Monthly Archives: November 2008

Canada Today – A Government: Of The Parties, By The Parties, For The Parties!

Canada Today – A Government: Of The Parties, By The Parties, For The Parties!

On November 19, 1863, at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, President Abraham Lincoln delivered what we now know as the Gettysbury address. Mr. Lincoln noted:

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The president was articulating a version of democracy where people participated and where government was the servant of the people.

The reality is that: government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished in Canada. The people have been replaced by the political parties.  Canada has given birth to a form of government, where voters and local ridings are irrelevant. That form of government is an Orwellian form of – government of the parties, by the parties, for the parties!

December 2008 – Government For The Parties and NOT For The People

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Consider a Coalition to Oust Canada’s Democratically Elected Government

According to CBC the coalition has been formed.

Stephane Dion has been tapped to be the new Prime Minister.

Canada has had a coalition government only once. That was during the first world war. Coalition governments are most common in countries with proportional representation.

A Description Of These Events – The Conservative Party Perspective

“The Liberal Party was completely rejected by Canadians in the last election. They received their lowest share of the popular vote since Confederation.

Now the Liberals are trying to take power through the back door.

As you read this letter, the Liberals are holding secret negotiations with the socialist NDP and the separatist Bloc Québécois to overturn the wishes of Canadian voters and take power.

They want to take power and impose on Canadians a Prime Minister without a personal mandate, a Liberal-NDP Coalition not one voter has ever endorsed and have it all backstopped by the separatist Bloc Québécois who simply want to destroy the country.

We need your help to ensure that they do not succeed!

Senior Liberal insiders are trying to fool Canadians into thinking their scheme has something to do with the economy.

But it is clear the Liberals do not care about the economy. They only care about re-gaining power and re-gaining their entitlements. They’ve learned nothing since being turfed out of office over the sponsorship scandal.

On October 14th, Canadians passed judgment on the Liberals.

The Liberals have no mandate to lead a government.

The Liberals have no mandate to cut a deal with the NDP.

And the Liberals certainly do not have a mandate to cut a deal with the separatists who want to destroy our country.

This backroom deal is so unprecedented and so undemocratic that Canadians must have their say.

This is Canada. The privilege to govern must be earned, not taken. We cannot let this happen.

When an election occurs – and it must – the Conservative Party will have to wage the fight of its life.

We now know we are no longer competing just with the Official Opposition. We are competing against a coordinated campaign between Liberals, socialists and separatists to impose their agenda on Canadians.”

– email sent by the Conservative Party on November 30, 2008

A Description Of These Events – The NDP Excuse For A Cash Call

“My Fellow New Democrat,

After all we’ve seen in the last 5 days, it couldn’t be any clearer.

It’s time to replace Stephen Harper. It’s time to put you and your family first.

In these uncertain economic times, Canadians are looking for a Parliament that can work together to put working families first. Won’t you join me today in our coalition for change?

Elected with just 38% of the vote, Stephen Harper acts as if he has 100% of the power. Instead of attacking this economic crisis with a meaningful stimulus package, Harper chose total inaction and cheap political tricks. Enough is enough.

This isn’t what Canadians voted for. This is not what working families need in these tough times.

We have another choice. Now there is an alternative. Together, you and I can make it a reality.

Your New Democrats are working with the other opposition parties to put forward an alternative government – a coalition for real change.

This coalition will allow us to achieve the results that average Canadian families expect from New Democrats: action to create jobs, to protect your pension and retirement, and to lay the foundation for the green economy of tomorrow.

But there’s a long way to go to make it a reality. Stephen Harper is desperate to cling to power. His corporate-backed Conservatives are pulling out every dirty trick in the book.

That’s why I’m asking you now to join this coalition for change. You can start by making a generous donation of $90, $150, or whatever you can afford right now. We’ll use your donation to counter Harper’s powerplay in the days to come. Together we’ll give Parliament back to the 62% majority that voted against Stephen Harper.

Join with me now. Let’s make history with the first federal government to include New Democrats that’ll get results for you and your family.

