Oh For Those Good Ole Democratic Days - Pt 2

I left you in part 1 bemoaning the fact that today, in many respects, we have Democracy in Name Only.



By "Democracy", I mean rule by the Majority; subject to the Rule of Law for the protection of all.




I pointed out in Part 1, the obvious fact that we no longer have Direct Democracy, it having died out with the last Athenian City State in the pre Christ years. And I hinted at the fact that we no longer even have Representative Democracy (RD) which seems to have come to a premature end in the final few decades of the last Century.



I can name four (4) developments that have contributed to the death of RD. Each, alone, has struck a most serious blow to the RD way of government; combined they have destroyed it.



First off, in the 1970s, Prime Minister Trudeau and his Clerk of the Privy Council conspired to centralize government power in the joint Offices of the Prime Minister and the Clerk. PMs to follow, including the current resident of 24 Sussex, have added to this consolidation to the point now where the ordinary MP, as well as the run of the mill Cabinet Minister, have virtually no say in determining the Government's Policy Agenda. Trudeau famously quipped that MPs were totally unknown 50 feet away from Parliament Hill and that statement now equally pertains to Cabinet.



I can remember those heady days in the 50s and 60s when MPs were elected to speak on behalf of their constituents. Now they simply parrot the lines given them 'from the centre' and dare not stray from that text.



The Second major change working against Representative Democracy is in regard to the Power the Courts and in particular, to their use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make laws. Prior to the Charter, Courts were there only to interpret the Laws made by our Representatives in the House of Commons. Judicial Activism has greatly neutered our once revered House of Commons and on important Societal Matters such as Marriage, Abortion, Drug Use, Immigration and Refugee Status, Language, the Courts rule supreme.


Rather than having 308 Members of Parliament deal with these important societal issues we have a mere handful of judges doing their work for them and when it comes to the cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, just 9 jurists have been given this responsibility - all political appointees and for the most part, all to the left.





The Third Development which has led to the diminished role of Parliamentarians relates to the growth of Commissioners and Quasi-Judicial Bodies. I liked to hear them referred to collectively as 'Tsars'. We have Commissioners for Privacy, Commissioners for Access, Commissioners for Language, Commissions for Human Rights and so on and so on. These chaps are always pronouncing on something or other and too often their pronouncements have the force of law. They are Not Elected are usually left of centre and in no way can it be said to represent the majority of Canadians.



And let's be honest here - Politicians have established these Tsars to avoid making difficult decisions themselves. But dear reader - that is why they were elected - to make decisions of all kinds on our behalf but they have weaseled out. We need to empower MPs by having them take back the making of such decisions - give them the staff and set-up powerful committees and by so doing, have them mirror more closely their counterparts in the States and by so doing change ordinary MPs into extra-ordinary Legislators. And yes dear reader - that includes 'deep sixing' the Senate. We do not need an unelected body nor do we need another layer of decision makers even if elected.



And now for the fourth and final reason our Representative Democracy is in such need of repair - The Bureaucracy. It is Too Large, Too Powerful and needs to be cut down to size. The King Pin is the Deputy Minister - he or she directs the mandarins - he or she hands out the appraisals and bonuses for the Senior Cadre below. The Minister has no such power nor does he or she even have the power to hire or fire Bureaucrats including the top dog Deputy. The Civil Service has grown so big and so powerful it has become virtually impossible for politicians to have much influence on it. They can and do simply wait out a current Minister tenure - Governments come and go - The Bureaucracy is forever there. In the end they tend to get their own way.



Depressing - isn't it.




Here is what we need do:

• Begin by finding a Political Party that will do what it says what it will do - no easy feat in itself;




• Disperse Power from the Centre back to the MPs - empower those MPs by providing them with the resources needed to do the job and establish a Committee Structure that has the power to compete with the PM and Cabinet;




• Rein in the Courts through liberal use of the not withstanding clause to frustrate their growing propensity to make law; (if possible - deep six the Charter)




• Cashier the Commissions and Commissioners - i.e. The Tsars - and return their Roles to a Reformed House of Commons Committee Structure;




• When the Government Changes - replace the Senior Cadre as soon as practicable with individuals in cinc with the Government's Policy Agenda and give the Ministers the Power to Replace Deputy Ministers at will. And just as important - reduce the Bureaucracy's size - It is far to wieldy. Plus much of what the Civil Service does can and should be done by the Private Sector. Even the collection of our income taxes could be done outside of government but I would not advocate something that extreme ....just yet.
  

