Party or otherwise; whether or not your constituent of choice was elected; even if you chose not to go to your local polling station to vote, we all have a vested interest in getting to the bottom of the voter suppression story.
We need to learn the whole truth about the 2011 election and restore the basic integrity of our democracy. Make no mistake it takes serious money and major phone number databases to target voters in multiple ridings.
Voter suppression is not about the parties or their leaders. It’s about us, the voters. It’s about the integrity of the system of democracy, which we have always held up as a model to the world. We must insist upon having the truth and knowing that those responsible will pay for their crime.
Whether we like them or not, robocalls employed by political parties are a legitimate way to contact, inform and educate voters. We have learned that the robocall system has been used illegally. This has a profoundly negative effect on democracy and our freedoms.
Organized electoral fraud is a crime and a direct attack on the foundation of democracy.
Whether you voted for the Conservatives, Liberals, New Democratic Party, Green Party or otherwise; whether or not your constituent of choice was elected; even if you chose not to go to your local polling station to vote, we all have a vested interest in getting to the bottom of the voter suppression story.
We need to learn the whole truth about the 2011 election and restore the basic integrity of our democracy. Make no mistake it takes serious money and major phone number databases to target voters in multiple ridings.
Voter suppression is not about the parties or their leaders. It’s about us, the voters. It’s about the integrity of the system of democracy, which we have always held up as a model to the world. We must insist upon having the truth and knowing that those responsible will pay for their crime.
The big picture here is that our democratic rights have been jeopardized and we cannot rest until we know the facts. As Martin Luther King said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
====================================
The Letters that follow are the replies received by an RODC member who sent a letter to all Senators:
Letter from Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette
I would like thank you for your email regarding Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Crime rates have been going down for 20 years and currently the global economy is contracting, but the Harper Conservatives still want to spend billions on a backwards crime agenda that flies in the face of fact and evidence.
The Conservative attitude towards crime fails to understand the connection between the challenges of addiction and mental health and that of crime. It also clearly disadvantages the most vulnerable members of society, including Canada’s Aboriginal population.
These policies will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures to be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost.
The Liberal Party remains committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention. As Liberals, we will continue to fight against the adoption of Bill C-10.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C.
Liberal Senator
Please read on the issue: C-10: to combat crime effectively and in the long term, we cannot limit ourselves to imprisoning offenders (www.eurekablog.ca/?p=1238)
==============================
Letter from Senator Terry Mercer
Thank you for your email regarding Stephen Harper’s Omnibus Crime Legislation, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Crime rates have been going down for 20 years and currently the global economy is contracting, but the Harper Conservatives still want to spend untold billions on a backwards crime agenda that flies in the face of fact and evidence.
The Conservative attitude towards crime fails to understand the connection between the challenges of addiction and mental health and that of crime. It also clearly disadvantages the most vulnerable members of society, including Canada’s Aboriginal population.
These polices will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures will be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost.
The Conservatives however decided to use their tyrannical majority and invoked closure at every stage of this Bill, ensuring that it did not receive the proper debate that it deserves. The Liberal Party remains committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention; that is why we opposed this flawed Bill.
This fight will be a tough one, with the large Conservative majority in the Senate, but you can help.
A Call to Action
Here a few things you can do:
Add your name to an online petition that opposes Bill C-10 at http://survey.liberal.ca/c10/
Call your MPs’ offices and express your displeasure.
Call your friends and give them your MPs’ numbers and email address.
Any group, clubs, or organizations you might belong to need to be informed.
Any community leaders you know need to be engaged.
Call your provincial representative and express concern over the cost of this Bill which will be passed on to the Provinces.
Keep the chatter going at Tim Horton’s/Starbucks etc.
Remember in the 1980s when Mr. Mulroney had a large majority and he tried to alter the pensions of seniors, thousands of Canadians protested and created a situation that even a majority government had to back down.
Thank you for taking the time to write and let’s continue the fight together.
Hon. Terry M. Mercer, CFRE
Senator, Northend Halifax (Nova Scotia) | Sénateur, Secteur Nord (Nouvelle-Écosse)
613-996-2657 | 613-947-2345 facsimile / télécopieur
mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca
Senate of Canada | Sénat du Canada
Room 371 East Block | 371 édifice de l'Est | Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4==========================
Letter from Senator Jane Cordy
Thank you very much for your email. I have already spoken against Bill-C10 in the Senate before Christmas. I spoke mainly about the effect the Bill will have on those who are mentally ill and who come in conflict with the law. If you wish to read my speech and others go to the Senate website. (http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Statement/14990_Safe-Streets-and-Communities-BillSecond-Reading)
This Bill is not based on scientific evidence but rather on Conservative ideology. In fact evidence shows that this type of legislation does not work. It will not make Canadians safer but it will cost Canadians billions of dollars which could be better spent on programs that do work. Thank you for your comments and your interest in the Bill.
Senator Jane Cordy (NS)=============================
Letter from Senator Joan Fraser
Thank you for writing to me about Bill C-10, I appreciate you having taken the time to do so.
I can assure you that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am Deputy Chair, intends to do a proper study of this bill which has, I agree, many implications that need to be examined (mandatory minimum sentences and removal of judicial discretion being just some of them). You rightfully point out that we have to keep youth in mind when considering this bill.
Have you had a chance to follow the Committee proceedings? http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?parl=41&ses=1&Language=E&comm_id=11
Meetings on C-10 started last week with the Minster of Justice and Minister of Public Safety appearing. The committee resumed hearings today and continues over the next couple of weeks; the witnesses include: the Canadian Bar Association, Barreau du Québec and Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, among others. The meetings are broadcast on CPAC, or can be watched anytime online by following the committee link at http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=1&Language=E&comm_id=11
The website is updated regularly. The committee meetings are online and we encourage you follow the proceedings when they are broadcast (by clicking the ‘watch/listen’ tab on the page).
I am also providing the link to a Canadian Press article about last week’s Legal Committee meeting: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/06/pol-cp-ati-crime-bill.html.
Thank you again for your email.
Sincerely,
Senator Joan Fraser
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/SenWeb/bio/?lang=en&sen=43
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/SenatorsBiography/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=142&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M=========================
Letter from Senator Elaine McCoy
Thank you for contacting me about the omnibus crime bill (C-10). I share your concerns regarding many parts of the bill, and agree with the Canadian Bar Association's views.
As you are well aware, the Conservative government has been trying to push much of this legislation through both the House of Commons and the Senate for several years now. Senators have made many thoughtful amendments in the past. The government rejected all of them.
Recently, when confronted with the latest crime statistics which continue to show a steady decline, Justice Minister Nicholson replied "We don’t govern on the basis of statistics.” I am not, therefore, optimistic that the government will see reason to modify its position this time round either.
Traditionally, senators acted somewhat independently of the government to give Canadians the benefit of our traditional sober second thought (click here for examples). That is no longer happening with Conservative senators who vote the way Mr. Harper tells them. Now that they have a majority in the Senate, I anticipate the Conservatives will pass Bill C-10.
Nevertheless, it is important for Canadians like yourself to continue to speak out. We must be diligent in reminding one another that our nation fundamentally values compassion over coercion, ideals over ideology and rehabilitation over punishment. Thank you for taking the time to do just that. Please don't stop.
Best regards, Elaine McCoy
=====================================
Letter to the Editors of The Star February 1
Another nail in our democracy coffin
Senator Joan Fraser
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/SenWeb/bio/?lang=en&sen=43
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/SenatorsBiography/isenator_det.asp?senator_id=142&sortord=N&Language=E&M=M=========================
Letter from Senator Elaine McCoy
Thank you for contacting me about the omnibus crime bill (C-10). I share your concerns regarding many parts of the bill, and agree with the Canadian Bar Association's views.
As you are well aware, the Conservative government has been trying to push much of this legislation through both the House of Commons and the Senate for several years now. Senators have made many thoughtful amendments in the past. The government rejected all of them.
Recently, when confronted with the latest crime statistics which continue to show a steady decline, Justice Minister Nicholson replied "We don’t govern on the basis of statistics.” I am not, therefore, optimistic that the government will see reason to modify its position this time round either.
