Poly Ticks

Over Taxation

Here's a handy phrase becoming increasingly common. Over taxed. As in, "If the Government has a surplus it's because they were over taxing." It's a talking point for the right. Of course they feel any taxation is bad taxation, so it's not surprising. It's also used for cover when people ask how we went from $16 billion or so in the bank to where we seem to be finding ourselves today. I think that most Canadians don't mind paying taxes, they would just like to see some value for their dollar for a change. We would like to actually see some thing happen for our tax dollars.

Things other than blowing $300 million on an election and then, to save $30 million, demand we hold another $300 million election. Something other than insisting that there's no financial crisis, then suggesting if the Government is going to make bail outs it needs to sell assets in order to avoid deficit, to finally admitting that even if we don't spend any more money and sell all our assets we're going to run a deficit. In under 2 months. Would you hire these people to run your business?

Suddenly over taxation sounds like fiscal prudence. At least we wouldn't have to hold a fire sale. I take it this is another one of those good times to invest?

Our Government In Action

Why Stephen Harper and his gang think it's ok to yank one of our top scientists from attending his commitments at an international forum on climate change.

Canada is not living up to it's international obligations.

Thinking About Change

Change was the mantra in the recent U.S. election, and the mantra is sliding north. But change for the sake of change, change without thought, is a risky political idea at best. When someone tells you they want to change something, the first question to be asked is, "Why was this things we want to change put there in the first place? What was being attempted?" Let's look at some real life examples.

Per vote funding of political parties, for example. It's very easy to jump up and down and scream that this is nothing more than snouts in the taxpayers pockets, to mix a metaphor, but before we get to that we need to ask why is it in place to begin with. What was the law designed to do? The per vote funding was brought in for two reasons. The first is that, at the same time, there were changes to how political parties could receive funding. The maximum individual donation was dropped to $1,000. Funding was supposed to come from individuals, not corporations or unions. It basically recognised that money is necessary to running a political campaign, and yet could have a corrupting influence on our elected officials. People who donate large sums of money expect something back for those large donations. The other reason for the per vote subsidy is that it gives parties who do get a considerable size vote, but no seats, some recognition for the fact that they are speaking for some Canadians. Take the Green Party for example. In the last election almost one million Canadians voted for them, and yet not a single seat in Parliament. Those million Canadians can take some comfort in knowing their vote was note wasted and will help the Green Party in getting their message to more Canadians. A democracy needs several voices in order to be healthy. Merely ending this subsidy does nothing to address these issues, and these issues are certainly still relevant in Canadian politics today. Unless there is a plan to address these issues in place, removing this subsidy does far more harm than good.

The Senate is also hitting the news today, with Stephen Harper poised to appoint 18 new members. Apparently these 18 members will have to promise to support the idea of an elected Senate, and an elected Senate is on of Stephen Harper's pet plans. On the surface it sounds like a great idea. Surely the Senate is nothing more than a hold over of British privilege? Not quite.

The purpose of the Senate in Canada is to prevent the Government of Canada from being hijacked. To prevent the Government of Canada from being taken over by anyone who would make themselves a dictator. Let's look at a historical scenario - Nazi Germany. Most people forget Hitler was elected. This phrase has been repeated so often that I'm actually certain most people don't forget, but it is telling for our example. Thru clever machination and a pathological desire to grab the reigns of power, Hitler managed to place all the people he needed throughout the German Government with such speed that by the time the average person noticed what he was doing it was over. He had so consolidated power that it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. A populist approach, pandering to people's fears, and an utter ruthlessness in approach to his opponents was all that it took. At the moment, that can not happen in Canada. Why? Because our Senate is not elected.

By making Senators appointed, the majority of Senators in Canada will be made up of people that agree with whatever Government the people of Canada have seen fit to put into office several times, over a long period of time. As the "house of sober second thought" it represents the will of Canadian voters, through their elected Governments over a period of decades. Just deciding to make it an elected body does nothing to address the safeguards it now represents.

