Schreiber the prevaricator

Schreiber's very smart lawyers turned this forum (the parliamentary ethics committee) into a pseudo "three questions" Monte Python sketch (see 1 minute mark).

In other words, if the questions weren't what is your name, favorite color or hockey team, etc. --- from all members of the ethics committee --- then you got a swift "I defer" or "I have nothing more to say now" from Karlheinz.

Methinks we would have been better off as Canadians and taxpayers if we had just sidestepped this committe (and a possible inquiry) and cast him into the gorge of eternal peril.

Translation: extradite the bastard!

Deja vu all over again

Living in New Brunswick is like being in that Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day as you could swear that this is the third go around where the Graham government has claimed to have the road map to the future prosperity of our province. Only thing different this time around is they didn't move the self-sufficiency timeline ahead to 2027. Although I see they are playing around with the commitment date for their population targets. I guess that's what you get when you never really had a plan. Anyway, carry on as you were.

Vive la république!

Here's an issue that I would love to see go to a vote in Canada via a referendum. As for Australia, the two questions were fairly close the last time, but were ultimately defeated. Although the plebiscite did raise some concerns:

Critics of the referendum argued that it was rigged in favour of monarchists because it gave voters only the option of having Parliament elect a President and not the direct election of a head of state by the people.

Which [again] is why they should have a preferential ballot with multi-options where the bottom option is knocked off the ballot after each round until 50 per cent + 1 is acquired.

Money and politics in Canada

I completely agree with Tuns on this one;

I should note that the real scandal is the limitations we put on money in politics and our hang-ups about buying politicians. I find absolutely nothing wrong with paying a former politician to lobby a government that follows. But Mulroney received money before he left office, you might protest. That is a little more controversial, but I still think people should be allowed to buy politicians -- candidates and office-holders -- as long as it is all in the open.

However, I can't say the same about former Prime Ministers who wear out their welcome after being defeated or resigning their leadership only to collect more unnecessary money from Canadian taxpayers. Here are some examples:

• After his second election defeat in '88, John Turner stepped down as Liberal leader only to completely disappear from the political map (as well as the House of Commons) while retaining his Vancouver-Quadra seat and, in turn, collecting a full salary -- about $47,000 annually -- until June 22nd, 1990 (almost two years after the fact). The reasoning? If he doesn't hang onto his seat, the Liberals might otherwise lose it in an ensuing by-election. In other words, [he] has put the fortunes of his party ahead of the citizens of Vancouver-Quadra and taxpayers as they are denied an active member in that riding.
• For those taxpayers who believed that they'd paid the last bill for Brian Mulroney when Kim Campbell was sworn in as prime minister on June 25, 1993, you were wrong. Mulroney continued to receive a salary and expenses as a member of parliament -- about $85,000 annually -- until he formally quit after the October 25th general election where his party was reduced to two seats in the house of commons.
• The same can be said for Paul Martin who many can remember resigned as Liberal leader back in late January 2006 the night of his election defeat in front of a crowd of emotional supporters in his Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard. Well, it's coming upon two years since that day, not to mention, a new Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, has been installed (last December) by party members/delegates. Regardless, Martin still choses to hold onto his seat which is worth about $131,400 annually to taxpayers. Why? Because much like former Liberal leader John Turner, Paul Martin believes the fortunes of the Liberal party, and preventing a by-election defeat, are much more important than the right for people in that riding to have an active member of parliament. By the time he [Martin] leaves office for good, he will have cost Canadian taxpayers clearly more than the $300,000 in cash which Mulroney allegedly accepted from a private citizen, Karlheinz Schreiber, after he had left office.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Mulroney should get off scott free for his actions in this affair, I just think we need to put it all in perspective here, especially from a taxpayers' point of view.

NB government: Unilateral as usual

I read this great post by Albert County blogger (a.k.a. The Independent), and in it, Rob explains the importance of holding a referendum on the casino/racino issue:

I believe an issue as transformative and divisive as this deserves a referendum. According to a newsradio phone in poll, 52% of NBers don't want a casino, shouldn't they have a say? Our style of government doesn't allow for referenda very often, as we believe our elected officials should make all the tough decisions for us. However, this is an issue that wasn't even discussed during the last election. I don't think any Liberal party member can claim that the government has a mandate to legitimize gambling in this province.