Traditionally, senators acted somewhat independently of the government to give Canadians the benefit of our traditional sober second thought (click here for examples). That is no longer happening with Conservative senators who vote the way Mr. Harper tells them. Now that they have a majority in the Senate, I anticipate the Conservatives will pass Bill C-10.
Nevertheless, it is important for Canadians like yourself to continue to speak out. We must be diligent in reminding one another that our nation fundamentally values compassion over coercion, ideals over ideology and rehabilitation over punishment. Thank you for taking the time to do just that. Please don't stop.
Best regards, Elaine McCoy
=====================================
Letter to the Editors of The Star February 1
Another nail in our democracy coffin
A looming threat in Canada is Stephen Harper’s proposal to eliminate public funding of election campaigns. Without such funding, elections will be railroaded by wealthy contributors to campaigns. We only have to look as far as the U.S. political scene to see the consequential quagmire.
In her book The Trouble with Billionaires, Linda McQuaig provides a well-researched commentary on the treacherous path that free market ideologues have set society upon. Jeffrey Sachs further outlines the steps to eliminate corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization.
At the heart of each book is the attack on democratic institutions by multinational corporations and their wealthy overlords. Both books shine new light on our current economic woes and possible solutions to the unequal distribution of wealth within society.
Both books provide data on how the citizens of other countries are faring relatively under their particular political systems. According to these authors, citizens of the U.S., Canada and the U.K. are falling behind with no positive plans for the future.
Regardless of one’s political and social views, these authors make arguments that are worth considering by those who wish to be informed, active participants in Canadian democracy.
Symptomatic of corporatocracy is Caterpillar’s Electro-Motive lockout in London. As recently noted by Charlotte Yates, “Collective bargaining and the right to join a union are two of the building blocks of freedom of association, and democratic society. But rights in democratic societies are fragile, and vulnerable to the abuse of power. By adopting a ‘take it or leave it’ approach in its final offer to Caterpillar workers, including pay cuts of up to 50 per cent, gutting the pension plan and drastic cuts to benefits, Caterpillar is thumbing its nose at our democratic commitment to good-faith bargaining … Collective bargaining is about bargaining — by both sides. Unions compromise, just as employers must. But when employers take it into their own hands to dictate wages and working conditions, our democratic rights are threatened.”
Informed citizens need to take action and assert their democratic rights. Please, do not just sit and do nothing.
P. McGrail, Brampton==================================
January 23, 2012 Letter to the Prime Minister from BC Nature.
Dear Prime Minister,
BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists) is an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
We are astounded by the recent attacks by yourself and you Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Joe Oliver, on environmental groups who receive funding from American charities, alleging, among other things, that they are opposed to all development, thereby hurting working families, and that their billionaire socialists who call the shots. Coming from the top levels of government, not only is this intimidating, but these unsubstantiated charges, and your stated intention of reviewing the charitable status of environmental groups who receive foreign funding, appear very much like an attempt to stifle dissent in Canada.
Furthermore, we consider it most inappropriate for the federal government to interfere in a legally constituted public review of a proposed industrial project. These reviews are designed to hear public opinion and public knowledge to facilitate ultimate decisions that are sound and in the public interest. They are not intended to be tiresome formalities to be got out of the way as quickly as possible. With respect, the statements made by yourself and Mr. Oliver constitute a deeply disturbing undermining of democracy.
To read the whole letter, click here.
=====================================
And yet another letter from Oakville MP Terence Young rebutting the letter by Susan Berry.
Re: Susan Berry’s letter to the editor, dated Dec. 2.
Ms. Berry stated that in my Nov. 24 letter, I claimed the objective of Bill C-10 is to uphold victim’s rights by imprisoning more offenders with mandatory minimum sentences.
This was a misrepresentation.
To read the whole letter, click here.
====================================
Letter from Senator Art Eggleton December 16, 2011
Thank you for your email letter regarding Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill.
The Conservatives’ bundling together of 9 bills that warranted independent discussion, their shutting down of debate in committee, and their rejection of all amendments while arrogantly labeling others as supporters of criminals and not victims, undermines Parliament and democratic process. They have rammed through the House of Commons a law and order agenda that is poorly thought-out, rushed and demonstrates the Conservative commitment to governing by ideology instead of facts and evidence.
This bill will impose mandatory minimums that will turn young offenders into hardened criminals. It fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. It repeats the mistakes of failed, expensive and discredited American crime policy. Police and prisons officials from states like Texas are telling Mr. Harper very clearly: We tried what you are doing but it drained the public coffers and made our communities less safe. Do not go down our failed path.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the cost of only a few of these measures to be over $13 Billion, but the government has never produced a credible estimate and won’t tell Canadians how much this will cost. These policies will impose an extreme financial burden on the Provinces who will be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion
At the end of the day we will have more crime, less justice, skyrocketing costs, prison overcrowding, less rehabilitation for the offenders, less protection for victims and less protection for the public. Liberals are committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on preventing crime and victimization.”
My Liberal colleagues and I will be voting against Bill C-10 when it is brought before the Senate.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Art Eggleton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to the Oakville Beaver, December 9, 2011
Concerns about Bill C-10
(Editor’s Note: This letter was sent to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and a copy was filed with The Oakville Beaver.)
I agree Canadians should work together to make our country a safer, more just place for everyone. However, I have grave concerns about the proposed federal Bill C-10, the crime bill that is currently being rushed through Parliament in Ottawa.
To read the whole letter, click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to the Oakville Beaver (followed by a letter written by Terence Young, MP for Oakville, followed by a letter challenging Mr Young's letter) November 18-December 2, 2011
Crime bill a proven failure
Conservative Texans are warning us not to follow a failed fill-the-prisons approach to justice, and the Canadian Bar Association, representing 37,000 Canadian legal professionals, has said the Bill “would move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at great expense”.
Mandatory sentences backfire. They take precious resources from crime prevention programs and rehabilitation, and turn minor offenders into hardened criminals.
The Crime Bill will make inequality worse.
It's not tough on crime, it’s tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions, and poverty.
It targets youth for harsher punishments, and it will put more Aboriginal people in prison.
The Crime Bill threatens valuable programs.
Mandatory sentences will clog the justice system and fill prisons, forcing the provinces, who pay for most of our justice system, to raise taxes, increase debt, or cut spending on essential programs like health and education.
Across the country, Canadians are speaking out.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that Canadians support tough on crime laws, but tens of thousands of Canadians are publicly demanding their provinces refuse to pay for the Crime Bill.
Québec and Ontario have already refused to pay for a strategy that has been tried, and failed.
Canadian Bar Association penned a powerful Op-Ed, stating that Canada has some of the safest communities in the world.
“This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse.
"It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.” — Trinda L. Ernst, President of the Canadian Bar Association.
Making Canada meaner is not the Canada I want. To reduce crime we should focus on what's already working — prevention and rehabilitation — and address the major causes of crime by reducing inequality and supporting people who need help.
The Conservatives’ cruel Crime Bill will do none of this, and ultimately will make us meaner, and less safe.
Lorraine Green, Oakville
--------------------
Letter in the Oakville Beaver from Terence Young, MP in response to the letter by Lorraine Green (above)
This is a response to the letter to the editor on Nov. 18 in which a concerned citizen made unsubstantiated statements about the federal Crime Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Our goals, as a government, are to hold criminals accountable and elevate the rights of victims by introducing effective crime legislation.
Bill C-10 targets the most serious of offences.
The letter claims that mandatory minimum penalties “backfire” and Bill C-10 will result in harsh prison sentences for minor offences.
Yet C-10 addresses serious offences such as sexual exploitation of a child or the death of an innocent bystander by the stray bullet shot from the gun of a young offender.
In fact, it is house arrest that backfires because it sends criminals a message that such crimes are not severe enough to warrant serious punishment.
For example, under our current laws someone who burns down a house and receives a sentence of house arrest can go home after conviction to play video games in their own house.
The author also claims that C-10 imposes harsh penalties against all youth.
