Five Point Plan to Save Canada from the Cons

1. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as Prime Minister to the Liberal caucus and the Liberal caucus appoints an interim leader.

2. Justin Trudeau resigns as Prime Minister and asks the Governor General to select the interim Liberal leader as Prime Minister of a National Unity Government with Jagmeet Singh as Deputy Prime Minister and Elizabeth May in the Cabinet (in order to allow assured confidence and time for a new Liberal leader to be selected before the next federal election).

3. The Liberal, New Democratic, and Green parties announce they will not compete against each other in the next election, agreeing that whichever party (of the three) won the most votes in each constituency in the last election will not be challenged by the other two.

4. After the next election, if successful, the National Unity government will strike a special Parliamentary committee with expert researchers to consider expert and public testimony on electoral reform, followed by a report and legislation, with implementation of a new electoral system by Elections Canada.

5. The National Unity Government will be dissolved and a new election held under the new electoral system and a truly representative government that reflects the votes of the Canadian people will be elected.

Is It Time For The NDP To Rebirth Itself

The North American right wing has been overtaken by a vile hateful Donald Trump inspired populist MAGA movement that has spawned the Freedumb Convoy types and infected the Canadian Conservative Party and what was once a principled conservative tradition in Canada, although you have to go back awhile to the former Progressive Conservative Party to find it.

Canada has long had a form of populism of it’s own within the Liberal Party but a much more benign form. Intent on maintaining it’s position as the “natural governing party” the Liberals focused their policies on what would be popular with voters, tending to “campaign from the left and govern from the right” with policies just progressive enough to get them elected without upsetting the financial powers that be that actually run the country.

The New Democratic Party has often been criticized for being too ideological but in truth that was it’s strength, being a party of social democratic principles. But it seems that it is now embracing a populism of sorts. Instead of pursuing a comprehensive social democratic platform it seems to be taking a series easy unfocused pot shots at the both the Liberals and Conservatives. At the same time it tries to convince the Liberals to adopt what it sees as popular polices and take credit for them, leaving them open to the description “Liberals in a hurry”, long decried by those of us on the left.

What is the solution. It has been over 60 years since the NDP was founded in 1961 by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and over 90 years since The CCF was founded in 1932 by a number of socialist, agrarian, co-operative, and labour groups and the League for Social Reconstruction. Is it time for a rebirth.

Social democracy may be at the heart of the NDP but Canada’s social movements have been it’s soul. Is it time for Canada’s social movements (labour, environmental, indigenous rights, anti-poverty, fair taxation, public health care, women’s liberation, pro choice, LBGTQ+, anti war, etc.) to come together to birth a new Social Democratic Party for Canada, that will fight a principled fight for a better Canada for all.

What will this party stand for. That will of course be up to the party but I do have some ideas for some founding priorities.

The first priority must be electoral reform because if democracy is not working neither is anything else. We need an electoral system that provides for local representation as well as a House of Commons membership that reflects the philosophical positions of the voters as expressed in the total votes for each party. There are several variations of Proportional Representation that do this. My personal preference is Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

The next priority must be tax reform, with a progressive income tax system where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. Without fair and adequate taxation government cannot fulfill its responsibilities to the people including public health care, the social safety net, and addressing income and wealth inequality.

The new party must also commit to completing the public health care system to include pharmacare, mental health care, dental and vision care, and long term care. This must include returning to 50% federal funding as the only way to ensure the provinces live up the the Canada Health Act is the federal spending power. Tax points that can be used to subsidize the oil and gas industry, provide benefits to land developers or bribes to voters will not save our health care system.

The last on my last, but far from the last of the policies the Social Democratic Party must adopt, is an industrial strategy designed to provide for sustainable development and fight climate change by creating good paying long term unionized jobs.

Indeed it is time for a rebirth.

On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

No doubt many raised in our capitalist society, where inequality rules and excessive incomes and wealth are seen as a right (and where even the NDP only proposes a measly 1% tax on excessive wealth), will consider this proposal to be radical but it is actually quite a modest proposal.