Jack Layton
Leader, Canada’s NDP”

Email from Jack Layton – December 1, 2008

The Historical Background – A Conservative Minority

On October 14, 2008 Canada held a federal election. The 308 seats were allocated as follows.

– The Conservatives won 143 seats – Leader Stephen Harper
– The Liberals won 77 seats – Leader Stephane Dion
– The Bloc won 49 seats – Leader Gilles Duceppe
– The NDP won 37 seats – Leader Jack Layton
Independents won 2 seats

The October 14, 2008 election was not a strong endorsement of the Conservative party, it was a clear rejection of;

– the Liberal, Bloc and NDP parties; and
– the party leaders: Stephane, Gilles and Jack.

As a result, the Conservatives became the Government of Canada. Although they won the largest number of votes, they did not win a majority of the seats. Hence, the Conservative government  is a “minority government.” The Liberals, Bloc and NDP won a total of 163 seats – giving those three parties (collectively) a majority of the seats. In theory every MP is to have one vote. Hence, if each member of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP were to vote against the Conservatives, the government led by the Conservatives would fall.  This is the way that Canadian Parliamentary democracy works. Would each member of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP vote to defeat the Conservatives? There is little reason to believe that every member would if:

– The individual MP was responsive to the wishes of his/her riding (party MPs are owned lock, stock and barrel by their party leader) ; and
– The individual MP was allowed to vote according to his/her conscience (Individual MPs are told how to vote by the party leader a practice called “whipping the vote”).

For a discussion of “whipping the vote” in general see:

(For one more example of  Jack Layton’s hypocrisy see this video of his  complaining about the Conservatives “whipping the vote”:

The reality is that:

– individual MPs are NOT responsive to the wishes of those who elected them; and
– individual MPs are NOT allowed to vote according to his/her conscience.

When it comes to representing their local ridings, Party MPs are irrelevant and useless.

On December 1, 2008 a coalition of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP (actually it was Stephane, Jack  and Gilles) announced that they were planning to use their voting majority in the House of Commons to overthrow the democratically elected  government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Note that this is NOT the people of Canada – but three individuals – the leaders of the Liberals, Bloc and NDP. Should three individuals be allowed to overturn a government elected by the people of Canada?

Have a look at the following link and watch the video where the Prime Minister explains what is about to happen.

The Prime Minister notes that the coalition (but really it is Jack, Gilles and Stephane) is attempting to steal the power that they failed to achieve through the democratic process during the election.

The Party View Of Democracy Is The Antithesis Of Democracy!

Canada’s political parties behave as though politics is a game where the parties are the only participants. The original purpose of parliamentary democracy was to ensure local representation in parliament. The original intent was for the individual member to be more important than a party. It now seems that individual members are irrelevant.

The government of Canada should be replaced only if:

1. There is a general election in which the Conservative government is replaced;
2. If there is no general election, the government should be replaced only through a free vote in he House of Commons where each MP votes his or her conscience.

The government of Canada should NOT be replaced, if Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, reach an agreement, where they force the individual MPs in their parties to vote in a manner that will ensure the fall of the Conservative government of Prime Minister Harper. This may be legal but it is immoral. It smacks of Thug Politics! Stephane, Gilles and Jack are really saying:

If the voters won’t give us political power, we will steal it!!

Please understand that – three people – Jack, Gilles and Stephane made a decision to oust a government democratically elected in the October 14 election. If this happened in another country it would be called a “Coup d’état”. In Canada it simply called “democratic process.”

This doesn’t seem to very democratic.

Party Candidates – The Means To “A Party” For The Parties

MPs affiliated with political parties are party automatons. They are useless and irrelevant when it comes to achieving their original purpose – a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Party candidates operate to achieve a  government of the party, by the party and for the party!

Independent Candidates – The Antidote To Party Politics

So, what is an Independent candidate? An Independent candidate is a candidate who has no allegiance to a political party. As such, he or she is free to exercise sound judgment for the benefit of his/her riding. An Independent candidate cannot be “whipped” into voting along a party line.