However, the legislation addresses violent young offenders. These violent young offenders are a danger to the rest of us and a danger to themselves.
C-10 will require Crown attorneys to seek adult sentences for youth convicted of serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. This will protect innocent citizens and deter offenders.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act makes no changes to mental health programs, which over the last five years have received $89.9 million.
For example, there are no changes ahead for the Institutional Mental Health Initiative, which offers treatment to offenders both while incarcerated and after they re-enter society.
C-10 also expands the use of Drug Treatment Courts for addicts.
An offender can enter these outpatient rehabilitation programs that, if completed, can result in a suspended or reduced sentence.
Furthermore, our government is providing funding for crime prevention initiatives like Pathways to Education, the National Crime Prevention Centre, the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, and the Youth Justice Fund.
The notion that crime rates are declining is the greatest misconception surrounding Bill C-10.
According to Statistics Canada, only 31per cent of crimes in Canada are actually reported.
Offences like weapons violations, child pornography, and counterfeiting are up 267 per cent since the 1960s; and violent crimes are 302 per cent higher.
This is unacceptable to my government.
The author claimed Bill C-10 will make Canada “meaner”: yet, the pain and suffering victims and their families endure is all too real and too common.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act is about protecting our families and communities from crime and creating a Canada where crime does not pay.
Terence Young, Oakville MP
Letter from Susan Berry countering the above letter.
Arguing against crime bill
On one fundamental point, Mr. Young and I agreed: we want a safer community for our children in which dangerous, violent offenders are locked up. We did not agree about the potential C-10 has for creating that safer Canada. Nor did we agree on the potential costs of the bill to taxpayers.
Mr. Young’s letter to The Oakville Beaver dated Nov. 24, clearly outlined the objective of the bill: to elevate victim’s rights by ensuring more offenders are subjected to mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). He also cited some statistics about certain increased crime rates in Canada since the ’60s.
But the facts are that, “In 2010, police-reported crime in Canada continued on its downward trend. Both the volume and severity of crime fell from the previous year, down five per cent and six per cent, respectively.” (Statistics Canada, July 2010)
So it is unclear why the government feels the urgent need to change course in our approach to criminal justice, particularly when the Canada Bar Association (with its membership of 37,000 lawyers across Canada) and many other criminal justice and legal experts are warning that this approach is a very expensive mistake that will not result in safer communities.
When Mr. Young and I met, he was unable to provide any empirical evidence to indicate this bill follows proven methods to deal with or prevent crime in an effective, cost-efficient manner.
I asked if Mr. Young was concerned that states such as Texas tried this same MMS approach and found it ineffective and expensive. He noted Texas is very different from Canada because they imprison so many more people than we do.
Texans tried the tough-on-crime approach but found it to be tough on taxpayers. Now that Texans have decided to try more conditional sentencing and community-based drug treatment, they have reduced the cost of dealing with crime by nine per cent and the crime rate by 14 per cent.
More concerning to me was Mr. Young indicated Canada has a national mental health strategy. It does not.
We are the only G8 country without such a strategy. The Canadian Mental Health Association is about to release a final report on such a strategy, in time for the health accord negotiations. The CMHA does not endorse the Crime Bill.
Experts, governments and the public are well aware of the connection between mental health, addiction and crime. Investing in crime prevention measures, including a co-ordinated strategy to deal with mental illness and addiction will prevent serious crimes. Study after study proves it.
Oakvillians are striving to make our community the most livable place in Canada, but we cannot easily access the mental health supports we need to deal with depression, personality disorders, youth issues and the like. As a family law lawyer I know this for a fact. I see it all the time.
Serious crimes are appalling. As parents we have every right to be concerned when one in four of our female students graduate from university after being victim to a serious sexual assault. But criminal justice and community safety experts recommend the government invest our tax dollars on measures that really work.
A $10,000 investment in an enhanced early mental health intervention system in our schools and communities can prevent a person from resorting to substance abuse and deterioration into a life of serious violent crime. It will also save taxpayers the $100,000 cost of incarcerating that person later on.
Facts and experience say if Ottawa matched every dollar for prisons for locking up young men with another dollar for prevention and victim rights to create better futures for disadvantaged young men, Canada would be one of the safest countries.
The result: true savings in both taxpayer dollars and in the unaccountable emotional cost of crime and punishment. Ultimately, the best way to elevate victim’s rights is to ensure they don’t become victims in the first place.
Susan Berry, LL.B., Oakville
======================================================
======================================================
November 18, 2011
Dear Reclaim Canada,
I'd like to add my name to this initiative's supporters, and I have a comment. The comment is on the Harper attack on science, and environmental science in particular. Not only has Harper laid off hundreds of Environment Canada employees and stripped Environment Canada of $1.4 billion in funding, almost exactly the amount his most recent budget provides in tax cuts to corporations operating in the tar sands, he has also put a muzzle on Environment Canada's scientists. Anything Environment Canada's scientists now want to comment on, publish, or release regarding their scientific findings now has to come through Harpers office for approval. That is not just a fundamental attack on democracy unprecedented in the developed world, it is a perversion of the scientific method.
As well, Canadian scientists have recently found a hole in the ozone layer over Canadian airspace (a troubling first). This is an environmental EMERGENCY and it needs examination. The only way for anyone, not just Canadians, but also the international community, to investigate this problem is through the use of Canadian data, but shortly after the discovery of the hole, Harper cut the funding to the program doing the monitoring. Not only that, his government then hounded American collaborators in this research to find out, and presumably make trouble for, the scientists that allowed this problem to become public, as shown in this Ottawa Citizen Article.
This is not just an issue of the environment, nor merely of science. It is a fundamental issue of democracy, and that is why I thought it a particularly relevant comment for your group.
Andrew Knox
------------------------------------------------------------------
November 18 Letter to the The Oakville BeaverCrime Bill a Proven Failure
The Omnibus Crime Bill that our Conservative government is racing to get passed is a proven failure.
Conservative Texans are warning us not to follow a failed fill-the-prisons approach to justice, and the Canadian Bar Association, representing 37,000 Canadian legal professionals, has said the Bill “would move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at great expense”.
Mandatory sentences backfire. They take precious resources from crime prevention programs and rehabilitation, and turn minor offenders into hardened criminals.
The Crime Bill will make inequality worse.
It's not tough on crime, it’s tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions, and poverty.
It targets youth for harsher punishments, and it will put more Aboriginal people in prison.
The Crime Bill threatens valuable programs.
Mandatory sentences will clog the justice system and fill prisons, forcing the provinces, who pay for most of our justice system, to raise taxes, increase debt, or cut spending on essential programs like health and education.
Across the country, Canadians are speaking out.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that Canadians support tough on crime laws, but tens of thousands of Canadians are publicly demanding their provinces refuse to pay for the Crime Bill.
Québec and Ontario have already refused to pay for a strategy that has been tried, and failed.
Canadian Bar Association penned a powerful Op-Ed, stating that Canada has some of the safest communities in the world.
“This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse.
"It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.” — Trinda L. Ernst, President of the Canadian Bar Association.
Making Canada meaner is not the Canada I want. To reduce crime we should focus on what's already working — prevention and rehabilitation — and address the major causes of crime by reducing inequality and supporting people who need help.
The Conservatives’ cruel Crime Bill will do none of this, and ultimately will make us meaner, and less safe.
Lorraine Green, Oakville
November 17, 2011
Bad language in the House or not, I love Pat Martin (NDP) for saying about the forced "Closure" of discussion on the Omnibus Crime bill that the "Tories are running roughshod over everything that is good and decent about our Parliamentary Democracy." Keep telling it like it is Pat!
October 31, 2011.
Tina Agrell
ELECTORAL REFORM: THE FIRST DEMAND FROM THE 99%
A common criticism of our movement is that we have no specific demand and that nothing unites us. This is half true. We know who we are. We are the 99% and what we want is to take the power back from the wealthiest 1%, who have hijacked our democratic state and our planet. We are unified by our desire to take the power back. This is clear as day. The single most efficient way to take the power back is through electoral reform: corporations and wealthy citizens need to have less influence over the political process and the voters who comprise the 99% need to have more.