And dear reader do not hold your breath awaiting these changes - it will take time but if we are truly to regain our voice in the operation of our affairs by Government - something along these lines will have to be done.

One further area that needs to be addressed and that is with respect to the election of our MPs. Currently we have first past the post where most get elected with a per centage far below half. This is a natural result where there are three or more viable parties vying for your vote. I do not believe in Proportional Representation since all you are doing there is making sure that the end result will be Pizza Parliaments run by Governments of Minority Status. It may work for a while but sooner or later nations need steps taken that can only be done via a Majority.

So here is what I suggest: when we vote - we vote for our first and second choice. If the top Candidate gets more than 50% of the vote on the first count - he or she wins. If the top Candidate gets less than 50% - then our second choices are counted in regard to the two Candidates who finished 1st and 2nd. Whomever receives the greater number of the first and second choices - wins and in so doing - has received more than 50% of the overall vote. I hope that's clear.

As I see it...

'K.D. Galagher'

Reality Check x 2

Two articles appeared this week that go begging for the light of truth:

Note: an alert reader contacted me to advise that the sister of #1 spender Vivienne Poy is none other than our esteemed (?) former GG - Adrienne Clarkson. No wonder Senator Poy comes first in spending our tax dollars - it runs in her family.

First concerns a report released on the top 5 Senator Spenders for only the "first half of 2011"; all five (5) are Liberal Senators and all have spent more than $150,000.00 on Travel and Entertainment in just 6 months.

The top spender - Liberal Vivienne Poy spent a whopping $173,511.87. It is in respect to the number 2 guy on the list that causes me to include him in the need for a reality check although it can be said that all Senators are in need of same. Indeed, the best solution here is to see the Senate abolished - but I digress.

Number #2 Big Spending Liberal Senator is Terry Mercer who comes in for the last 6 months at $172,356.81. His home is far away in the remote Province of Nova Scotia - a cheap air flight from the Nation's Capital. He states that one of the main reasons for his high expenditure is the need for him "to go back to (his) constituency quite often, almost every weekend."

Senators Do Not Have Constituencies - Only Members Of Parliament Do !!!


The Second Reality Check is in relation to an article critical of the Government and praising the Federal Court in the handling of Refugee Cases. The case highlighted concerns a South American chap who came to Canada because he was forced to pay extortion money to criminal elements in order to operate his food stand.

The Government's arm - the Immigration and Refugee Board had turned this Refugee down but his case then went on to Federal Court - filled with Liberal Judges - where the IRB ruling was over-turned.

The problem with what the Federal Court did - and constantly does - and the angle taken by the media report is that they are wrong. Wrong in the sense that the South American Applicant may well be a Refugee but in order to gain entry into countries like Canada, an applicant must be Convention Refugee as Defined by the United Nations.

I say this with some authority given the fact that for 4- 5 years I worked in Legal Services with the Refugee Board.

By Convention Refugee - it means a person who has been profoundly discriminated for reasons of Race, Religion , or Politics. Nothing in the Definition refers to persons being 'shook down' in their business by criminal types.

So Second Reality Check - the Federal Court and the Newspapers may call this chap a Refugee - and he well may be - but He Is Not A UN Convention Refugee and as such he is not entitled to remain in Canada. Full Stop.

As a post-script this is all semantics though - since virtually all who enter Canada and claim Refugee Status - no matter how bogus their claim - seldom, if ever get deported.

As I see it...

'K.D. Galagher'

Oh For Those Good Olde Democratic Days...

As in 'Direct Democracy Days' - the Athenian Way.






When every citizen voted on each and every measure - the Year Was 500 BC.






But here in Canada we have - or think we have - Representative Democracy and Ever since the Tories promised to redistribute the Seats of the House of Commons, I have been yearning to do this Blog. Here is my chance: it will be a Two Parter.







Direct Democracy, as practiced by the ancient Athenians was True Democracy in every sense of the word. The funny thing now is - with the advent of computers - we could, if we wanted to, return to those 'good olde days' any time we want.





But dear Reader - this will not happen - at least not in our life times, since the Elites have no faith whatsoever in the unwashed masses - that is to say, in either you or me. They enjoy telling us what to do and how to do it. Sadly, no Direct Democracy for us.







But I digress.






So with growing populations, the Athenian Way of Doing Democracy went by the Wayside. And, as I mentioned, has been replaced by Representative Democracy whereby the Citizens vote for Representatives to Represent them in the Drafting and in the enforcing of Laws.