So is Rob crazy to suggest that this issue be taken to the people of NB via a referendum? This blogger definitely doesn't thinks so, especially since our neighbours to the south [Maine] just rejected the proposal by the Passamaquoddy Tribe to build a racino in Washington County via a state wide referendum. Not only that, when asked in what direction they wanted state legislators to go with regards to the promotion of economic development in their region, citizens of the state of Maine marked their ballots with a much more wiser, sustainable and responsible choice:

Maine voters yesterday denied the Passamaquoddy Tribe its wish to build a racino in Washington County, opposed extending legislators' term limits, but approved $134 million worth of bond proposals.

The three bonds that were approved will be used to spur economic development through research and development, help renovate the state's universities and colleges, and fund land conservation work. While voters narrowly approved the R&D and education bonds, the conservation bond won overwhelming support. Voters yesterday also rejected a proposal to extend term limits for legislators from four to six terms, or from eight to 12 years.

And you wonder why our province always seems to be heading down the wrong path. Unilateralism my fellow NBers...unilateralism.

Senate reform? Let's do it. Part II

These are the Day's I know, I know. These are the Day's I know

Last week I wrote a post on the senate. The focus of my position and post -- in favour of senate reform -- was that senators (because they're unelected) are not only completely unaccountable and inaccessible, they lack credibility and effectiveness by virtue of the fact that serious issues, pertaining to the people and taxpayers which they are supposedly there to represent, are rarely addressed.

If you don't believe me, check out the Heard @ Hy's November 18th link on Bourque Newswatch which candidly displays New Brunswick Senator Joe Day's parliamentary junket list. If that's not bad enough, it appears taxpayers could be picking up the tab for a guy whose main priority is playing stalking horse for Frank McKenna. Not exactly solid reasons to keep the status quo in the red chamber, is it?

And to think, he's up for retirement in 2020. *Sigh*

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mary Agnes Welch analyzes what Manitobans get from their 6 senators for $120,000 a pop. Doesn't sound too promising, however, for a province with a larger population than New Brunswick, they get four less senators. Figure that one out. Although, I guess if you look at it from a financial standpoint, they probably get the same type of [lack-a-daisical] representation but don't have to pay $ 1.2 million a year (New Brunswick has ten senators, but one is vacant after Brenda Robertson retired last year). I guess there are some perks for having less unaccountable senators. ;-)

The abuse of eminent domain

Big government gerrymandering tax laws (or sidestepping them) so as to ram through billion dollar corporate projects, dolling out corporate welfare money to huge (profit turning) multi-nationals, not to mention, taking land or expropriating it for legitimate public use and turning it over to politically connected private developers. What do the above all have in common? Yours truly, nb taxpayer, despises them all.

Anyway, since I have spoken ad nauseam about both corporate welfare and the gerrymandering of tax laws, I thought I would change the channel on here and delve into a concept, that is coming up more often south of the border, known as eminent domain. For those who have never heard of this term, it is legal principle which allows government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation. In other words, the government can unilaterally and legally seize your private property (land) as long as they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good". Government having that kind of power over citizens and their private property, for any reason, is enough to make a libertarian like myself puke.

However, what is even worse is that government's have abused this practice and are now forcing people off their land so that private developers can build more expensive homes, offices and big box stores that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Not exactly what you call a "public good", IMHO.

If you are curious to know more, I urge you to watch this mini-documentary as "Reason.tv host Drew Carey visits National City, California, where the local government is taking eminent domain abuse to new lows". Even if you're not a libertarian, I guarantee you will be fuming about the lack of concern from big government. Have a look.

Successful media relations 101

Limit the press corps from having [unlimited] access, be suspicious of reporters, breed fear and paranoia and treat them with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation.

And just so you know, it's not Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications strategy being referenced above. Although, communications director Howard Wolfson does seem to have a lot in common with Sandra Buckler.