Canadians have an undemocratic electoral system called first-past-the-post. Members in our parliament vote on legislation and a bill can pass with majority (over 50%) support. Each Member of Parliament (MP) represents a geographic region called a riding. During an election citizens vote in their riding and the candidate with the most votes becomes the local MP. Any vote for a candidate that is not elected to parliament is essentially wasted [see figure 1]. This system breeds apathy [see figure 2]. Canadians end up voting strategically and from fear, rather than voting for our principles. Worse, small parties like the Green Party have had more than 9% of popular (national) vote without winning a single riding and therefore no representation in government. This is not what democracy looks like.
Our system has allowed politicians to be less accountable to voters and more representative of the corporate class. Since it is so difficult for smaller parties to break in there is less competition and mainstream political parties can afford to alienate voters. Standards are so low politicians often win elections by smearing competitors rather than campaigning on the merits of their own platform. To make matters worse, Harper recently eliminated the automatic two-dollar campaign donation that used to accompany any vote. If we had a more democratic system then party funding should be based on the amount of support they have not the ability of their supporters to donate. Elections are won with negative ads and the party with the richest constituency has the most ads.
We have to reform our electoral system so that all of 100% of us have the exact same influence over the democratic process. We need to eliminate the first-past-the-post system and chose a more democratic option through the process of a referendum. Alternatives do exist. We need a system of proportional representation, where the percent of support a party wins, equals the percentage of representation they hold in Parliament (if the Green Party wins 9% of the popular vote then they have 9% of the seats in Parliament). The occupation movement does not have to decide the exact electoral system. We can, however, demand that only systems much more democratic than first-past-the-post are offered in the referendum. Any system that ignores the preferences of so many voters is not democratic.
If the occupation movement wants to claim to represent the 99% then we must embrace democracy. If we try to impose radical changes of any sort (even ones that arguably benefit the 99%) then we are becoming the oppressor. The only fundamentally non-oppressive demand we could possibly make is a demand for improvements to our deeply flawed democratic process. This would be a massive change, and the 1% would fight to keep the status quo, but we are the 99% and we have unprecedented momentum.
A TYPICAL RIDING OUTCOME
Figure 1:
For example, in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding during the 2011 federal election,
27, 039 voters sent the Conservative candidate to Ottawa.
The other 39, 133 votes had absolutely no impact on the federal government.
FAILURE OF THE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Figure 2:
During the federal election in 2011,
Only 31% of eligible voters submitted a vote that elected an MP,
about 30% of voters wasted their vote,
and the other 39% did not vote [right].
Another thing to consider is the number of strategic votes that were both successful and wasted [left].
Under a proportional representation system all votes would count and have an impact on the number of MPs belonging to each party in Parliament. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23, 2011
From the NDP campaign website
"Policy, Not Polls” Candidate Discussion
Presented by a trio of Oakville’s Community based political interest groups, a well attended introduction to the candidates took place. With an unusual air of civility, the audience was able to acquaint themselves with the attending candidates from the Oakvile and Halton ridings.
The NDP was represented by Lesley Sprague from Oakville and Nik Spohr from Halton. All candidates were encouraged to provide some honest and engaging insight into how they will plan to deal with some of the most critical issues facing Ontarians in this coming election: economy, health, education, environment, transportation, jobs and democratic reform.
The formula seemed to work as both the audience and the candidates enjoyed the opportunity to communicate in a convivial atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 16
My problems with the Conservatives under Steven Harper
I respect folks who put themselves forward as candidates to represent us in our federal, provincial, and municipal governments. They are willing to sacrifice a great deal of their time and their personal lives to fulfill their democratic responsibilities. So when a candidate knocks on my door, I would like to be able to engage in an open and honest discussion about the needs of our country and its citizens, and about the priorities for expending our collective resources to meet those needs.
I have observed the actions of our current Conservative minority government and I am so disillusioned that I fear I will be unable to be rational when speaking to a Conservative candidate. Thus, I have recorded my difficulties with the current federal government and I plan to hand a copy of the following to our local candidate when he appears at my door. These notes are not in any particular order of priority. Some are more damaging to the concept of democracy and good government than others. Taken as a whole, the cumulative effect is chilling.
· Deliberately misleading Canadians whose understanding of civics is sorely lacking – e.g., calling a coalition undemocratic.
· Twisting the truth – claiming that cancellation of the long form census was endorsed by Statistics Canada (this led to the resignation of the head of Statistics Canada in protest); attempting to deflect blame for cancelling federal support for Kairos (a non-denominational charitable organization supporting good work in the Middle East and elsewhere), and then denying responsibility in testimony before a Parliamentary Committee.
· Demonstrating unbridled arrogance – calling our Government of Canada the Harper Government, and using the term on official government documents.
· Accusing the opposition of employing the very deplorable tactics that they themselves use, under the proposition that the best defence is a good offense, and if you are the first accuser people will believe you over the opposition. It’s a defensive tactic that I find very offensive.
· Engaging in character assassination rather than standing for principles - the infamous “attack ads”.
· Using taxpayer money to spread propaganda about their supposed accomplishments – the ubiquitous “Canada’s Economic Action Plan” campaign.
· Punishing civil servants who exercise their responsibilities conscientiously and “speak truth to power” - e.g., the head of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor who stood up for nuclear safety (doesn’t it seem more important in the light of what has happened in Japan?); attacking the record of Richard Colvin, a conscientious civil servant who told the truth about the Afghan prisoner abuses; firing the Ombudsman for veterans’ affairs who rightly stood up for better treatment of veterans.
· Denying facts that do not support their fixed ideologies – climate change; Afghan prisoner abuse; “tough on crime” agenda in the face of declining crime rates.
· Emphasis on military spending and weaponry, massive spending on prisons, and unnecessary tax cuts for large corporations, as opposed to investment in meeting the needs of ordinary citizens.
· Accusing the opposition of being undemocratic and opportunistic and of playing political games, all behaviours practiced more frequently and more aggressively by the Conservatives.
· Cancelling two of the greatest accomplishments of the previous government, which received the unprecedented support of all ten provinces and all three territories – the National Child Care Plan and the Kelowna Accord.
· Mismanaging the Federal balance sheet – they inherited a $13 billion surplus and turned it into a $56 billion deficit through their ill-advised tax cuts and over spending.
· Holding contempt for international agreements – the Geneva Convention; the Kyoto Accord.
· Using the infamous “ten-percenter” flyers in strategic ridings, twisting the truth to spread innuendo about their opposition, including employing the insinuation that anyone who criticises any action of the state of Israel is anti-Semitic.
· Hiding behind “national security” to suppress information that might be embarrassing to the Conservative Harper Government.
· Disregarding the rights of Canadian citizens abroad, especially of those whose offense is “traveling while Muslim”.
· Ignoring or refusing to honour rulings of the courts.
· So eroding respect for Canada abroad that we were denied a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
· Removing financial support for or interfering with non-profit organizations that take principled stands on matters with which the Conservatives disagree - Kairos, Rights and Democracy.
· Blatantly disregarding the recommendations of the Federal Poverty Reduction Plan produced by an all-party committee of the House of Commons.
· Demonstrating disregard for facts – cancelling the mandatory long form census.
David B. Clemens
--------------------------------------------------
April 7
Wake up Canadians and get your heads out of the sand. We have a Prime Minister who wants to make all decisions behind closed doors, muzzle and control all media,
Prevent the free flow of information, and make secret deals behind the backs of the electorate.
If he got a majority government how long do you think it would take him to dismantle Health care?
Robert Miskey
---------------------------------------------
April 3, 2011
Thank you for your organization. I live in Jack Layton's riding, so I will vote for the NDP leader, but I am afraid of a Harper lead majority.
I don't know what Canadians are thinking to vote for this disrespectful regime. It takes my breath away. What folly!
We are a country that cares for the vulnerable and the preciousness of our earth. When did we become so short sighted and fear based? I don't want Harper to ruin my Canada.
How can we change the minds of a short sighted unconscious conservative electorate?