That too now occurs in name only, and I will be dealing with that in Part 2. But for the purposes of this Part 1 - let's pretend that Representative Democracy is alive and well and is still with us.

So in that context, let's now look at the Tory Redistribution Plan as well as a Second Plan, put forward by the Liberals affectionately known as the Dion Plan. The Tory Plan proposes the addition of 30 seats to the existing 308 House seats while the Dion Plan maintains the 308 seat ceiling.

Both Plans have their flaws; the Liberal Plan is less Flawed.

Let's start our review by looking at how the House of Commons' seat distribution should look if all Provinces and Territories were treated equally i.e. if each vote counted the same, regardless of place of residence.

• Canada's population in 2011 is stated to be some 34.5 Million. Divided by 308 Seats, means that each riding should consist of 112,000 persons. Given this, each Province / Territory should have the following number of MPs:






• The Territories - all three together warrant only .9 of an MP - they now have 3 (1 each)






• Ontario warrants 119 - it now has 106 or 13 too few






• Quebec warrants 71 MPs - it has 75 MPs or 4 too many
  
  




• Nova Scotia .. 9 MPs ( currently has 11 MPs or 2 too many); Newfoundland .. 4.5 MPs ( currently has 7 MPs or 2.5 too many ); New Brunswick .. 7 MPs ( currently has 10 or 3 too many) and PEI *warrants only 1.2 MPs ( currently has 4 or 2.8 too many). *Note: If given the power, I would force PEI to join with New Brunswick since it is about the size of a mid sized city and has a very small land mass.
  




• Manitoba...11 MPs ( currently has 14 or 3 too many); Saskatchewan...9.3 ( currently has 14 or 4.7 too many)






• Alberta warrants 34 MPs ( currently has 28 or 6 too few ) - and -
  
  




• B.C. would warrant 41 MPs( currently has 36 or 5 too few )

So the big losers under the current regime are Ontario (-13); Alberta (-6) and BC (-5)

The big winners are Saskatchewan (+4.7) and Quebec (+4).

Okay, let's look how the Tory and Dion Plans would change this - beginning with Dion's.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would each lose 1 MP and Saskatchewan and Manitoba would each lose 2 MPs. So all four Provinces would continue to be over - represented but only marginally.

Quebec would lose 3 seats under Dion's Plan which would also bring it virtually in line with what it is entitled to - i.e. it would have 72 seats - just 1 more than its population warrants.

Ontario would gain 4 seats taking it to 110 or 9 seats short of what it should have; Alberta would gain 3 seats taking it to 31 or 3 seats less than it should have; and BC gains 2 for a total of 38 and would now be under-represented by 3 seats.

The big loser under Dion's plan continues to be Ontario since it would continue to be short changed 9 MPs. Otherwise, the Dion Changes does a good job of reinstating the balance of representation in the House.

Just as important - the Dion Plan maintains the 308 MP Ceiling. Even 308 is far too many Members - 250 would be more in keeping with Canada's modest size and fewer MPs would help to empower the ordinary MP. In the United Sates for instance - with a population 10x our own - their House of Representatives (equivalent to our H of C) has but 435 Members. If the US was to adopt our ratio of representation their H of R would have a staggering membership of 4,350.

So all things considered - not too bad of a plan.

Now the Tory Plan:

It adds a total of 30 seats to the current H of C configuration bringing its size to 338. In so doing, it drops the average size of a constituency from 112,000 to 102,000 which distorts the current make-up of Parliament even more.

Ontario is to be given 15 more seats thereby increasing its membership to 121. But with the increased size of the House of Commons - Ontario's entitlement would balloon to 129.5. The net result is that Ontario would still be short changed 8.5 or virtually the same as called for by Dion (9 short).

Six are to be added to Alberta giving them 34 MPs which is consistent with its current population. And 6 MPs will be added to BC's number taking it to 42 which is 1 more than its population warrants.

It will also give to Quebec 3 more seats taking their total to 78 which is given the increased number of seats in the House is only 1.5 MP more than its population warrants.

So the major difference between the two plans is the 30 additional MPs proposed by the Tories. The increased number is not only an issue of manageability, it is also a matter of increase cost. Thirty new MPs require 30 new offices, staff both in Ottawa and in their new ridings, travel / living expenses and so on. And as noted, it dilutes the power of the individual mp more than is already the case.

For these reasons, I find the Dion Plan preferable and I suggest that the Tories adopt it over their own. I would also encourage the Conservatives to take a few more seats from those jurisdictions that are over-represented and give those seats to Ontario to bring it closer to its rightful number of 119.