Bits 'n pieces, and eating crow

• Ouch! I guess the lesson to be learned here is that no matter how good tax cuts are for both the economy and Canadians, the act of actually reducing them still gets overshadowed by the negativity of a political drama. However, as Gerry claims, the conservative drop in the polls could be attributed to far more than just the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal.


• Facebook fuddle duddle. It's not quite his father flipping the bird to Canadians, but this recent facebook incident may be a harbinger of things to come, in that, it shows that the younger Trudeau may be just as arrogant as his father was.


• WTF? I've heard a lot of crazy things in my day (hey, I campaigned up in the Miramichi for two months and I read Charles Leblanc's blog. lol), but that comment by Mohsen Yahyavi definitely puts him in a category all by himself. Can you say kook of the year? Although, I have to admit, this threat by former model Janice Dickinson is a very close second.


• Good news. Canadians favour senate reform over abolition. Gee, it would seem the silent (or complacent) in New Brunswick are once again behind the rest of the country on this. Big surprise. Although, I'm sure most of the bandwagoners in this province would tell you they aren't supportive of status quo or the politicians who push it.


• Don't get too comfortable. It appears as though Jim Travesty thinks Airbus II may have legs. If I were the Liberal leader, I wouldn't take his advice, because as many may remember, he was the one who gave it to Dithers.

Senate reform? Let's do it.

It is the habit of journalism to render the meanings of great events and accomplishments in generalities. This is for obvious reason; almost everything in life is too complicated to explain and most people are not interested in detail. Furthermore, explaining everything in generalities allows everyone to achieve their own level of understanding.

In New Brunswick, for example, many citizens believe that there is no urgent need for senate reform because their provincial Liberal premier is opposed to the notion. Also, as was made abundantly clear in today's Telegraph Journal, entertaining the idea of Senate reform "is not worth aggravating regional differences and distracting attention from more pressing issues. Also, it is important to note that the current Senate does a lot of valuable work."

One must assume, in both cases, that they made these generalities despite public support for senate reform, at least insofar as it would apply to Harper's incrementalism. Otherwise, the debate should end on the premise that re-opening the constitution is as popular as a skunk at a picnic.

IMHO, such are the thoughts of a spokesperson whose most serious responsibility in life for at least the first twenty some odd years of it had been to show up for dinner. I, on the other hand, believe senate reform is not only doable, but absolutely necessary. And I'll give you five quick reasons why it would benefit Canadians to have an elected bicameral system. (Note to readers: I will not be emphasizing the third "E" of equal since that particular side of the debate must be hashed out by all provinces and territories)

1. The senate --- despite the undeniable qualities of some senators --- is an affront to federalism and democracy. The appointment system, as it stands right now, not only expands the prime minister's stockpile of political patronage possibilities, it leaves a giant regional and ideological schism between citizens and their senatorial representatives. How else can you explain the lack of NDP or Block representatives in the upper chamber? Moreover, how does one explain the fact that four of the six senators are Liberal in Alberta where there are exactly zero elected members of parliament? Obviously the red chamber lacks credibility and effectiveness by virtue of the fact that many of its members are not elected. Plain and simple.

2. If the senate were democratically elected (via proportional representation), we could avoid unecessary political obstructionism and obsessive government control like we have seen lately or during the GST debate in 1990. For instance, one system that immediately comes to mind is the Australian bicameral system where the senate has been elected on proportional representation since 1949. The reason I jumped on the Australian bandwagon is because our system has a lot in common with theirs as it shares constitutional origins, size, federal organization and so on. Plus, using proportional representation would allow the senate to have more voices wherein it would avoid one party (or in the case of our system now) government dominance in a winner-takes-all forum. Not to mention, having senators which represent a certain regional constituency through direct democracy will result in better overall representation. At the moment, I find it hard to even identify with any of the local senators in my province as none have ever knocked on my door or asked what issues are important to me. Furthermore, in New Brunswick, senators are rarely an outlet where citizens go to express their grievances on important matters. Not ony that, if they are actually productive, much of their studies are done with little or no public participation whatsoever (see senate study on media concentration as an example).