So what is excessive income and wealth. There are many ways to measure that, many statistical, but I propose a simpler definition – the amount of wealth and income where increases have no discernible effect on ones way of life or standard of living, where the increase is simply not noticeable in one's day to day life. Let's be generous to the wealthy in determining such levels. I propose an annual income of $1 million dollars and total assets of $100 million as the level that triggers “excessive income and wealth”. Above that no one notices without reading their financial statements.

The thing about excessive wealth is that it makes minuscule difference to the recipients but could make all the world of difference to the poor and underprivileged and to society as a whole if used for the common good. I will not even attempt to list what all that excessive wealth could do if devoted to the common good of society .

But there is another side to excessive income and wealth – it is highly undemocratic. The rich do not cling to their excessive wealth because it makes a difference to their daily lives. They cling to it because it gives them economic and political power. It is not just a matter of economic inequality, is a matter of political inequality.

Democracy is based on equality, one person one vote. Economic power is political power. Excessive wealth skews political power so that the wealthy have more of it. Excessive wealth is inherently undemocratic.

So what do we do with this excessive wealth so that it benefits society. We tax it away so that it can be used for the common good.

This sounds radical at first. But what do the wealthy lose in this proposal. Their standard of living and quality of life does not change. They only thing they lose is their excessive economic and political power, power that undermines our democracy.

Postscript

In taxing away excessive wealth we cannot just require it's conversion to cash to be paid as taxes. That would obviously be very disruptive to the economic system. Society (through the government) will take ownership of these resources in kind and in many cases maintain them while applying revenues from them to the common good. In some cases they may need to change the policies of entities that are not acting in the public interest or divest ownership of entities where that serves the public interest.

Also this proposal does not address all the problems with our tax system. For it to be truly progressive we need to raise the income level that triggers the payment of taxes and increase the higher marginal tax rates, including adding marginal tax rates at higher income levels (between $200,000 and $1 million).

Economics 101: The Reality of Canadian Capitalism

In More Academic Terms

The NDP, The Quebec Question and 50% + 1

Much has been made of Jack Layton's "controversial" comments on a possible Quebec sovereignty referendum.

The fact is that it is a very rational and defensible position. Based on the closest precedent, the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation, Quebec has followed the same rules, keep on holding referendums hoping to get the result you want with 50% + 1 required for passage. After all, otherwise we have a minority deciding Quebec's constitutional status.

That position, however, has it's problems. Other constitutional precedents require greater than 50% + 1 to make constitutional changes. As well, if support is that close the results of a referendum can vary from day to day.

That is why I tend to support requiring something like 60% support for such changes in constitutional arrangements, to ensure that the new constitutional arrangement will have continuing support. However that position also has it's flaws because in the case of, for example, a clear and continuous 55% support for sovereignty, the minority that opposes the change in status would effectively decide the fate of Quebec.

That is why the real focus needs to be on maintaining strong support for federalism in Quebec, support that has just recently been very effectively expressed by the people of Quebec in choosing a federalist social democratic party over a sovereignist one. We need to work on building and strengthening a strong federalist consensus in Quebec.

This will not be done by "giving Quebec whatever it wants" but by giving Quebec respect and building a strong Canadian community. This starts with recognizing Quebec's nationhood and it's right to decide it's own fate. Can we have a country within a country. It seems to work well enough for England, Scotland and Wales, within a unitary state. When have you ever heard Scots refer to themselves as "United Kingdomers" but their loyalty to both their country of Scotland and their nation state of the United Kingdom does not seem to be in conflict.

We have the best opportunity ever to set aside separatism in Quebec and build a strong Canada that includes Quebec. Quebec has spoken in the election and chosen federalism. All we have to do is work with the Quebecois to build a strong united Canada with them.

What is Progressive About the Liberal Party

Well, nothing, actually.

The Liberal Party has always been a centrist (and opportunistic) party, slightly to the left of the Progressive Conservative Party. The fact that the latest incarnation of the Conservative Party has moved to the right does not make the Liberals progressive. Indeed, if anything, the Liberals under Iggy have moved to the right into (and past) the spot held by the old Progressive Conservatives.