A number of Independent candidates ran in the October 14 Canadian general election. For examples  Independent candidates see the following:

For a complete list of Independent candidates in the October 14 election see:

Independent candidates are the antidote to party politics.

The only MPs that are allowed to represent the people in general and their ridings in particular are Independent candidates.

To learn more about Independent candidates visit:

Vote Independent! Save Canada’s Democracy!

Liberals bar press from leaders debate – Is the Party a Private Club?

The Liberal party is clearly of the view that the “business of the public is not the publics’ business.” On Sunday November 16/08 the Party barred the media and the public from a Leaders debate making it clear that the Liberal postion is that only party members should participate in the political process.

Full details may be found here:

See the video here:

For the Globe and Mail see here:

Comments in the Globe and Mail see here:

According to Bob Rae as reported in the National Post:

“You can’t have a town hall meeting without the town. … To me its unthinkable to have this kind of meeting, this kind of debate without the prescence of the public, without the prescence of the media. I’ve never participated in a political debate without the participation of the media.”


“Rae, Ignatieff in spat over Liberal candidates’ debate

By Maria Babbage, The Canadian Press

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. – Federal Liberal leadership hopeful Bob Rae made good on his threat Sunday to boycott the party’s closed-door all-candidates’ forum if chief rival and former college roommate Michael Ignatieff didn’t agree to lift the veil of secrecy.

Rae put in an appearance at the suburban hotel west of Toronto where the meeting was taking place, but spun on his heel and left shortly after he finished talking to members of the media, who remained barred from the event.

“I don’t think it’s right to have a debate that doesn’t include the public and doesn’t include the media,” Rae said.

“You can’t have a town hall without the town.”

Rae warned late Saturday that he wouldn’t participate in the debate, blaming the Ignatieff camp for trying to keep a lid on the session. Ignatieff later insisted he was merely trying to follow the party’s own rules.

The party, however, said it would be willing to open up the debate if all three candidates agreed. Ignatieff was the only holdout.

The Liberals must conduct the leadership race in full view of the public if the party hopes to boost public support and return to power in Ottawa, Rae said to cheers from a gathered entourage of supporters.

He even went so far as to suggest the party follow the lead of the race for the Democratic nomination in the U.S. and host public, televised debates once a week for the duration of the leadership race.

“It’s very healthy to have a debate,” he said.

“I think there were 20 debates between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. There were 20. And they were all in public and they were all on television. Somehow, Senator Obama managed to overcome that and win the election, what do you know?”

Rae, Ignatieff and New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc were all scheduled to appear Sunday in Toronto at a question-and-answer session before members of the executive board of the federal party’s Ontario wing.

The Ignatieff camp said it had understood from the start that it was to be a private session, but Rae said that came as news to him. He said he and LeBlanc agreed Saturday to open the meeting up, but Ignatieff’s handlers balked at the idea.

“Let’s be clear: I don’t set the rules. Leadership candidates don’t set the rules. They were set by the party a couple of weeks ago, and I was fine with them,” Ignatieff said.

“The party decided, ‘Let’s have a family discussion,’ so I said fine and we’ll have other discussions in future.”

Leblanc, meanwhile, pounced on the chance to score some early points against the two perceived front-runners.

“Their game hasn’t even started, and they’re at each other’s throats,” Leblanc said.

“I think that’s unfortunate. I think Liberals are tired of that sort of ‘me too’ attitude. I think they expect people to be mature and open, and that’s why I’m here.”

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who hasn’t aligned herself with any of the three candidates, characterized the spat as “healthy.”

“I think everybody knows that we can’t afford a bitter race,” she said.

“I think the candidates themselves have decided it won’t be a bitter race. We need to make sure their overzealous supporters aren’t writing the attack ads for the Conservatives for the next election.”

Others seemed eager to brush the whole matter under the carpet.

“The most important thing to me is that Liberals must not fight Liberals,” said John McCallum.

“Our opponent is Stephen Harper. Our opponent is not ourselves. So I’m hoping that this incident will dissapate and that we can go forward in a more collegial way.”