Sincerely, Kim Chiotti
----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2
Hi. Great website !
It is not capitalism, socialism, or any other "ism" which made a difference in the world, but democracy which is the only system which accords full humanity to each individual in the world.
Please add me: Paul Azzopardi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
March 21
Here is a list of anti-democratic actions taken by Harper. We are going to have to do something to get this government out of power as our democracy is in shreds. If polls are to be believed (and pollsters are now admitting they are badly flawed) Harper is close to majority territory right now. Heaven help us if that happens, because if it does, our medicare is in danger, the gun registry is dead, you will never see daycare programs, teenagers will be thrown in jail for possessing 6 pot plants, just to name a few.
1. Bev Oda affair - doctors document re KAIROS funding, then lies to
Parliament. Stephen Harper stands by her. It is possible she
approved the funding and he ordered the "NOT" to be inserted, leaving
her to take the fall.
2. Prorogued Parliament twice.
3. Cancelled the mandatory long form census, making it voluntary
which means flawed data for years to come.
4. Negotiates a secret border deal with the U.S. Not even the
opposition parties know what is involved.
5. Refused to return Omar Khadr, despite the Supreme Court ruling to
bring him home.
6. Hiding information re the abuse of Afghan detainees.
7. Harper leads the most secretive and controlling government in
Canadian history, including muzzling his MPs. It's been said his own
cabinet ministers are afraid of him.
8. Spent $1.2 billion on the G8/G20 summits in Toronto. The result
was a suspension of our rights to peaceful protest, jailing over 1,000
innocent people in cages with no legal rights. Many were injured and
denied food & water for hours. Almost no police officers were charged
despite the widespread brutality, and no public inquiry was ever
called.
9. Fired several independent watchdogs if they dare speak out.
10. Will spend $9 billion on new jails despite the decrease in crime.
They now refuse to allow the opposition to see the true cost,
although they are entitled to that information on whether to pass
crime bills.
11. Will spend $16 billion on fighter jets (F35s) with no competitive
bids from any other companies.
12. Produced a guide on how to disrupt parliamentary committees,
ensuring they are shut down.
13. Losing our seat at the U.N. to Portugal.
14. All MPs are given talking points and must follow them.
15. Stuffed the senate with anyone Conservative, making sure any bill
passed by the house is then cancelled. This happened with the last
bill which was passed by all opposition parties re climate change and
environment.
16. Thew Helena Guergis out of his caucus despite no findings of
criminal behaviour. She still doesn't know why she was thown out.
17. Continues to use attack ads which smear any opposition leader
even when no election is called. They do this because it works!
18. Cancelled his own fixed election laws, calling an election when
it looks like he'll get his majority.
19. Tells the public a coalition government is an "illegal coup" when
he tried to form a coalition government himself at one time to defeat
Paul Martin Liberals.
20. He wants to cancel subsidies to all political parties, which is
sure to destroy the smaller parties like the NDPs and Greens, and
damage the Liberals. This is to ensure he has all the power he
wants. His aim is to destroy the Liberals.
21. Tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, when he was dying of cancer, to vote
to keep the Conservatives in power. In the end, he voted with the
Liberals.
Rosemarie Green
------------------------------------------------------------
March 11
I’m ready to vote down “the Harper Government” immediately. Put my name down to unseat Harper. If this is so-called ‘transparency” then I want none of it.
Bring on the election.
Edith Cartwright
-----------------------------------------------------------
March 10
I discovered this web site by accident; I heartily support everything for which this group stands.
One of the underlying causes of the abuse of Prime ministerial power is the misguided policy of political parties is the election of leaders by the whole party. If leaders were elected by the parliamentary caucus, they would pay attention to their back benchers and MPs who are closer to the parliamentary business than the electorate would feel freer to object.
Now there is no way to get rid of a prime minister except by a leadership convention or a general election.
Derek Brisland
------------------------------------------------
February 24
Thank you for including me on your mailing list. I, too, am genuinely concerned about the direction this country has taken in recent years, particularly under Stephen Harper. In a recent interview Rex Murphy categorically stated Canada hasn't seen inspired leadership at the federal level for 20 years. I would suggest 27 years. High time Canadians raised their voices decrying this woeful situation.
Peter Pellier
-------------------------------------------------
February 24
Thank you Thank you Thank you for setting up this organization!
I will pass on your website links and let as many people know about you as possible - I live in Calgary, so the road is very steep here (Jason Kenney's riding :-b ) but hopefully we can rid ourselves of this oppressive regime at the next election - hopefully we are still having those?
Best,
Colette Belanger
-------------------------------------------------------February 9
I watched the segment on CBC radio where Anne-Maria Tremonte interviews Ursula Franklin. The CBC is experimenting with video broadcasts of radio programs, and I advise this method since Ursula is worth watching as well as listening to.
To do so, go to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/video.html , then click on "Segments" and scroll down to "Ursula Franklin".
Ursula says that she has observed the erosion of the basic parliamentary democracy in Canada. Sound familiar? What she sees is decision-making shortcuts taken by Harper. a practice that leads to fascism.
She says we are losing the game, the game being the parliamentary system that involves listening to citizens, which is, of course, the purpose of scrupling.
These ideas are just a taste to get you to take a look at the interview.
Clare Henderson
----------------------------------------------------------------
January 29
Please add my name and my husband's name to your supporter list.
We look forward to democracy returning to Canada for future survival and growth without far right bullying Reformer PM Stephen Wonder's sleazy cut/cut/cut services and vulnerable groups' financial support!
Let's bring awareness of many negative policies and actions of our current federal government to the many RURAL areas who need to see the truth: from severe lack of transparency, lack of national daycare (oh great…give me $1000 and the problem goes away, eh?), global child and maternal health, including birth control and abortion and including the Third World nations of Africa, Bill C-393, international donations, climate change, obliteration of beneficial long-term community planning long form census, etc, etc
Canada has gone from world class leader on many fronts, to world class bum under Harper's regime.
Hope we don't have to resort to total revolt like Egypt's current tragic turmoil.
Folks need to be better informed, and made aware of what is really going on here in Canada in the BIG PICTURE!!
Thanks for organizing this group. Let's get the whole nation, including rural folks (especially in Ontario) engaged and knowledgeable!
Bonne chance,
Marg (Sparky) Bartlett
--------------------------------------------------------------
January 24, 2011
I have been seriously concerned about what I believe to be the deliberate drift of our democracy into a plutocracy. The evidence is world wide, not just in Canada.
It is important that we promote the kind of Canada that evolved after the Second World War and took root during the period of the 1960’s and 70”s in particular. Nearly all political parties have been a party to the decline in Canada, but all parties have members who are appalled at what is happening.
Lets put the brakes on and turn the ship of state back onto the path that Canada seemed to be going on until the 1980's when things started to take a sinister turn. It’s not too late, but we have to get moving in whatever way we feel we are able.
We need to talk to each other and find out what is wrong and how we can try to make the changes that represent a better Canada.
Sincerely, Michael Dorman
----------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2011
After a complete review of the website, I offer a couple of issues that
might be considered important:
1) taxation / poverty: this is an issue that directly affects the level
of democracy - when you have a massive disparity between the rich and
middle class/poor, you cannot have democracy or social justice
- the current government brags about how long the corporate tax rate is,
which is not inherently bad, yet we see a frighteningly wide and growing
gap between rich and poor, with a shrinking middle class ( a recent
lengthy article in the Toronto Star pointed out the myriad social
problems that result)
- the personal income tax regime has become less progressive over time
(that is the tax rates for the rich and the 'better off' are declining
and there are still plenty of loopholes, but not so for the middle class)
- there is pitifully small funding for social housing
- there should be a more progressive tax credit scheme for the working poor
- there should be adequate funding for mental health services, as a
disproportionately high number of poor are requiring these services
- I'm sure there are many more examples which could be cited / explored
2) Immigration and immigrant services: perhaps a less important issue
than 1) above, yet still significant given that we need immigration to
keep our country vital, to support the predicted shortage of workers in
the coming 2 to 3 years, and to help support the economy as the Boomers
retire in droves.