As for the Greens, they are simply a recognition that broader support for environmentalism has created a spot for a right wing environmental party that recognizes that without an environment there can be no profits and that there are profits to be made from environmentalism. But their solutions are clearly capitalistic and not progressive.

The fact is that Canada has only one mainstream progressive political party. It is the party that has always been the political wing of the progressive movements, including the environmental movement. And, of course, that party, with it's own inherent problems from time to time, is the New Democratic Party.

Don't Do It – NDP Name Change

If the NDP (New Democratic Party) changes it's name to the Democratic Party it will be the final formalization of the repudiation of the Regina Manifesto and the abandonment of not just socialism, but of social democracy by the NDP.

It will be the acceptance of a political shift of power in Canada to the right in the name of hopefull electoral success. What else could be the desired result than the NDP replacing the Liberals on the centre left, and the Ignatieff Liberals taking the place of the former Progressive Conservatives on the centre right, with the Conservatives becoming the third party and pushing the Liberals to the right, rather than the NDP pushing them to the left.

The NDP has a proud record of accomplishments from Medicare to public pension and Canada's social safety net. Becoming a Liberal Party with Liberal policies may get it elected, but we will never see the party having the type of social and economic impact on Canada in the future, that it has had in the past, if it goes down that road.

If the NDP feels a name change is required to define itself to the Canadian people I would suggest calling themselves the Social Democratic Party of Canada. After all they do belong to the Socialist International along with the European Social Democratic parties. Indeed a name change to Social Democrats would give the NDP a perfect opportunity to explain social democracy to Canadians and it would identify the NDP with western european political parties that have sucessfully governed their countries.

Or, if they fear that name and they really feel a name change is necessary, keep the identity of the NDP and call themselves the New Democracy Party to put emphasis on their policies for electoral and democratic reforms, such as proportional representation.

Even the Working Peoples Party of Canada or Ordinary Canadians Party would be better than the Democratic Party which most Canadians identify with the wishy washy liberalism of the American Democratic Party. You would only do that if you wanted to be identified as Liberals because you believed electoral success was more important than principles.

Congratulations to the People of Nova Scotia

Read All About It

Jack Laytons Finest Hour

Jack Layton being Prime Ministerial in front to the House of Commons Chamber. How
appropriate.

Read it here

Watch it here If you get an error message at the start close it and hit play

The Most Hated Politician in Ontario

Enter Bob Rae, the most hated politician in Ontario, at least according to the massive corporate media campaign launched against him. Gaining power just as Ontario was entering a recession, he still managed to lead the most progressive government in Ontario's history, overhauling the provinces environmental, municipal planning and development, and labour laws.

And he ran deficit in order to provide economic stimulus and provide assistance to those in need. But he also asked the higher paid workers in the broader public sector to share the load via the social contract, exempting lower paid workers from it's application. This was the most controversial act of his government.

Since his election, and particularly prior to the next election, the establishment and the corporate media ran the most extensive propaganda campaign ever seen in the province. Added to this was a backlash from organized labour over the social contract and a lack of support from traditional NDP supporters in the “movements”, who perhaps felt the Rae government wasn't radical enough for not bringing on the revolution in it's first term.

This led to the most regressive government in Ontario history, that wiped out all of the Rae government's reforms and turned Ontario into a harsher meaner society.

Eventually Bob Rae left the New Democrats and joined the Liberals, but only after they abandoned him.

As a New Democratic Party supporter I am supposed to hate Bob Rae for that, and I am supposed to cheer for the candidate least qualified to lead the Liberals. However, as an independent blogger, I have to say that I believe Bob Rae is the best Liberal Party leadership candidate, for the Liberals and for Canada. And to his credit, Rae does not run away from his record as Premier but embraces it as part of the experience gained that will help him deal with the current economic situation. No one can argue with Rae's intellectual abilities, political experience and leadership qualities.