If There Were Any Doubts

Stephen Harper was interviewed today on CBC. He was asked a couple of times whether or not he thinks he did anything wrong in the last two weeks, if maybe some of the madness was his fault. Nope. Not a bit. Screw you all! It was interesting to watch what he did with his hands and which questions made him ball his little fists up and turn his knuckles white.

If anyone had any questions about Stephen Harper and if he had been chastened any by the last two weeks now has their answer. Nope. I think the NDP are right on this one, Stephen Harper only sees his plans for dictatorship as being wrong because they didn't work. That is still the plan. The moment he thinks he can get away with it he will bring in every single thing he's backed down on. He has not backed down on the ideas, just on the timing. The man is dangerous. The man has no respect for the Canadian system of parliamentary government. The man has no respect for his party, and no respect for Canadians.

Membership Drive

Should Stephen Harper or any of his gang comment on the way the Liberal Party selects it's leader...let them know that if it's really of such concern to them, you'd happily sell them a membership so that their voice can be heard. Because the voices in the Liberal Party will be heard. Right?

One Dollar And Ninety Five Cents

Much has been made of the axing of the political subsidy. The right is claiming it is the sole reason for the upheaval and that it needs to be done away with. Politicians at the public trough. For the most part the left coalition has ignored this and tried to keep repeating, "It's the economy stupid." It is the economy, but it's also about those subsidies. And just why is our Government giving away tax dollars to political parties?

First of all, there are two main subsidies available to political parties for fund raising. One is tied to donations and one is tied to votes. The first one is available to any registered political party. If you give them $100, you get a $75 tax credit. This is the one that makes up the majority of funding for the Conservative Party, and pays out considerably more than the per vote subsidy, as in we would have saved more money getting rid of this subsidy. Funny that this one wasn't on the chopping block. People in favour of this subsidy say that it demonstrates that people are interested in your party because they are willing to give you money. It's a subsidy you have to "work for" in that someone has to drum up all of those donations.

The other subsidy is tied to votes. There's a threshold, so getting one vote does not get you the subsidy, but if enough Canadians vote for your party you receive a payment, at this point around $1.95, for every vote you receive. This subsidy makes up the majority of funding for the rest of the political parties in Canada. People in favour of this subsidy point out that political parties that champion, for example, the poor will still have a voice in our political system. Myself I have to think that getting a few hundred thousand people to vote for you in a federal election takes at least as much real work as phoning your friends and asking for money does.

The second subsidy was brought in as an attempt to help remove the importance of money, and the corruption that money can bring to politics, from our political system. Of the two subsidies, it is the one that was specifically designed to remove corruption from our political system. It's the one that lets people without large sums of money have a say in Canadian politics. And it's the one that makes sure no vote is ever wasted. Almost a million people voted for the Green Party in the last election, and the Green Party didn't manage to win a single seat in Parliament. Those people can feel like their votes will now be ignored, or those people can know that they have increased the ability of the Green Party to get their message heard by almost two million dollars. If you voted Green last election, which would make you feel like your vote actually meant something.

Personally I think that anything that makes Canadians feel like their votes are not wasted is a good idea. It should also be a relatively easy sell to the vast majority of Canadians.

Without Quebec

A pet peeve. When someone forwards a stat as to how politics would look in Canada without Quebec. Without Quebec? Ok, well let's pretend rodents can vote. We know the beavers are voting Liberal and the rats are voting Conservative.....would that leave the balance of power with mice? Would muskrats go with the beaver part of it's nature or the rat in it's name?

There is no Canada without Quebec.

Stephen Harper Speaks

Wow.

Stephen Harper asked for and got 5 minutes of tv time to convince Canadians that he's right. There was much wondering whether or not Stephen Harper would use this opportunity to apologise for creating this crisis. Whether or not there would be some contrition. There was none. It was nothing but pure politics again and that should anger every Canadian regardless of political affiliation. Worse yet it was filled with, well, lies. I know I shouldn't be so blunt, but there it is. He lied and he knows he's lying. It is a disgrace.