If the Conservatives do not do it now - while they have a majority - a fair and just redistribution will never be achieved.

As I see it ...

'K.D. Galagher'

There Was A Time In This Fair Land

When Gordon Lightfoot was a renowned singer / song writer.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for his parenting skills - presumably then or now.

I can remember when I was attending Queen's University in the late 60s, early 70s when Lightfoot was at the pinnacle of his success. He came to Queen's yearly and I never missed his concerts. I can still sing many of his songs - word for word - hence the lead-in to this very Blog.

In recent years, Lightfoot has more or less disappeared from the public stage but he was back in the news this past Tuesday, attending the Occupy Toronto Protest to lend them his support.

In particular, he was there to support his seventeen (17) year old daughter, who was living in the squalor of Occupy's tent city.

Lightfoot, oblivious to the sexual assaults and shooting ups going on in the park, praised his young daughter's 'strength, stoicism and bravery'. Rather, he should have been commenting upon his own Stupidity.

The fact that his child had contracted pneumonia while at the Site, seemed of little interest or concern to the once famous singer.

What Parent in their right mind would allow or even support their 17 year old child, - especially a girl - to camp out at such a lawless venue?

These days, barely a day goes by when I despair at the crazy things that our artistic (leftist) idols say or do.

This week - Gordon Lightfoot added his name to my infamous list of such fallen idols.

As I see it...

'K.D. Galagher'

Mayor Jim Watson...

Is Doing A Good Job.

No I am not having you on.

Admittedly, I did not vote for Jim Watson, nor do I intend to vote for him in the future - he is a Liberal and I am a Libertarian - that is to say, right of the Conservatives.

But Mr. Watson has done an admiral job of effectively running the affairs of our great city.

He is spending more - but is keeping those additional expenditures within reason.

The main reason though that I have become a bit of fan, is the fact that he has restored civility to the operations of City Council. During his term, we have been spared the antics displayed by individual and groups of councillors so much in evidence during the administration of previous Mayor Larry O'Brien.

I voted for O'Brien - the first time, since I thought we needed to bring some 'business' discipline to reign in Ottawa's out of control spending. Although I stand by my desire to see business discipline applied to government, I soon realized that O'Brien was out of his depth. He was a good businessman but a very poor politician. When he needed to encourage unity, he sowed dissent.

I misunderestimated the importance of candidates having a political background.

This lack of background has been evident lately at other levels of government, indeed even at the highest level in the entire world. Barack Obama came into the Presidency after only a brief stint in the Senate. He too has reaped dissent when he should have been encouraging unity.

His main tactic is to criticize anyone and everyone who he sees as not sharing his particular vision at the time. He should instead be trying to form bridges to such groups to better the chances of overall success.

One of the leading Republican Candidates is Pizza Mogul Herman Cain. A nice chap with some good policies but he too lacks the needed political background. He is running for a job that does not lend itself to on the job training.

Indeed, in regard to the Presidency, to be effective - a successful candidate must intimately understand the intricacies of how government works in the most important and powerful country in the world. It is not something you can learn from a book - it is something you need to be steeped in.

One of the most effective politicians in recent history was Lydon Johnson who, up until the time he became President - he had spent a lifetime in Congress learning the ropes - its secrets, and forging alliances.

Obama should never have become President and hopefully Cain never will.

We need politicians to make government work.

Now if only we can keep them from lying every time they open their mouths.

As I see it ...

'K.D. Galagher'

Women Politicians, like their Male Counterparts...

Seem to have something in common ...







That is to say, when they open their mouths, they too lie.







Take for instance, recently elected Premier of Alberta, Alison Redford (at the Tory Leadership).







In the contentious Leadership Race this summer, Ms. Redford was most clear in several key positions as follows:

1. She was going to immediately move to eliminate notorious section 3 of Alberta's Human Rights Act. The section that prohibits the publication of material 'deemed discriminatory' - ( i.e. the infamous 'Hurt Feelings' clause.) The most famous example of a prosecution under this section is Ezra Levant's publication of the Danish 'Mohammed' Cartoons. Levant was successful in his defence, but it cost him over $100k in his success;






2. She would call Parliament back at the earliest opportunity, i.e. this Fall 2011 and would move quickly to enact a Fixed Election Day - beginning March 2012 and every four (4) years thereafter. This, she trumpeted, would not only legitimize her appointment as Premier but would take politics out of the calling of their Provincial Elections.






