While I will direct my mind to the Alberta Party, much of the paradigm I will describe applies to the evolution of the Wildrose Alliance and the PCs, Liberals and NDP as well...we are all just at different stages and phases of this process.
I am inspired by a quote that I believe came from Schopenhauer. He said to the effect that all truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed and third it is accepted as being self-evident. I was reminded of this quote in a recent workshop I attended on "Unstoppable Conversations" that I thoroughly enjoyed. It helped me get a handle on a framework for many of the thoughts about changes and transformations in the Alberta political landscape that I have been rumbling through my brain lately.
Back to Schopenhauer' s quote and the evolving nature of "truth." First off, I don't hold much stock in truth. It is too subjective, temporary and perceptually ambiguous a concept to deserve the weight it has in our political culture discourse. I can accept the de Bono concept of a proto-truth. To me that is something we hold on to as self-evident until something better (or just different???), comes along to occupy the mind space of a society. That sense of a proto-truth is very alive in the context of the Schopenhauer quote too. Truth changes. It is not absolute.
THE OLD LINE PARTIES ARE AT STAGE THREE OF THE "TRUTH"
The image of the PCs, Liberals and NDP are all at the third stage of truth in Schopenhauer's world. The self-evident niches for each of them are embedded in the political cultural context of the times and perceptions about them are set in the minds of citizens. The PCs after 40 years in power are the natural governing party but they are off their game of late. The Liberals are the oldest political party in Alberta but marked with a cultural meme that ties them to the federal party and the alleged evils of the often reviled National Energy Policy. To many misplaced beliefs and mythologies make them a political non-starter for most Albertans. The NDP are not extreme but just not mainstream enough to be seen as ready to govern. We like the NDP as critics of government in service of the public interest - but no more.
These conventional political parties seem to be able to sustain and reaffirm their political space on the left-right spectrum in the minds of most Albertans. Otherwise they would lack a sense of significance and could just as well disappear from the consciousness of the everyday Albertan. They tend to oppose each other in a political game of oppositional posturing and positioning, politely called "spin" but is in fact mostly just hard ball propaganda. They are not seen as nimble nor adaptable to the changing times or competent given the complexity of a shrinking world culture, globalized economy or the realities of an interdependent environment.
THE ALBERTA PARTY AND WILDROSE ARE DIFFERENT
The Wildrose Alliance Party, in my perception, is moving into the second stage of truth, that of being violently opposed. I say that because I am one of those who are actively opposed to the Wildrose Alliance governing philosophy of Libertarianism social policy and Monetarism economic policy and an environmental policy that is based on Climate Change Denial.
However, I would not call my opposition to the Wildrose Alliance Party "violent." The rancorous rhetoric of the extreme right in the USA and the linkage of that rhetoric alleged to encourage actual physical violence. Political based violence like the killings it Tucson and the murder of abortion doctors by radical hardcore conservatives of the assassinations of the 60s some say is returning. The question is why and who, what and where is that level of violent opposition becoming normative in the States? We know how it is becoming normative. The gun culture of the United States of America and the decline of education standards, opportunity erosion and increasing fear, uncertainty and doubt about the future for too many Americans.
Back to Alberta. I am more at the vehemently opposed level to the governing philosophy and political culture of the Wildrose Alliance. My opposition to the Wildrose is is a matter of conviction and vigour, not hate and anger. I do not want Alberta to be governed by that, or any other similar political dogma. My opposition, like every other moderate progressive I know or ever met, is intellectual and philosophical, not a matter of force and violence. I am a democrat and will defer to the will and decision of an informed and engaged majority of voter. Those who win elections with a mere 40% turnout casts a serious suspicion of those criteria being met in our elections. We need both democratic and electoral reform beyond tinkering with advertising rules and rates of special interests groups.
The Alberta Party is just emerging on the political radar screen in Alberta. As a result of such attention other partisans are stepping up the rhetoric and ridicule. That puts the Alberta Party very much at the first stage of the "truth" - the ridicule stage. This stage one level of ridicule is coming from some supporters of the other parties but not the parties themselves. This link is a perfect example. Here is a blog post with point of view on the political context of the stage one ridicule too.
I think this is all in good humour and pretty slick political PR too. It is important because it is an attempt to frame the Alberta Party as something it is not before the party has a chance to express its own narrative of what it is and aspires to be come.
This is not a new tactic for hard core conventional political party operatives. Harper spent an enormous amount of taxpayer supported money on television ads leading up to an election. This negative campaign timing was pretty cynical because this stuff was pure political campaign advertising but done just in advance of an election so it would not be controlled nor limited by campaign spending laws. Harper was successfully framing Stephane Dion, as the new leader of the Liberal Party in the public consciousness before Dion could set out his own narrative in the public mind.
This kind of negative adverting is universally denounced and universally used - because it works. Some Alberta unions did a high cycle television ad campaign in the last Alberta provincial election saying Stelmach Had No Plan. That resulted in new legislation sponsored by the Stelmach government limiting third party election spending in the province. So much for electoral free speech and opinion through advertising in Alberta. Not a big deal really, because there is scant evidence that such advertising changes opinions in any event. But as an offence to free speech...and government control of free speech - its a big deal.