3. As has already been suggested by Harper's tories, senators should be subject to term limits. Although, I suggest that half the senate be elected for each period. The six year term in the US with elections every two years for one-third of the senators tends to produce way to many elections. I prefer an eight-year term with elections every four years for each half. Also, the senate elections should be simultaneous with the election for the House of Commons (where only half would be up for re-election). This, IMO, would produce a set election time (either in the fall or spring) that would become tradition with Canadian voters. And in some way, by doing this, you would hope to engage more citizens into the process due to the consistency of the forum from coast-to-coast-to-coast.

4. The senate (if elected) could take the burden off members of parliament on such issues and debates as same-sex marriage, regional economic disparity, language rights, human rights, aboriginal affairs, land claims, etc. At the moment, with the obsession of whipped votes by party whips in the commons, there is very little debate or discussion on serious issues as partisanship and party line trump the voice and sentiments of citizens in the local riding the member is supposed to be there to represent. This was quite evident when Churchill, Manitoba MP Bev Desjarlais was expelled from the NDP caucus and relieved of her parliamentary critic responsibilities for voting her conscence socially and against same-sex marriage. As well, during the vote on Bill C-38, the Liberal cabinet was instructed (or dictated) to vote according to the party line and not their conscience. Not only that, many important social, economic and demographic issues end up on the laps of MPs after the fact because parliament failed to keep up with the debate. In other words, this failure sent groups searching outside government for redress, and the courts (i.e. the Charter) provided an important avenue, through court challenges, to government sins of ommission or commission. An effective, elected senate would do much in addressing regional gripes and offering an outlet (other than the courts) to voice specific grievances instead of relying on the commons to push through important legislation via highly partisan, whipped votes.

5. Since the upper house will be designed to address important social, economic and demographic issues, it should not have the power to refuse supply bills (the money the government needs to operate) or directly defeat the government. In other words, to refuse supply is the same as defeating the government because it cannot operate without money. An example of this, was when Rodney MacDonald went to Ottawa to lobby the senate in order to convince them to refuse a supply bill which had the changes in the equalization formula and offshore resources contained within it. The senate did not block the will of parliament in this case and refused to veto the bill. So in retrospect, the senate should have a limited veto on supply, maybe two or three months, but an absolute veto on all other bills (both private member and government) including tax legislation. Essentially, the big change here will be on all other bills where the senate usually rubber stamps them with very little hold up. Also, in the case of legislative deadlock (House and Senate), there could be conferences or joint sessions, a device used in Australia to prevent a double dissolution on the same manner.

As one entiled to speak with some authority on senate reform policy under the leadership of Harper, I can say Harper's motives are genuine and done with the intention of making Canada a more effective and efficient democracy whereby more voices and regions will ultimately be heard.

Arif goes on to say this: " With pressing issues such as global warming, the war in Afghanistan, and child poverty on the agenda, this is not the time to divert time and resources by engaging in constitutional squabbling over Senate reform. After all, the Senate plays an important - if under-appreciated - role in the Canadian legislative process." In other words, he sees no correlation between good democratic institutions and how they deal with serious issues? Essentially, keeping poor and ineffective democratic institutions as they are is much more important than tweaking them so that they respond better to the public in general. An interesting take indeed.

So, what does it matter? Arif is entitled to his opinion. Right? The Telegraph is entitled to publish it. Okay? But there is one fact to ponder in all this: Arif is not your average, everyday, opinionated columist. He is, it says at the bottom, "a graduate of UNB Law school and Masters in Political Science from Carleton University."

I suppose that doesn't matter either, but it does make one wonder if anyone studies constitutional politics at Carleton University? Maybe they all take journalism as an elective.

Corporate welfare of the worst kind

Potholes? No. Snow clearing? No. Celine? Yes.

The City of Halifax is spending $150,000 tax dollars to host a Celine Dion concert next summer.

If I lived in Halifax and knew my hard-earned tax dollars weren't going to fund core services, but rather to put on a concert of an artist I don't even like, I would be livid. Heck, even if I did like her music, I wouldn't expect my city council to use my money to get her to sing in my city.

What's next, bribing Conan O'Brien with a million taxpayer bucks to do his show from Halifax?

Whoops, Toronto already did that...