- there seems to be a cutback in funding and services for new immigrants,
- the trend to accept only the 'profit seekers' who are well educated
and well positioned in their home country and not those 'freedom
seekers' who might not have had good educational opportunities but who
could nonetheless make an important contribution both economically and
morally, as most of our forefathers did
- there have been recent cutbacks to immigration services in larger
cities, with funds supposedly being re-allocated elsewhere
Regards,
Hart Jansson
---------------------------------------------------
December 19
Please add my name to your list of supporters. I agree with your statement of objectives but would like to add the following for consideration and comment
A democratic government recognizes that its legitimacy rests with the citizens of Canada rather than wealth or corporate interests. As such the government's responsibility is to pursue the common good while protecting the rights of its citizens. Other interests only merit government consideration to the degree they contribute to the common good.
Gayle Meehan
--------------------------------------------
December 15
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude for your enthusiasm. Far too many people are growing apathetic and disillusioned and I am so happy to see other concerned citizens rise against the growing corruption and injustice within our political systems in this country. I wholeheartedly support your cause.
Ian Bushfield
---------------------------------
December 13
Congratulations on your initiative. I do support your ideals.
However, I do not think it is wise for you to list the names of all the people who are supporting your efforts. In view of the non-democratic actions of our present government, that list of names could be used to intimidate the good people who are genuinely concerned. We have, in our history, evidence of the government collecting names. In the US, the whole McCarthy era makes me shudder and I feel it is returning.
So I do NOT want my name displayed on your web site and I encourage you to remove that list of names. The number of people supporting you is sufficient.
Thanks
(The sender wished to remain anonymous due to fears of retribution. ED.)
--------------------------------------------
December 12
Right after the Second World War, Canada became an example in the eyes of many persons throughout the World. A modern nation, with a progressive bent, and a willingness to keep the raison d'état in check when great causes were at stake. It was this generous Canada, the one of Lester B. Pearson, that fascinated the young man I was then, to the point of making it my home for the rest of my life. There used to be Canadian Blue Helmets where they were truly needed. There was Canadian help where it was necessary and not only to get Canadian plants churning. Canada could speak on the world scene and its voice was listened to, even requested by other nations. A Canadian passport was the most coveted identity document on our planet, bare none.
Since the arrival of the Harper's government, a government that has never been able to claim the support of a majority of Canadians, I see the painstakingly built heritage of the previous period being dilapidated with no apparent concern about the consequences.
To the rest of the world, and even in our own eyes, we have become yet anther tribal state, mostly preoccupied with short term material interest at the expense of a longer view. What's more, this government pretends he is in his right to impose upon us his narrow religious vision on what is Good and what is Evil while it is the very soul of Canada it is squandering. There is no one left to listen to Canada's voice. From the influential position of United States' consciousness, we have moved to become their servant. We did not had to wait long to see the result. They despise us more than ever. And with good reasons. The United Nations are now hostile to Canada, a thing never seen before when we were one of their most trusted pillar.
But it is on the internal scene that the damages are worst. For a Quebecois, federalist or independentist, one cannot fail to notice the increasing gap between federal policies and the deep expectations of the Québec citizenry and not only its francophone segment. Whenever the visions are so diametrically opposed on so many issues, such as the fire arm registry, the correctional institutions, women's rights (including abortion), the right to die with dignity, the secularity of the state, the ecology, the sustainable development, the climate changes, etc. it becomes obvious that there is now a risk that even the federalists ask themselves: "But what are we doing in a federation which is imposing upon us the negation of what we were sharing with so many other Canadians?"
This decadence has its roots in the way of doing business of the Harper's government. A government which continues to use the power levers entrusted to a minority government to reorient Canada in a direction rejected by most Canadians. From an open democratic model, our governmental system is insensibly sliding into a form of elective dictatorship where the power levers are concentrated into a single hand, that one of the Prime Minister, and where the decision processes are rendered opaque through the systematic use of dilatory measures or even plain old censorship.
I believe that Canadians and especially Quebec citizens must realize that this type of attitude from the Harper's government is not going to change without pressure from the citizens. The initiative « Reclaim our Democratic Canada » is in this direction. I wish it the success it diserves.
Michel Virard
---------------------------------------------------
December 10
It is profoundly sad that Canada, once internationally-admired for its progressive policies, is now governed by a doctrinaire, ultra-conservative one-man administration. After posing as fiscal conservatives, the Harper government squandered $1 billion tax dollars on the G20 armed camp in downtown Toronto.
Janet Kask
----------------------------------------------
We have a long way to go and it will not happen under our present government.
Two observations:
1 We are currently being totally controlled,as we are being led in a scary direction by a party which was elected by less than 25 % of ELIGIBLE Canadian voters. A shameful 41 % did not vote.
2.Even more shameful was the little footnote in an article published by the Toronto Star as a G20 comparison in June. Not one(1) of the G20 countries made the top 10 in the section on DEMOCRACY.
Final thoughts. Unless we change our present system, which suits minority governments very well, to a proportional representation one (The rest of the advanced countries have, most ages ago, except the US. ), we will not get anywhere --unless we come up with a coalition.
The country ranked #1 in democracy in most studies is Sweden where coalitions have worked well. They have this, to Canadians, naive responsibility to work for the betterment of all citizens, not for often petty partisan politics, and for Big Oil, Pharma, Mining +++, which will continue under minority governments.
Perhaps we can learn a bit from governments which have coalitions including Sweden which has practiced some form of democracy since the days of the Vikings. There is more to that country than higher taxes, which to us seem out of the question (Americans go ballistic..) yet many Swedes are OK with them because they see the results in social programs, for example, child care. Of 28 countries surveyed by UNICEF in 2008, Canada shamefully finished...28.
You might guess who was#1, having passed in all 10 criteria. Our future..our children?
As a senior I recall a well-functioning minority government --that of Mike Pearson.
What a difference in leadership, image in the world and locally.
Sad. We are one of the 10 richest countries in the world.
Richard Ring
----------------------------------------------
We have a long way to go and it will not happen under our present government.
Two observations:
1 We are currently being totally controlled,as we are being led in a scary direction by a party which was elected by less than 25 % of ELIGIBLE Canadian voters. A shameful 41 % did not vote.
2.Even more shameful was the little footnote in an article published by the Toronto Star as a G20 comparison in June. Not one(1) of the G20 countries made the top 10 in the section on DEMOCRACY.
Final thoughts. Unless we change our present system, which suits minority governments very well, to a proportional representation one (The rest of the advanced countries have, most ages ago, except the US. ), we will not get anywhere --unless we come up with a coalition.
The country ranked #1 in democracy in most studies is Sweden where coalitions have worked well. They have this, to Canadians, naive responsibility to work for the betterment of all citizens, not for often petty partisan politics, and for Big Oil, Pharma, Mining +++, which will continue under minority governments.
Perhaps we can learn a bit from governments which have coalitions including Sweden which has practiced some form of democracy since the days of the Vikings. There is more to that country than higher taxes, which to us seem out of the question (Americans go ballistic..) yet many Swedes are OK with them because they see the results in social programs, for example, child care. Of 28 countries surveyed by UNICEF in 2008, Canada shamefully finished...28.
You might guess who was#1, having passed in all 10 criteria. Our future..our children?
As a senior I recall a well-functioning minority government --that of Mike Pearson.
What a difference in leadership, image in the world and locally.
Sad. We are one of the 10 richest countries in the world.
Richard Ring
-----------------------------------------------
November 29
Thanks for you good work on the website protesting the direction the Harper government is leading this country.
Elspeth Hannan
Elspeth Hannan
----------------------------------------------------
November 24
I support the objectives of Reclaim Our Democratic Canada.
Please add me to your list of supporters and keep me informed of actions I can take to reclaim our Canada, protect hard fought-for human rights and preserve the traditions and regulations of parliamentary democracy.
Regards,
Clifford Booth
---------------------------------------------
You can add my name to this petition. I am very concerned about what is happening in Ottawa. Stephen Harper’s government does not represent Canada. Thanks.