A CIVIL AND PROFESSIONAL POLITICAL CULTURE IS WHAT WE NEED
The Alberta Party is trying to change the nature of the discourse with a policy of MLA Guidelines aimed at returning civility and professionalism back into Alberta politics. I applaud those efforts. They may be naive but the sentiment is not misplaced. The theatre of the absurd that is Question Period or the pathetic discourse that passes as debate, dialogue and even public consultation in Alberta is disheartening.
My contribution to this effort at more civility and professionalism in politics in Alberta will be on this blog. I will continue to be critical of the politics and the tactics of those with whom I disagree but I will not engage in personal attacks about politicians at least not without evidence-based justification. When it comes to comments on how various political philosophies and promoted propaganda, I intend to be vehemently opposed where I disagree. But I will try my best not to be disagreeable in the process. I hope my readers support this position with non-anonymous comments that are aligned with this approach. I hope readers will be civil and vigilant in helping me keep to my word on this. Just a small step but one worth taking.
Showing posts with label Democratic Deficit.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Deficit.. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Study Shows Fox News Makes You Stupid!
Here is an interesting study about how misinformed Fox News viewers are about the truth. Seems that the misinformation is deliberate too. This is beyond sad and dangerous to democracy. Wonder how much Fox News North will mimic their American cousins in this style of "journalism." I wonder what a comparative Canadian study of Hardcore Conservatives in Canada and Alberta would show.
The fundamental foundations of citizenship and democracy are truth, trust and respect. Sorely lacking principles by what we see from the political tactics of Hardcore Conservatives - on both sides of the 49th Parallel.
Progressives can't be content anymore with rolling their eyes as this kind of abuse of the truth and assault on informed free speech. It is morally reprehensible behaviour and must be challenged. Those who perpetuate and promote this kind of ignorance are in positions of political power or gaining political power. That power is over the rest of us and we risk losing control of our democracy as a result. This is a recipe for disaster.
This is happening because too many of us who are progressive, caring and compassionate people are siting on the political sidelines. We are merely abdicating our duties as citizens by our indifference. We are inadvertently abetting the erosion of our democracy as a result. Because of this irresponsible lack of response by Progressive, we are letting the Hardcore Conservatives take over the political and public agenda. Their goal is all about taking away hard won rights, freedoms and progressive values. And we are letting them get away with it.
The Hardcore Conservatives can't handle the truth. They don't feel comfortable considering competing ideas at a time. It drives them to distraction. Without the truth and respect for a diversity of opinions politics becomes more and more about deception, subterfuge and misinformation... coercion and suppression. Citizenship suffers and democracy declines...civil society disappears.
"All men make mistakes but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride." ~Sophocles.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." ~Dante
Progressive thinking citizens in ALBERTA have to get re-engaged in the political culture of our times. We have to do more than just step up to the plate. We have to upset the Hardcore Conservative applecart as well.
The fundamental foundations of citizenship and democracy are truth, trust and respect. Sorely lacking principles by what we see from the political tactics of Hardcore Conservatives - on both sides of the 49th Parallel.
Progressives can't be content anymore with rolling their eyes as this kind of abuse of the truth and assault on informed free speech. It is morally reprehensible behaviour and must be challenged. Those who perpetuate and promote this kind of ignorance are in positions of political power or gaining political power. That power is over the rest of us and we risk losing control of our democracy as a result. This is a recipe for disaster.
This is happening because too many of us who are progressive, caring and compassionate people are siting on the political sidelines. We are merely abdicating our duties as citizens by our indifference. We are inadvertently abetting the erosion of our democracy as a result. Because of this irresponsible lack of response by Progressive, we are letting the Hardcore Conservatives take over the political and public agenda. Their goal is all about taking away hard won rights, freedoms and progressive values. And we are letting them get away with it.
The Hardcore Conservatives can't handle the truth. They don't feel comfortable considering competing ideas at a time. It drives them to distraction. Without the truth and respect for a diversity of opinions politics becomes more and more about deception, subterfuge and misinformation... coercion and suppression. Citizenship suffers and democracy declines...civil society disappears.
"All men make mistakes but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride." ~Sophocles.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." ~Dante
Progressive thinking citizens in ALBERTA have to get re-engaged in the political culture of our times. We have to do more than just step up to the plate. We have to upset the Hardcore Conservative applecart as well.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Alberta Senators-in-Waiting Call on Stelmach to Reverse Decision & Hold New Elections This Fall.
I spoke with Link Byfield today about the three remaining Senators-in-Waiting (SIW)calling on Premier Stelmach to reverse his decision to delay the elections until 2013. The law in Alberta says the terms of these three SIWs expires in November 2010. But the loop hole in the law is that the provincial government can change things, like extending terms. But that discretion should be exercised prudently and for reasons of good government and promoting and preserving democracy...not for puerile political reasons.
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)