But most of all I support Bob Rae for the Liberal leadership because I believe he will not be afraid to move the Liberal Party to the left. I believe that will be good for the country and even good for the New Democrats. Conventional wisdom has it that a left leaning Liberal Party is bad for the NDP because it can draw away soft support from the NDP. However what it really does is push the NDP to distinguish itself from the Liberals by moving further left and promoting more progressive policies.

The federal NDP has accomplished a lot in opposition, especially when holding the balance of power with a Liberal minority government. The time is ripe for that scenario after the next election.

I Challenge Jack and Stéphane

If Canadian voters get their way one of you will be the leader of a minority government with the other holding the balance of power. I challenge you both to agree to these three principles before the current election is held.

Electoral Reform

If the voters do get their way and the House of Commons reflects how they voted, it will not be because of our electoral system but in spite of it. I challenge you to, immediately upon election, initiate the process to change the election system so that party representation in the House of Commons reflects the popular vote and to put such a system in place before the next election.

Climate Change

Both of you and your parties believe that tackling climate change is a necessity for both the environmental and economic sustainability of our country and the world, but you have different proposals to do that. I challenge you to find common ground and implement real measures to tackle this problem before the next election.

Poverty

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Averages mean nothing when looking at our economic progress. What really counts is what is happening to our most disadvantaged. I challenge you to make the elimination of poverty a focus of all government programs and actions.

The Great Debate - My Predictions

As an almost unilingual anglophone I will not be making predictions on the French debate, but I am posting my English debate predictions now, so as not to be influenced by the media coverage of the French debate.

This has the makings of one of the country’s most historical events. It may very well be the turning point in this election that leads to real change rather than the normal superficial changes we usually see in federal elections.

Those of us who say that Jack Layton and the NDP can win this election do not say so frivolously. We know the debate will make the difference and we know that Jack needs to win the debate.

So what are my predictions.

Stephen Harper will be more of Stephen Harper, He will come across as a stronger more intense Stephen Harper. His core supporters will be delighted and see him as the winner. Those who have always opposed him will have their views reconfirmed. But most importantly, Harper’s soft support from traditional Progressive Conservative Party voters, who want to vote Conservative but have doubts about Harper and the new Conservative Party, will be placed in jeopardy.

Stéphane Dion will surprise many and come across better than expected. He will not do a terrible job in the debate, only a poor one. The Liberals Green Shift was a gutsy move but his retreat to the wimpy”we are in the middle” position will hurt him.

Gilles Duceppe will not be playing to his core Quebec francophone audience and that will show.

Elizabeth May will be a disappointment. The debate will give viewers a chance to see beyond her party’s Green label. All her efforts to get into the debate may come back to haunt her as she has to deal with the more experienced debaters.

Jack Layton will continue what he has been doing throughout the campaign and will show he has the leadership capability to be Prime Minister and that the NDP has the polices that ordinary working Canadians and their families need.

Why Green Party Supporters Should Vote NDP

“I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose, than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister, because his policies are too dangerous.”
--Elizabeth May

We Can Stop Stephen Harper

As the federal election campaign begins, early polls have indicated the possibility of a Harper majority.

How can this be.

We have a combination of a lack of leadership on behalf of the Liberal “natural governing” Party and a focus on the environment pitting three pro-environment parties against the anti-
environment Conservatives.

Stéphane Dion clearly lacks the communication skills necessary to counter the Conservatives American style negative campaign and win the election. The public will not elect a Liberal government under his leadership.

On the other hand we have three parties vying for the environmental vote. We have the Liberals with their newly discovered environmental religion. We have the Green Party with an environmental label, along with right wing economic policies and a leader with strong ties to previous Conservative governments. And we have the traditional party of Canada’s environmental movement, the New Democratic Party.

This is all happening at a time when NDP Leader Jack Layton is the most popular of the opposition leaders seeking to become Prime Minister.

But if Canadians were to vote based on the leader they think would be the best prime minister, Ipsos-Reid's Darrel Bricker says there is a clear front-runner.