And judging from the reaction on 91.9 FM this morning, not too many bluenosers are all that pleased she is coming to Halifax anyway. Although this guy seems to think it's great just for the fact that they beat Moncton. Huh? Beating Moncton a coup? I think someone needs to get out more.

Anyway, regardless of how much of a coup this is, I think the city should hold a referendum and ask taxpayers whether or not they are willing to pay the extra money to host Dion? Or better yet, a preferential referendum with the Tragically Hip, Shit From Hell, Radiohead, Steve Earle and Billy Bragg on the ballot.

I mean honestly, UNB students were even given the opportunity a few years back to vote "yes" or "no" on whether or not to pay extra admin. fees in order to add a varsity football team to their campus. A majority of students ultimately chose to reject the idea. I wonder how many Haligonians would do the same in this instance?

And with it go Ontarioans tax dollars

We all realize that our high dollar and slumping housing starts in the United States are a big reason for the overall decline in the manufacturing industry lately. However, when I see the timing of this receivership, one day after the provincial election, you have to wonder if the initial corporate welfare loan given to Fibratech in July was simply used to buy votes.

Finally cluing in?

I see former New Brunswick Tory president Lisa Keenan stated in her weekly column [yesterday] that her party needs to develope more of a solid policy direction --- and platform --- rather than continue with useless ad hominems directed at Shawn Graham. I couldn't agree more. Although, I have to admit, it is kinda curious coming from Keenan since she was one of the culprits who actually engaged in petty attacks of the premier.

Anyway, many would say that those kinds of things can be chalked up to the game of politics. And to tell you the truth, I can live with that. But what really bothers me at a whole different level (and I've said this many times before) is the fact that many high ranking members of the Tory party are buying into the arguement that the party's two year hiatus, both policy-wise and as a serious opposition, will have no effect whatsoever on their future chances electorally. I guess you could say this statement, by Keenan, reminded me of this:

"All this spells good news for the provincial Tories as they reorganize for the next electoral go-around, expected in 2010. [...] For the first time in several decades, the Official opposition has a real opportunity to limit its opponents to a single term in office."

Hmmm...hardly a hint of any "urgency" in that above statement, is there? Where have I witnessed that type of strategic complacency before? I know, I know!! It was the Dithers strategist that harboured that same mentality back in the winter of 2005 where they chose to sit on their hands in the first three weeks of 56-day campaign rather than take the time to outline their party's positions. I guess they thought Harper would stumble all on his own and hand them the keys to 24 Sussex. Unfortunately for them, because they did not plan much serious campaigning during December, this allowed the Conservatives to gain serious traction with voters while rolling out policy idea after policy idea. A strategy that turned out to be good for the federal tories, in that, they controlled the message from start to finish.

And don't forget the federal tories hammered away hard in Opposition for years prior to the general election (which, up to this point, can't be said about the NB provincial tories as they have given Graham's government a free pass for well over a year now).

So judging from recent election outcomes (both provincial and federal), I think it's safe to say that we are now in a political era where people demand more from their politicians and political parties. They want to see their party stand behind good policy, take the difficult stance on principle and be more open and tansparent. Which is why, as bad as the Graham government is these days, it will take an entirely different approach from the New Brunswick Tories if they are to have any hope in hell of unseating the Liberals come next election. Let's face it, it ludicrous for that party to just believe that Graham will hand them back the keys to power. Get real.

Was the electoral reform process flawed in Ontario?

Ever since the lopsided referendum defeat of the "Yes" side last month in Ontario, there have been hundreds of criticisms (and even conspiracy theories) on why MMP went over like a lead balloon. Now I won't get into it [again] as my post mortem views are well known on the referendum, however, I do have to agree with June Macdonald, President of Fair Vote Ontario, when she said two days ago in a press release that there were "three design flaws in the referendum process". For the record, of the three factors she mentioned, I believe this one below had the greatest negative impact on the outcome:

“Second, the public education program was glaringly inadequate. The referendum was triggered by a recommendation from the Citizens’ Assembly, which asked that the public education campaign include the Assembly’s rationale for recommending MMP. Unlike the British Columbia referendum, the Assembly’s report was not distributed to all households – in fact, the government stopped printing the Assembly’s summary brochure several months before the referendum, blocking widespread distribution to voters.”