Linda Mulhall
----------------------------------------------
November 23
That being said, I also want to be more involved in your group.I think there is something very powerful and very important being discussed here and I see real social and political value.
Please keep me in the loop and please inform me of any future meetings.Until then, keep going!
Dan Gussin
-----------------------------------------
November 19
Please add my name to your list of those wanting to see more accountability, transparency, and all that a government of the people should be.
Patricia Alexander Grant
----------------------------------------------------
Thank you so very much for counting me in, you can count on me for any support.
Linda Mathews
---------------------------------------------------
Add my name to the list. I feel that everyone regardless of their political leanings should be concerned about Stephen Harper. Under the guise of democracy he is quickly becoming a dictator supported by a group of men and women whom Mordecai Richler so aptly referred to as "Yes men" and Yes women".
Doreen Seiggel
--------------------------------------------------
November 14
I support this initiative. While not agreeing with all of the stated concerns, I am convinced that your overall message is not only sincere but accurate.
David Underwood
-----------------------------------
November 10
I congratulate you on your thoughtful research and commitment to the Canada we all want.
Sylvia Weylie
---------------------------------November 7
My Canada does not .include hydro organizations giving my tax dollars to any political campaign, police brutality, police removing their name tags, buying new military equipment and failing to fund First Nations safe drinking water, failing to fund women's oganizations which foster equality in community, health and education..
I could go on all night.
Callie Archer
-----------------------------------
November 5
I’ve been working on trying to strengthen, or at this stage, “save” our democracy for at least ten years now.
Many of the things we want (I looked through “The Canada we want”) will cost money. I am not averse to raising taxes on those who earn above the median household income, which I believe is somewhere in the $30,000 to $40,000 bracket.
Previous tax cuts for the rich, which have caused many of our current problems, need to be redressed, a tricky political proposition, I admit, but one we must face. I fear that if this is not mentioned, we are not being as “open” as we are asking our government to be.
Philip Symons
------------------------------------------I have been weeping for (and ashamed of) my country of late, as our government appears to be taking us so far away from the compassionate, progressive way of looking at the world that we have been proud of. Perhaps we were seeing it with rose-coloured glasses, but it certainly was better than the way we have been moving in recent times.
I was shocked the other day to read in the newspapers that a poll showed that 69% of Canadians think our government did the right thing re Omar Khadr. Who are these Canadians who believe that it is okay to try a 15 year old for war crimes, despite having signed the convention against such treatment? That it is okay to torture a confession from a boy who was put into terrorist camps for brainwashing at 11 years old? That it is okay for our government to ignore courts, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, who said his constitutional rights are being violated? I could go on and on. It certainly is not the Canada I was led to believe I lived in.
Bert MacBain
----------------------------------------------
October 28
Congratulations on your effort to engage citizens in the democratic process.l
I'd like to see more attention to the environment plank in your platform. It is pale green and mushy. The eco-catastrophes currently occurring and pending require a more robust response that the anemic equation of the environment with the economy. In fact, our present economic order (globalized capitalism; domestically the commodity-driven export economy; personal consumption uber alles) is the cause of environmental problems and the solution will inevitably require some dramatic shifts in both how the economy functions, and how we expect it to function.
The focus on citizenship and community over the roles of producer and consumer is one place to start.
I'd also like to see a plank attending to the reality of the colonization of Canada and thus of indigenous peoples. Decolonization measures are essential for justice. Without attention to the realities of indigenous oppression at the hands of the democratic state, we really can't attend to these issues except through an assimilative formula.
Joyce A. Green, Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Regina
--------------------------
Thank you for creating a forum to give a voice to the majority of Canadians who stand for equality and justice from a social democratic viewpoint. Please add me to the movement. I am ready to work with others to create a Canada that reflects social justice.
Dr. Colleen MacQuarrie
Associate Professor, Graduate Faculty
University of Prince Edward Island
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where shall we go after the last frontier, where will birds fly after the last sky? -Mahmoud Darwish-
Until the lions produce their own historian, the story of the hunt will glorify only the hunter! - an African proverb-
Randa Farah
Associate Professor
UWO, Department of Anthropology
Social Science Centre
London, Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grassroots movement. Probably the only way to make things happen.
I fully support this movement.
Ruth Schürch-Halas, University of Calgary |
1. I am astonished that there is no reference to electoral reform.
2. I am interested in peace, not peacekeeping. I want an end to war preparation and militarization in Canada
3. How can the site criticize military expenditures and yet not make a connection with the need for funding in other areas such as child care?
Brian Hopkins
(Please note the National Child Care page. Ed.)
------------------------------------
October 27
Can we reclaim our democracy without changing the method used to award seats in Federal and Provincial elections? I suggest that electoral reform is essential to resolving most if not all of the issues identified on the site.
If we change to a system of Proportional Representation, a system where 40% of the vote gets a party 40 % of the power and parties are forced to work together to govern, government policy will reflect the ideas that most of us support. Then we can get what Canadians want on climate change, national child care, etc. We will have coalitions that the majority of Canadians supported at the ballot box.
If you want to find out more about Fair Vote in Canada, go to this site http://www.fairvote.ca/
Dan Griffin
-------------------------------
A friend sent your material to me and I was astonished at how it matched my concerns about what is happening to Canada; thank you for your initiative. I was reading only today that when Gordon Wilson looked likely to become a political power in BC monied interests (corporate interests) approached him with a view to taking over the Liberal party. He rejected their advances but as history attests the monied interests took over Gordon's party and it became the opportunist party that embarrasses us today. The only explanation that I can come up with that the liberal party of Canada has not advocated your concerns is that the big-money interests are not interested in a more democratic and open Canada. If money is of paramount concern to politicians votes are even more important and if you can grow from the grassroots support for your view of Canada the politicians will follow with a sidelong glance at corporate big-money.
We see in the USA how corporate money covertly in the past but openly now is "buying" access to politicians and writing new legislation to suit themselves and their bottom line. It is most important for democracy in Canada for there to be control of money fed to politicians by special interests. There must be regulation to ensure that the mass media allow many points of view to be discussed before an election. We have the example of the recent election in Australia where a discredited party was almost able to get elected because Murdoch owns over 90% of mass media in Australia and he was against the Labour Party.
Whereas I agree with your concerns I notice that you don't mention the ideological bias against the poor, disadvantaged, mentally ill and homeless people. It is clear that the taxpayer is paying considerably more socially and financially for the ideology that says these people should not be encouraged to be indigent. The accounting that I have seen says that considerable money would be saved if the homeless were properly cared for rather than piecemeal payments for hospitalization, regulation and police control.
Roger Sandford
------------------------------
While I find some things the Harper government is doing quite appalling, I am torn about supporting your cause because I think we need to go beyond thinking about making Canada a better place, to making the whole planet better.
We are divided into separate countries so that we think in terms of "us and them", by a system that is hierarchical and unnatural - Capitaliism - the money system.
Count me as a supporter, and I will try to be as supportive as I can comfortably be, considering that my heart is in a cooperative world of free access and contribution without money. We need radical change - radical meaning getting at the root of the problems, not violent nor destructive.
Best wishes, and thank you very much for your work,
Tony Gelsthorpe
------------------------------
I got the link to your Reclaim Canada blog from my mom. I will definitely stay tuned and look forward to hearing more about this group's activities. You have my support!
I do have one critique, and that is that although most of the issues mentioned on the site are arguably most critical in Northern Canada, there was little to no mention of fighting for the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. I would like to see more discussion on that issue, including on those Canadians who are often overlooked completely - Aboriginals who live throughout Canada and in our urban centers who face barriers and discrimination.
Having said that, I think you have done a great job of summarizing and illustrating all of the issues mentioned on the site - I will pass it along to my networks.
Katherine Toms
------------------------------
October 26
My $0.02 worth is that anybody opposing Mr. Harper and his deliberate flouting of Canadian Democratic and Parliamentary traditions is worthy of support.
His support of wars, reductions in aid, actions against women, spending on prisons and military instead of poverty and housing is against everything I understand humanism to be about. I'm in!
Looks to me like the exact opposite of the Tea Baggers, as Bill Maher calls them.