It’s the first public spat between candidates vying to replace Stephane Dion, who announced following the party’s disastrous election showing that he would step down as leader as soon as a successor can be chosen. The Liberals will make their choice at a convention in Vancouver next spring.

Many in the party had hoped to avoid the kind of sniping that characterized the hard-fought campaign in which Dion come up the middle to win as a compromise candidate in 2006, after neither Rae nor Ignatieff could take a clear majority.”

As far as signs go, fewer, better: Parties

The following article about the Quebec election contains the following interesting quote which suggests the irrelevance of party candidates:

“André Lafrance, a communications professor at Université de Montréal, agrees posters have little bearing on an election’s outcome.

“(Voters) decide on the party, on the leader,” Lafrance said.

“The local candidate, unless they are really well known, will not change a party’s fortunes even if they are viewed several times more by a voter.”

For the complete article see:

Fewer Quebec election signs is better: Parties

Citing the environment and cost, campaigners and constituents welcome `a good change’

November 16, 2008

The Canadian Press

MONTREAL–Thinking of both the environment and their pocketbooks, Quebec’s political parties have noticeably cut down on the size and number of signs being used during the election campaign.

“We have fewer signs compared to the last election because the last time many people told us that it was too much, that there was too much presence in the field,” said Liberal spokesperson Michel Rochette.

Rochette said the party is using roughly 50 per cent fewer signs compared with last year’s campaign and that it even shrunk the signs’ size by half.

“It’s not a huge change – it’s a good change,” he said.

“We decided to do it even though logic would indicate that fewer signs would hurt us electorally.

“It’s a risk we’re assuming. We could put signs on every pole in every riding, but what purpose would it serve?”

André Lafrance, a communications professor at Université de Montréal, agrees posters have little bearing on an election’s outcome.

“(Voters) decide on the party, on the leader,” Lafrance said.

“The local candidate, unless they are really well known, will not change a party’s fortunes even if they are viewed several times more by a voter.”

Both the Liberals and the Action démocratique du Québec have trumpeted the switch to 100 per cent recyclable signs penned with eco-friendly ink.

The Parti Québécois says its signs are donated to schools and community organizations. Nicole Léger, who represents the PQ in Montreal’s Pointe-aux-Trembles riding, is using a third fewer signs, said spokesperson Vincent Lanctôt.

“This is the fourth election in this riding since the beginning of 2008 – there was even a municipal by-election here,” Lanctôt said.

“So for some people in the riding, they appreciate fewer signs in their face.”

ADQ spokesperson Sophie Doucet says some candidates have requested fewer signs after constituents complained.

“Other candidates running for re-election didn’t feel they need to get their image out there as much,” Doucet said.

“But it’s a question of financial ability too. Some ridings have less money than others to spend.”

Concordia University marketing professor Harold Simpkins says political signs create top-of-mind awareness – a marketing tool used to measure how well brands rank in people’s minds.

“The signs are hard to escape from, so therefore the candidates with the most signs may get the most top-of-mind awareness,” Simpkins said.

“But maybe in this case, the signs were so saturated that people thought they were losing their effectiveness.”

Independent candidates barred from many debates

As any Independent knows, it can be hard to participate in “all candidates” debates. Consider this from the following article:

“Or you can vote for an independent candidate. Good luck learning what they stand for, though — tiny voices struggling to be heard above the noisy party next door.

This is what rankles Dr. Philip Ney. Here he is running as an independent in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, yet he can’t his message out, can’t even get on stage during the election debates. All-candidates forums? Might as well call them most-candidates forums, as only the big four — Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens — get to take part.

Ney was kept off the stage at the Times Colonist-sponsored debate at Isabelle Reader Theatre this week. Couldn’t get into an earlier forum put on by Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, nor was he included in a debate at the Church of the Advent. He’ll be in the West Shore chamber’s debate tonight (7 p. m, Royal Roads University) but that just makes it one out of four. It’s undemocratic, he says. “I could win this if I were given a fair chance.”

To read the complete article:

The solution is obvious!! Independent candidates need to organize the candidates debates!

Note: John Richardson – Independent candidate for Toronto Danforth appeared in two candidates debates: