Category Archives: Canadian Politics

Stop Stephen Harper from creating a wasteful iPod registry

Posted on by
Reply

What follows is an altered version of a Conservative Party of Canada fundraising letter about the long-gun registry. You can find the original here. It is meant to be satirical, and is based on the iPod tax recently uncovered by professor Mike Moffatt. This article is not associated with or endorsed by Professor Moffatt or by the Liberal Party of Canada. However, if you want to donate, feel free to follow the links.

(Urgent) Stop Stephen Harper from creating a wasteful iPod registry

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Earlier this year, Stephen Harper turned his back on all Canadians by creating a wasteful iPod registry. He’s even expected to whip his MPs into supporting this costly Conservative legacy.

If Stephen Harper succeeds, the wasteful iPod registry will threaten law-abiding musicians and music-loving Canadians – while doing nothing to promote jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

We need your support now to prevent that from happening. Please make a contribution of $200 or $100 by following this link right now.

During the seven-year reign of Stephen Harper, eleven Conservative MPs stood with their constituents and spoke against an iPod tax seventy nine times. Now, when Stephen Harper is accused of creating an iPod tax, he says he must create an iPod registry to avoid raising taxes on law-abiding Canadians.

Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was clear:

“The last thing Canadian families and consumers need is a massive new tax on iPods and other digital storage devices” (House of Commons Debate, December 14, 2010).

So was Conservative MP James Moore, saying “The iPod tax will drive away Canadian retailers, draining hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian economy”. (House of Commons Debate, December 14, 2010).

Del Mastro and Moore were joined by eleven other Conservative MPs in speaking against an iPod tax: Tony Clement, Shelly Glover, Mike Lake, Pierre Poilievre, Cathy McLeod, Scott Armstrong, Bruce Stanton, Cheryl Gallant, Christian Paradis, Ed Fast, and Laurie Hawn.

These MPs have now been told that they MUST support Stephen Harper. They must vote to create a wasteful iPod registry to prevent the creation of an unfair iPod tax. They must choose wasteful spending over increased taxes. They must choose their leader over their constituents. They must do what they have been told.

We need your help today to hold these Conservative MPs accountable. They need to understand the political consequences of punishing law-abiding musicians and music-loving Canadians. Of voting against their constituents. Of choosing Stephen Harper over their friends and neighbours back home.

I am launching a campaign to do just that. Please make a contribution of $200 or $100 right now by following this link in support of this campaign. We will ensure that every iPod owner, every citizen and every voter in these thirteen Conservative ridings will be fully aware of the choice they must make.

Their choice will be clear: SAY NO to a wasteful iPod registry and an unfair iPod tax. It’s as simple as that. No shifting, no sliding.

We need your help today to keep these Conservative MPs to their word. Make a contribution of $200 or $100 right now by following this link.

Working together we can prevent a wasteful Conservative iPod registry and an unfair iPod tax. Support our campaign today.

Sincerely,

Zach

PS – Remember that you’ll receive a tax receipt for any contribution you make. This can make the actual cost of your contribution as low as 25% of your overall giving this year. Please, follow this link right now and make a contribution of $200 or $100.

 

The Tale of Two Truppes

Posted on by
2

Recently, several voters in London received a fundraising letter from Susan Truppe, the Conservative Member of Parliament from London North Centre. I’m going to look past the outright lies contained in the letter, and simply point you to Glen Pearson’s post where he describes the most egregious example.