"(Stephen) Harper is at 50 percent of Canadians saying they think he would be the best Prime Minister, followed by (Jack) Layton at 31 and finally by Stephan Dion at 20 percent."

Bricker adds the fact that Layton's growing popularity across Canada could make things interesting at the polls."

In contrast to Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton’s leadership qualities are shining through in this election campaign, as are the NDP’s polices to support Canadian workers and families.

As Canadians look beyond the labels, and look at the parties long term records, they will recognize that the only party capable of getting elected and implementing progressive environmental policies is the New Democratic Party.

The pundits have always said the New Democratic Party could never win federal power. They also used to say they could never win power in Ontario. That was until 1990 when the voters ignored the pollsters and elected Ontario’s most progressive government ever.

The New Democratic Party can win this election. All it requires is for the voters to realize that they do have a choice. They do not have to choose between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. They can vote for real change.

This is no time for strategic voting. When the NDP won in Ontario they won ridings nobody predicted they would have a chance to win. If people had “voted strategically” they never would have won.

Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party can stop Stephen Harper. Indeed, they are the only party that can.

A Back Room Deal to Save Canada

I am sure the Liberal Party of Canada was trying to do the right thing when they chose Stéphane Dion as their leader. Indeed they may even have been doing a brave and courageous thing by deciding to choose what appeared to be a man of policy and substance rather than one of image and style. They may have chosen the man they thought would make the best Prime Minister, rather than the best leader of the opposition. We can only hope so, because he has proven to be a dismal failure as leader of the opposition. And with him at the helm the Liberals have been an absolute failure as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

The opposition has a number of roles in a Parliamentary system. One of course is to oppose those policies of the government that they disagree with. The other is to play a constructive role in improving government policies and legislation. But the primary role of the official opposition is to be a government in waiting, not to be an opposition in hiding.

One of the most basic facts of life in a democracy is that a party cannot become a government without getting elected, and a party cannot get elected if they are scared of an election. If I was a Liberal I would be scared of going into an election with Stéphane Dion as leader. Just as Stephen Harper will be judged on his role as Prime Minister in an election, so will Stéphane Dion be judged on his role as leader of the opposition.

But the fact is that we have a dysfunctional federal Parliament with a minority government that tries to govern as a majority and an official opposition that seems to believe its role is to enable them to do that. An election with Stephen Harper leading the Conservatives against a Liberal Party led by Stéphane Dion would leave voters shaking their heads and throwing their hands up in despair.

As a New Democrat, perhaps I should rejoice at the situation and NDP prospects in such an election. But I fear such a situation could cause the NDP to see it as an opportunity to replace the Liberals, by moving further to the centre in an attempt to seek election as the government. We do not need the NDP moving further to the right and becoming a pseudo Liberal government. Let the Liberals do that.

What we need is for a rebalancing of the political compass in Canada. We need to move the Conservatives from their extreme right wing position back to the right of centre position of the Progressive Conservative Party. To do this we need the Liberals to move back to the left of centre from the right of centre. And we need the New Democrats to move further to the left so that the pressure is on the Liberals to move left, rather than right to remain in the centre.

We need this to happen now, before, not after, the inevitable election that the Liberals can only avoid for so long without losing total and permanent credibility. The Liberal Party needs to go into an election with strong leadership from the left of the party not wishy washy leadership from nowhere.

We need a deal within the Liberal Party. We need Stéphane Dion to step down and Bob Rae to take over as “interim” Leader and defeat the Conservative government and lead the Liberals into an election that the New Democrats will fight from the left.

So how does the Liberal Party broker such a deal and get the support of all the leadership factions. If there is one overriding Liberal Party principle it is the quest for power. So the deal is that Bob Rae be given the chance to lead the Liberals into power. If he succeeds there will be no serious challenge to his leadership when the official leadership race is held. If he fails he does not seek the leadership in the official race.

Parliament has been most progressive with a left of centre Liberal government being pushed from the left by a strong New Democratic Party. Just think of what could be achieved by a minority Liberal government led by Bob Rae with a strong NDP holding the balance of power. Compare that to what we have now.