Let's look at his speech. One of the things that the Conservative Party has been doing in the House of Commons lately is to say different things in English and French. It seems that the text was the same in English and French except for one word. In English the Bloc are separatists, in French they are sovereignists. Very telling that. It's guaranteed to rile up his Conservative base in the west. Just what we need in a time of economic crisis.

From Stephen Harper's televised speech:

"Constant in every case, however, is the principle that Canada's Government has always been chosen by the people." Wrong. Canada's Government is chosen by the House of Commons. The House of Commons is chosen by the people. You would think the Prime Minister should have this fundamental fact down by now.

"Unfortunately, even before the Government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election." - Utter bullshit. And he knows it. No-one is asking for seats in the House of Commons to be changed and that is what the results of the election are.

"Instead of an immediate budget, they propose a new coalition which includes the party in Parliament whose avowed goal is to break up the country." Same smell as the above quote. The coalition is between the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Bloc are only relevant in that they have agreed not to vote against the coalition in 3 votes - a speech from the Throne and 2 budgets over the course of 18 months.

"At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada. And the Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." Again, the Bloc is not part of the coalition. And actually the Opposition not only have the right, they have the duty to replace any Government that has lost the support of Parliament.

"The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote." There was a vote. And the majority of those MP's Canadians voted for want Mr Harper out. Mr Harper knows this.

That's one lie a minute in his 5 minute speech.

Mr Harper must go. Now. And please, let the door hit you in the.....

Civics

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around these days about just what exactly is and is not going on in Ottawa. Let's look at some of the basics.

In Canada we elect Members of Parliament. We do not elect a government and we most certainly do not elect a Prime Minister. All we elect is Members of Parliament. Most of those Members belong to one of the politcal parties in Canada. Once all the Members of Parliament have assembled, the Governor General asks one of the political parties, traditionally the one with the most seats, if they feel able to form a government. Notice the word tradition. Constitutionally the Governor General's job is to decide which party has the best chance of forming a stable government and asking them to form the Government. By tradition the Governor General starts with the party with the most seats. The Government does not exist outside of Parliament it is an expression of the will of Parliament. This is the very basic core of democracy in Canada. The people we vote for then cast their vote for the one amongst them they feel most able to lead Parliament.

This means that no Government in Canada has a mandate from the Canadian people. The Canadian people give a mandate to Parliament, and Parliament gives a mandate to the Government. Parliament is more important than the Government. Those that form the Government are MP's that were elected in a few ridings in Canada, Parliament represents the vote of every riding in Canada and is the voice of every single Canadian who voted.

Parliament has a mandate from the Canadian people. Everyone else gets their mandate from Parliament.

Is This A Coup?

Yes. A coup is definied as: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment. If getting the Bloc to forget about agitating to seperate and work towards what is best for Canada isn't a coup I don't know what is.

Let's Talk The Bloc

The Bloc are seperatists and any party that works with the Bloc is working for the destruction of Canada. Heard that one yet? It's garbage. While politically risky, keep in mind that if everyone in Quebec who voted for the Bloc wanted to seperate, Quebec would no longer be a province. It's a safe bet that most of the people who voted for the Bloc do not want to seperate from Canada, they voted for the Bloc because they see them as the party that actually concerns itself with Quebec. To ignore these voters, to refuse to work with them, actually does more to fuel seperatist goals than working with them does. Demonstrating that the Federal Government can keep the interests of Quebecers in mind, can work with the party they elected to Ottawa, actually strengthens the federal position.

Constitutional Crisis?

It's a catchy headline, sells papers and plays right in to the Conservative spin. This is not a constitutional crisis, it's exactly how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

Power Grab?

Is this all about a power grab? It is. It's all about stopping Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from taking a lot more power than the people were willing to trust them with.