Perhaps we can be the Timmie's Toters, or due to the leftist leanings, The Fair-trade Mochachino Freedom Fighters.
Jim Young
I wholeheartedly endorse your efforts: I see “Laziness & arrogance” in this government, exampled by the Gun Registry & Census nonsense’s of late. It must be the duty of Government to improve laws & regulations, not take the easy way if not in agreement and merely seek to remove or weaken the rules.
Godfrey Owen
------------------------------------
October 15
Dear friends at “Reclaim our Democratic Canada”:
It is with great enthusiasm that I support your call; please add my name to the list of supporters.
It is with great enthusiasm that I support your call; please add my name to the list of supporters.
And let me note a particular thank you for including the call to support Bill C-393 in support of fixing Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime, an issue on which we have been working long and hard for many years, but which is being undermined by, among other things, a profoundly anti-democratic approach to law-making in Parliament.
Richard Elliott
---------------------------
October 14
I support Reclaim Canada wholeheartedly! Thank you for starting this
group, I will pass it along to as many of my contacts as possible and
encourage them to join.
May Mickelow
--------------------------------
I have had the awful premonition that I (and my fellow Canadians) have been standing idly by while Rome burns. I protested on Parliament Hill in the anti-prorogation rally --- it was my first "march" in my 53 year life. But I still feel the need to rush to the barricades and turn on the hoses. Reclaim Canada is a call to arms.
Recent efforts by commentators to amass and communicate the track record of the current government have confirmed my deep concern and provided a firm diagnosis for my anxiety about the course of democracy in Canada. The tone and level of what passes for political discourse emanating from the Prime Minister's Office has done nothing to restore faith in the political system or to engage new participants into it. If Harper's intent has been to savage critics, discourage well-meaning participants, shut down journalistic inquiry and examination, muzzle public servants, denigrate expertise and knowledge and instill fear he has been extremely successful. These are also perfect conditions for instituting a dictatorship, particularly if the citizenship fails to shoulder its democratic responsibilities.
I have been dismayed at the inability or unwillingness of the opposition parties to condemn Harper's policies and actions. Without a strong alternate voice, we citizens feel abandoned.
Thank you for giving us someplace to register our concerns and to move toward action to reclaim the democratic traditions and values that have made Canada the envy of the world . . . at least until 2006.
Please add my name to your list of supporters,
Susan C. Gates
-----------------------------------------
Demokratia means rule of the people. Equality and freedom are its most important characteristics and it is a form of government meant to ensure that the state can be constrained from behaving in an arbitrary and coercive fashion.
I really like the idea that runs through this site that instead of polarized debate, with opinions written in acid or invective, policies can be arrived at by reasoned discussion.
Tina Agrell
--------------------------------------
I, too, am alarmed at the erosion of democracy as well as general civility under the current Harper government. Sign me up!
Christine Penner Polle
--------------------------------------
I was pleased you placed gender equality at the head of the list of pressing issues. Until such time as women everywhere are treated with dignity; until such time as women are equally represented in our halls of power, all the other issues you listed will continue to fester.
Peter Pellier
------------------------------------
October 13
Hello – My name is Bruce Dickson. I live in Toronto and share your understandable concerns over the wayward course that democracy has taken in our country for far too long. We have outsourced the issue to a too-conflicted political class for quite some time, now, perhaps thinking the subject too technical and recondite – only to awaken late in the day to see just how far off course that approach has led us.
So power to the people! Let’s reclaim a task that was always rightfully ours and show once more to the world just how effectively a modern and properly functioning democracy can operate in today’s world – and do it in a way that will help ensure that a self-interested minority can never hijack it again.
Count me in and all the best.
Bruce Dickson
------------------------------------
I would like to restore and reclaim our Canada, protect hard fought-for human rights and preserve the traditions and regulations of parliamentary democracy.
Mary Davis
------------------------------------
I support the efforts of Canadians everywhere who are concerned about the
erosion of democracy in our country. We must speak up and alert others to protect
the constitutional rights of Canadians and preserve a just, equitable, peaceful and free
society that we can be proud of again.
Leslie Catling
-------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the initiative to compile a list of the actions of this government that have clearly shown a complete disdain for the values Canada and Canadians have always supported and been recognized for around the world.
The latest embarrassment in not being chosen for a seat on the U.N. Security Council is a clear indication of how this government has chosen a path that is in direct opposition to what Canadians want our country to be.
I have often likened the Harper government to the Tea Party in the U.S. This is not a Conservative government in any sense of the word. It is the Reform Party, feeding on secrecy, divisiveness and derision of those with opposing views.
If the majority of us do not speak out now and encourage all like-minded citizens to get out and vote when the time comes, we will end up being saddled with this government for a long time to come as it is certain that those few who support the Conservatives will line up to vote to ensure a victory for their party of choice. This is clearly evident in the rising of the Tea Party in the U.S. Though a small minority cut from the Republican Party, they are the most vocal and garner the most press.
Your efforts to regain our country are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sharon O’Driscoll
---------------------------
October 12
Please add my name to your list of supporters. The website looks great!
It's good to finally have a list of all that this government has done to dismantle Canadian democracy and everything that Canada has stood for. The constant chipping away at the base of our democracy goes unnoticed by many people, but when you see the cumulative effect it becomes clear.
Scott Henderson
------------------------------
September 27, 2010
One of the ways that our democracy has been eroded is by the use of the omnibus bill. When a government wants to pass legislation that they know the other parties oppose, they attach that legislation onto a totally unrelated bill that contains aspects that the opposition really wants. Or they attach a non-money proposal onto a financial bill, thus making it into a confidence vote. In either case, the opposition is often forced into accepting legislation that they oppose and the government pushes through unpopular legislation.
In a fully functioning democratic parliament, every single different topic would be in a separate bill.
In a fully functioning democratic parliament, the use of omnibus bills would not be permitted.
-Elka Ruth Enola
-------------------------
I am particularly concerned about the lack of funding for programs that support violence and sexual abuse against women.
Susan Rayman
-------------------------
Gun Registry
I would love to add my name to this grassroots movement to restore democracy to Canada. I have been following all the topics mentioned on this great website and am extremely disturbed by all these events.
Another issue which is important to me is the attempt to scrap the gun registry by means of a private member’s bill. If Jack Layton allows some of his members to vote with the Conservatives, it would be disastrous! Good for Michael Ignatief for working hard to keep it. Also we must keep the war resisters from being sent back to the U.S. for refusing to fight in the Iraq war.
-Rosemarie Green
---------------------------------------
This movement can do a great service for democracy in Canada.
Let's tell our politicians that we want to move forward on participatory democracy, not backward. That we want to move forward on gender equality, not backward. That we don't want to hear about party ideology, party platforms or party anything!
We want to hear how our Parliamentarians and our Prime Minister will increase the transparency of government, not decrease it as Harper has blatantly done. We're not interested in how cleverly Harper can use the tricks he learned from the right wingers in the US to manipulate the voters with fear and uncertainty. We don't want to compare the PMO's office to authoritarian regimes.
We want the power in the hands of the people, or at the very least in Parliament, and not in the hands of Harper's unelected staffers. And let's be clear: Chretien and the Liberals were on that same backward track, albeit with more reasonable policies.
In the next election, let's ask each candidate what she will do to improve our democracy, to decrease the hundreds of patronage appointments, to make government's actions completely transparent and accountable and to put much more democratic power back in the hands of every constituent!
-Hart Jansson
---------------------------------
I strongly support this movement! Common sense, cooperation and consideration of our less fortunate Canadians (as well as other members of our global community) must take precedence over political gamesmanship as demonstrated by Stephen Harper.
-Daniella Moscovici Jansson
----------------------------------------
September 18, 2010
Two things stand out for me:
-Others besides me wants to reclaim Canada.
-Secondly, I affirm the statements "What we Stand For." #3 is currently of particular importance because I am part of a team of women across Canada working diligently to get Bill C-393 passed. The organization, National Advocacy Committee of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign advocates strongly for many of things issues mentioned.
Multi-partisan and deeply concerned.
-Elizabeth Rennie