Never Believe The Press - At Least Not The Toronto Star

Yesterday in the Fifth Column, in relation to the government’s alleged non-confidence motion aimed at pressuring the Senate to pass Bill C-22 quickly, I stated:

The question of whether declaring this meaningless motion a matter of confidence makes it a non-confidence motion is moot, however, as the Bloc Quebecois and New Democratic Party have indicated that they will support the motion.”

This statement was based on an article in the Toronto Star dated “Feb 08, 2008 04:30 AM” that stated:

The first deadline, in the form of a motion introduced yesterday, will call on the Commons next week to demand that the Liberal- dominated Senate pass Bill C-2, the government's omnibus "Tackling Violent Crime" legislation.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated their parties would happily support the Conservatives in pressuring the Senate to pass the crime bill.

However that statement turned out to be false as the CBC reported:

Even without the Liberals, the motion easily passed 172-27, with the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs voting in its favour and New Democrat MPs voting against it.

The Fifth Column apologies to the NDP. I should have known better than to believe they would support such a motion.

Don’t Fuck Around With Nuclear Safety

Sometimes an “expletive” is required and this is one of those times.

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

It is frightening that we were placed at risk because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited simply ignored safety directives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who discovered the fact in a routine inspection.

The situation is all the more worrisome because the country's nuclear regulator specifically ordered AECL more than a year ago to take extra safety precautions if it wanted to continue operating the aging NRU.

But there's more at stake than isotopes.

The technical competency of an industry trying hard to win back public confidence is being questioned, as is public safety, national security and the reputation of a company whose message to Canadians has consistently been: "Trust us."

Yet AECL not only failed to install a key piece of safety equipment on the National Research Universal (NRU), Canada's oldest nuclear reactor. When its mistake was discovered, it matter-of-factly camouflaged it in a Dec. 4 press release as little more than a routine maintenance issue.

In fact, an important safety repair had not been made.

On Nov. 19, a day after what was supposed to be a routine five-day shutdown, safety inspectors with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) discovered a significant and mandated safety upgrade -- connecting two heavy water pumps to an emergency power supply -- had not been done.

It is even more frightening that the government, with the support of all parties, is going to put Canadians back at risk.

The emergency legislation introduced by the Conservatives, which would allow AECL to start the reactor immediately and run it for 120 days, was passed unanimously by all parties after four hours of civilized debate.

As an NDP supporter it troubles me that the only party to oppose this was the Green Party. The NDP should be ashamed.

The Prime Minister has disgraced himself by accusing the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting Canadians safety with “obstruction” for doing it’s job.

"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The operator of the Chalk River reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had said it expected the plant to be up and running by the middle of this month, but the safety commission was refusing to allow it to restart production until it resolved a host of safety issues.

So it appears that all we have to protect us from a nuclear melt down is the Prime Minister’s word that it can’t happen here.


References:

Globe and Mail: Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

National Post; Emergency bill to resume isotope production off to Senate

Ottawa Citizen: The major safety snafu behind the isotope shortage

CBC: MPs pass bill to restart urgent isotope production

CBC: Green Leader May slams Tories' handling of isotope shortage

Abolishing The Senate - An Easy Solution

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton has called for a national referendum on the abolition of the Senate, while others, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper want to reform it, while the expert think abolition is unlikely.

Certainly at a time when politicians and political institutions are perhaps at their lowest in public respect, the Senate is the least respected institution and Senators the least respected politicians.

Politically, abolishing the Senate is an easy solution.

The real question is not whether Senators are doing a good job or whether the institution as it is constituted now is useful. The real question is whether our federal government requires two legislative chambers, a bicameral system, when the provinces function fine without them. Do we need a “chamber of sober second thought”.

In many ways the provinces deal with jurisdictions of a more administrative nature, such as health care, education and transportation infrastructure, while the federal Parliament is the one that reflects Canadian values.