3. And her Third main Plank; she would immediately call a Judicial Inquiry into Alberta's Health Care 'Queue Jumping' Scandal.

That was of course Then, during her campaign to replace Progressive Conservative and then Premier Ed Stelmach.

And This is of course is Now - post her successful bid to be appointed Premier.

So what's changed in her 'cast in concrete' promises?

Let's look at where the above three (3) Key Promises in reverse order:

Alberta's Health Care Scandal -

• Accusations have been circulating for the better part of a year that some individuals, within the Province of Alberta, have been receiving special treatment when it comes to accessing the Province's Health Care System. Former Premier Stalmach asked the Province's Health Quality Council to look into these accusations and report later on their findings. During the recent Leadership Campaign though - candidate Redford stated unequivocally that an internal investigation such as to be carried out by the Health Council was not sufficient and that a full blown Judicial Inquiry was needed to get to the bottom of things. Now though, she has second thoughts - and recently announced she will await the findings of the Health Quality Council's Report, expected this Spring and will then decide if a Judicial Inquiry is required.

An Early Calling of the Legislature and a Fixed Election Date -

• This particular promise, as you can well imagine, was supported by voters of all political stripes. And yet, barely upon her being crowned Leader / Premier, than she balked on calling back the Legislature. Instead of this Fall, it has now been postponed until the Spring 2012. What happened to her concern regarding her lack of legitimacy to hold the office of Premier? And in regard to Fixing An Election Date for this coming March, and for every Four Years thereafter - silence.

Abolition of Section 3 of Alberta's Human Rights Act -

• More silence from the distinguished new Premier on whether or not she intends to proceed with this major plank from her Leadership Campaign. Only a month or two ago - it was a given - and now it too is in doubt.

So much for following through. It is enough to make even our Premier - Dalton McGuinty blush.

I have a feeling and I would be willing to bet money on it. Her new office has been bequeathed to her from two recent premiers - Ralph Kline and more lately Ed Stelmach. Neither gentlemen strike me as being avant garde when it comes to office decorating. I suspect that dear Alison had some definite ideas on how to redecorate the Premier's Office long before she became Premier and I further suspect that those decorations are either completed or well on the way to being so. No waffling or procrastination here. Just a guess on my part, but again one that I would be prepared to put money down on it.

There is one thing I do know however and that is if Ms. Redford continues with her gamesmanship, there will be another woman who will be most pleased and that is Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith.

And it will be interesting to see, should Ms. Smith eventually become Premier after Ms. Redford, will she too be found to suffer from the illness of open mouth lying?

As I see it...

'K.D. Galagher'

One Of My ....

Pet Peeves:

I don't know about you, but it drives me crazy to call a phone number and get a recording along the following lines - "you have reached 123-4567, please leave a message after the tone and we'll get back you".

Who exactly 'will get back' to me after the tone ??

Usually the message is delivered by a mild voiced female; even if you are calling a single male.

What is he or she afraid of that they cannot identify the 'party to whom you are calling' other than by a telephone number ??

It happened again to me last week. I called the number of a Realtor which appeared along with his name in Big Bold Letters on a massive Bill Board. Again - the meek woman's voice - you have reached number ....

In such cases there are three possibilities the caller must contend with:

First - that he or she had a wrong number to begin with and with "the voice" has linked with God Knows Who.

Or Second - that he or she has the correct number but dialed it incorrectly.

And of course, Finally, that he or she has the correct number, has dialed it properly and has reached his intended party and yet is still left in doubt since the 'one who answers' fails to identify themselves save for confirming their phone number which is said so quickly it fails to register with you in any event. Dah.

Again I ask, what is to be gained by just answering with your number. Is someone going to reach into your phone and throttle you by the throat. You would certainly think so.

I often wonder how they like getting their calls answered in the same manner? The three options above must go through their minds as well. And yet they persist.

Well there is a simple answer to all this confusion ...

And in the case of my call last week - for someone to do this in Business is even more incomprehensible. Do they not want you to easily reach them? Why leave an enquiring party (ie potential customer) in doubt?

Going back to the Realtor's name and number on the massive Bill Board - when I called I was expecting something along the following lines:

"Hi You Have Reached Fast Eddy, your Realtor's Realtor, can't come to the phone right now since I am out selling one of my valuable client's homes - leave a message though and I will get back to you just as fast as Fast Eddy can. And Remember - Nobody Out Sells Fast Eddy"

Or Maybe again, I wrote the number down incorrectly or dialed it incorrectly or ...

You get the idea.

As I see it..

'K.D. Galagher'