I take issue with one section in particular, where the letter describes the incredible “exposure” Susan has delivered for London (underlining appears as it does in the letter):

“Susan has had the opportunity to rise in the House and honour the accomplishments of London North Centre citizens and businesses more times in one year than had been offered in the previous 4 years. This exposure helps her access the resources she needs to help resolve constituent concerns and broaden visibility for London and Southwestern Ontario.“

First, is the author of this letter suggesting that opposition members are not given proper resources “to help resolve constituent concerns”? Second, is this the kind of national and international exposure the author is referring to:

“Mr. Speaker, I know families in London and, in fact, all Canadians are worried about the very serious allegations that have been made against their former Liberal MP…The Liberals have not been in government since 2005 and, if these allegations are true, then they are still stealing.” -Susan Truppe in the House of Commons, October 19, 2012

Is this the type of national and international exposure that supports “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity” for London families? We already know the answer to that question. When Stephen Harper was first elected Prime Minister in 2006, the unemployment rate in London was 6.5%. When Susan Truppe was elected in 2011, it was 8.5%. Today, it stands at 9.0%. For all their focus on jobs, we aren’t seeing much in the way of results.

The time will come when Susan Truppe will have to worry about her own job, and Londoners won’t forget that ours were left behind.

Engagement is Meaningless without Action

Posted on by
5
Some leaders of the recent civic-engagement movement stand outside of London City Hall.

Photo: Metro/John Matisz

Metro News recently released an article about a “surge of…civic engagement groups in London”. Groups like Citizen Corps, the Citizens Panel, Better London, and City Symposium are all worthwhile and are doing great things for our city; however, they will do little to actually change the way London operates.

I should state that I often participate in the events organized by these groups. I am a regular attendee of City Symposium, I have attended Citizen Corps’ Pints & Politics events, and I’m a member of Emerging Leaders. If you were to attend some of these events, you will quickly notice you keep running into the same people. This isn’t unusual given that the most “engaged” people will want to be everywhere, all the time, but it does create a problem when real action needs to be taken: in Fall 2014.

Let’s take a moment to recall the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement. In the Spring of 2009 the Tea Party sprang up as a grassroots movement in American politics. Tea Partiers tended to be Republicans, but also had a “dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican leaders”. A year and a half later, tea partiers effectively organized during the 2010 Congressional elections to have tea party Republicans elected across the United States. Today, there is a 66 member Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and moderate Republican incumbents are being knocked off during their nominations by tea party candidates.

In contrast, the Occupy movement began to develop in the Fall of 2011, protesting social and economic inequality. The protests spanned across the globe, some larger than others, but they mostly fizzled out over the Winter months. Today, less than a year later, Occupy has all but faded from the media spotlight. It remains to be seen if the Occupy movement effectively organizes during the 2012 election cycle but, as the primary season comes to a close, I think it’s safe to say they will not.

What can be learned from this comparison? Citizen engagement gets you no where without political action.

It’s fine to talk about the 0% tax plan, and to imagine some great city with artists and playwrights and world-class museums, but if you want it to change you’re going to need a new City Council, a different City Council. The citizen “engagement” groups must start engaging more people. New people, different people.

Two years from now, if the 0% tax plan doesn’t succeed, if we’re still languishing in high unemployment with no vision of a better future, Londoners will be ready for change. The only question is: will we be ready to lead it?

Democratic Reform for the Brave

Posted on by
10

If there is one area where every Canadian political party agrees it’s that the current system of government isn’t working. Harper’s Conservatives want to see the Senate reformed while Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats want the Senate abolished. The Liberal Party, as usual, doesn’t really know what it wants; however, the party recently approved a policy to push for preferential voting (voters would rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. instead of marking an x). Everyone understands the system is broken, but no one can agree on a solution.

Inability to change the way our government works is a political reality. To change our system of government requires a change to our constitution and changing the constitution is incredibly difficult, as it should be. Altering the constitution requires approval from the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as approval from at least seven provincial Legislatures (and those provinces must represent at least 50% of Canada’s population). Previous attempts to change the constitution resulted in the Meech Lake Accord (1987) and Charlottetown Accord (1992); both failed and, Meech Lake in particular, energized support for Quebec sovereignty. Today, opening up the constitution is considered political suicide.