Although health care administration is under provincial jurisdiction it was when the federal Parliament adopted Medicare as a national program that it became the most sacred of all Canadian values, along with national social programs.

As I type this I cannot help but think of the major role the New Democratic Party has played in establishing Canada’s national values, from inventing Medicare in Saskatchewan to opposing capital punishment, which recent polls indicate has become entrenched as a basic Canadian value.

As with the capital punishment decision, it is the federal Parliament that decides what we as a society consider to be right or wrong, in its responsibility for the Criminal Code. It decides who our friends and enemies are and what Canadians are willing to fight and die for, in it’s responsibility for foreign and military policy. It decides who we let immigrate into the country and become Canadians. It decides, on behalf of all Canadians, what our responsibilities are in the world in protecting and promoting equality, human rights and a sustainable environment. It is the level of government that ensures Canadian values are entrenched in our laws and public policies.

The Fifth Column proposes, for purposes of discussion, that we consider establishing a New Chamber with a more focused role.

That role would be to ensure that legislation complies with Canadian values, and in particular, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The New Chamber would also retain the “sober second thought” role of identifying flaws and unintended effects in legislation before it is passed, and sending it back to the House of Commons, basically saying “did you really want to do that”.

The New Chamber would be different. It would not be appointed. It would not be elected. It would be selected randomly from the population similar to the jury selection process. It would not be made up of politicians and it would not be divided by party allegiances. It would be an attempt to represent the people directly, rather than indirectly through elected representatives.

The New Chamber would not initiate legislation. That would be the role of the politicians that we elect on the basis of their policies and personal character. It would, as previously stated, provide an oversight role in ensuring that legislation complies with Canadian values and it would undertake studies on matters of public interest and policies and present non-partisan reports to the House of Commons for consideration.

This proposal would definitely not be an easy solution.

From Opportunism to Abstinence - Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party

The Liberal Party has long been known to have no original ideas of it’s own, simply stealing policies from the Conservatives or New Democrats depending on the public mood.

When Stéphane Dion was elected party leader many thought he would be a leader that would not be remembered for anything. Little did they know he would take the party to new heights of opportunism as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Abstainers.

The Liberal Party has apparently decided that since it does not agree with the policies of the Conservatives who form the government, nor with the policies of the New Democrats who oppose it, that their only option is to abstain from voting on all matters of confidence.

But they take their role as official abstainers seriously, these are not simple abstentions but ”whipped” abstentions on the government’s overall policy, as well as it’s financial policy.

Perhaps someone should remind Stéphane Dion and the Liberals that the role of the official opposition is to oppose the government and provide an alternative government in waiting. The Liberals have made it clear they are not ready to form an alternative government because they believe that they would not receive a mandate from the people to govern if an election was held at this time.

Perhaps they would have a better chance of winning an election and forming a government if they actually did their job as the official opposition by voting against the government’s policies that they claim to disagree with and putting forth alternative policies of their own, rather than being official abstainers.

If they are not prepared to do this the should call on the Speaker of the House to request Jack Layton and the New Democrats to take on the role of official opposition, in addition to that of effective opposition that they have already undertaken.

Why I Am Not Voting NDP This Election

Since I started voting in 1968 there have only been two previous times I did not vote for the NDP. Once was as a protest vote after the Waffle was expelled from the NDP and I voted CPC-ML, and the other was a strategic vote for Marianne Wilkinson (who had left the Tories to join the Liberals because of Mike Harris's regressive policies) in an attempt to unseat the sitting Tory, Norm Sterling, and the Harris government.

This will be the third time, and it is essentially over one issue. I do not usually believe in voting based on one issue but in this case I have an opportunity to vote for a party not afraid to raise the issue of one public education system for the province. It should be the NDP, but it is not. On this issue I even find myself agreeing with John Tory, rather than Howard Hampton, on the fact that the existing funding of Catholic religious schools only is discriminatory. Of course I disagree with John Tory's solution, which would only make things worse.

In the entire history of the province only the Green Party has had the political will to stand up for equality and public education in Ontario, and for that they will be rewarded with my vote.