Alas, I am young and impetuous. I think Canadians deserve a government that is willing to have hard conversations, compromise, and make decisions. It’s time to renew our belief in democracy and change the way things are done in Ottawa. If I was designing our system of government, here is what I would propose:

Number of ridings by province in various redistribution formats.A House of Commons based on representative democracy and representation by
population. MPs would be elected by first-past-the-post (our current system), and directly accountable to the people who elected them. The number of ridings/province would be based on the population of the province, with each province and territory receiving at least one MP. As the Table above outlines, under the current system (see Current # MPs) the six smallest provinces (MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, and PEI) and QC are over-represented in the House while the fastest growing provinces (ON, BC, and AB) are under-represented. In the Fair Representation Act, the Harper Government has proposed adding 30 additional MPs to the House (see Proposed # MPs) to account for population growth, at an additional cost of $14.8-$18.2 million/year (plus $11.5 million/election). My proposal (My Proposed # MPs) uses a fixed number of 308 ridings, redistributed after each census by a non-partisan committee (appointed by the Governor General). I understand this would reduce the power of the maritimes and the prairie provinces, but that’s where the Senate comes into the picture.

An equal, elected, and effective Senate based on proportional representation. Senators (nine per province, one per territory) would be elected based on each party’s proportion of votes in each province. This would provide a major boost to the maritime provinces (who would hold thirty-six Senators), as well as the provinces west of Ontario (another thirty-six). Ontario and Quebec (who would hold a majority in the House) are minor players in the Senate, with only nine Senators each. Moreover, rural interests would be protected in the Senate with predominantly-rural provinces holding a majority. Elected Senators could also provide political parties with representation from every province (the Liberals would have elected a Senator from Alberta in 2011!).

I admit: this is a simplified solution. It doesn’t examine the extraneous demands provinces will make once the constitution is opened. It also ignores the inevitable outcry from Quebec. I truly believe Quebec holds a special place within Canada and that their heritage and language deserves protection; however, I don’t believe Quebec should be afforded extra influence within our federal government. That being said, I believe the system I have presented is fair, balanced, and easy to understand. Perhaps the best part of this idea is that voting system would not need to change: we still used first-past-the-post for our MPs and use the proportion of those votes for Senators. One ballot, one vote. Everyone is represented by a specific person in Ottawa (their MP), and everyone’s vote “counts” (at least for Senator).

I’m happy to hear what people think: leave a comment with any questions or suggestions you have!

Edit (April 25, 2012, 10:30am) - A couple people have asked what the Senate would look like right now given the results of the 2011 Federal Election. Based on a quick check of the provincial-breakdown of results the Senate would include 42 Conservatives, 25 NDP, 22 Liberals, 2 Greens, and 2 BQs (a majority would be 47).

Voter Suppression

Posted on by
Reply
The Lorax“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.   It’s not.” – Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

It’s been almost two weeks since the election fraud scandal (#robocon / #robocall on twitter) hit the national news. It has been the focus of Question Period every day since, and continues to be a major story on a daily basis.

First, a quick primer for my apolitical readers: on election day each campaign pulls together its volunteers and starts calling its supporters. This vast and chaotic operation is called getting out the vote, or GOTV. Millions of calls are made across the country by every political party in order to make sure their supporters cast ballots. Sometimes, campaigns use robocalls (pre-recorded messages) instead of live callers.

The investigation by Elections Canada began in the riding of Guelph shortly after the election. Allegedly, an individual or individuals, sent out a robocall to Liberal/NDP supporters. The message claimed to be from Elections Canada and informed voters that their voting location had changed, then provided incorrect locations. At the very least people were inconvenienced, at worst some people were prevented from voting. The investigation has since widened to officially include the riding of Nipissing-Temiskaming. In addition, Elections Canada has received over 31,000 contacts from Canadians regarding illegal calls in up to 57 other ridings.

Preventing people from voting is against the law, period. It’s disgusting, and represents the lowest of lows within a democracy, but it isn’t the only type of voter suppression. Every time you heard “Stephane Dion is not a leader” or that Michael Ignatieff “didn’t come back for you” you experienced voter suppression in its legal form: negative advertising and character assassination. The Conservatives have honed their ability to deceive voters and demean opponents over the past decade, and it has not been limited to Liberal leaders. Here in London North Centre there was a brutal campaign suggesting Glen Pearson spent half his time in Sudan instead of doing his job, a claim that is patently false.

I’m glad everyone is finally coming to terms with an obvious truth: the Conservatives will stop at nothing to win power. Unfortunately, until we start paying attention; until we start caring a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.

The Other 1%

Posted on by
1

Logo from the Occupy MovementWe’ve all heard about the Occupy Movement, the nefarious 1% that controls everything, and the 99% that is left in the financial dust. The other 1%, in its undisguised arrogance, is found in our political system.

Today, only 1% of Canadians are a member of a political party. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but these are the people who choose the leader of each party, and by extension the Prime Minister. They choose the candidates in each riding, and they’re the local organizers, volunteers, and donors who influence the entire process. That’s a remarkable amount of control in the hands of a very small number of people.

Each individual has their reason for joining a political party, just as each person has their reason for not joining. Undoubtably, most people just haven’t thought about it. One of the most common barriers I encounter in my conversations with people is psychological. They believe that, by joining the party, they have to be partisan to the core, and are therefore responsible to understand and defend every intricate detail of party policy. I get this response even from dedicated volunteers, people who knock on doors during elections and already act as informal spokespersons for their party.

The broad scope of political parties means they will have to take a lot of positions. As a member, you don’t have to agree with every one of them or even most of them. You should decide what’s important to you and find the party that best reflects your values. From there, you can try to convince others of your views. If you’re successful you can end up changing the party, and perhaps the country. As a minimum, members should be able to explain why they joined the party in the first place, and what issues are important to them. Beyond that I only expect them to have an open mind. One of the most rewarding aspects I’ve found in being a member of Liberal Party is talking to, and learning from, other members.

Decisions are made by those who show up. You may get to mark an X on election day next to the name you like best, but only a select few get to choose the names that are put there in the first place.

–

For more information on joining the Liberal Party of Canada, or the Ontario Liberal Party, feel free to get in touch with me. Lean more to the left or right? Try the NDP or Conservatives, and don’t forget the Green Party, if that’s what you’re into.

Imagine the Possibilities

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine a group which brings together like-minded Canadians from coast to coast to coast. A group without barriers to engagement. A group that encourages discourse and debate. Now imagine the individuals in that group, average Canadians, working together to effect change in the country they love.

This is what the Liberal Party of Canada must become.

We must create a party where all those with shared aspirations can democratically elect a local candidate and a national leader. Barriers to participation, whether based on race, religion, sex, or financial status, should be dismantled. The playing field should be level, and the process should be fair. Votes should be cast by mail, phone, and over the internet. It will cost the party a great deal of money to oversee such a campaign, but the benefits of openness, fairness, and democracy greatly outweigh the costs.

We must create a party where average Canadians, through research, collaboration, and old fashioned hard work, can see their ideas put forth during an election. The party leader’s line-by-line veto over the entire platform should be eliminated. Individual members should have real power to influence party policy. The policy development process should be ongoing; nimble enough to adapt in changing circumstances, but ordered enough to allow broad participation. It will be hard, but when we work together we can achieve great things.

We must be the party of ideas. Our ideas should be bold in nature, and national in scope. We should always rely on the best evidence available, rather than antiquated ideology. We should respect the jurisdiction of the provinces but not abdicate the role of the federal government. Finally, we must understand that not every problem has a national solution. Canada is a vast nation, we should embrace our diversity.

In January, there is an opportunity to remake the Liberal Party. Liberals from across Canada will come together for our 2012 Biennial Convention. Party policies will be discussed, the national (volunteer) executive will be elected, and constitutional amendments will be debated. Some of the goals I’ve outlined here may be achieved, and I will be working hard during the convention the help them win approval. Together, we can create a party that is open to all Canadians, a party that provides an avenue to create change. A party we can all believe in again.

I know many of you are cynical about politics. Have faith, my friends, change is coming.