Ok on the Ander’s case and the courts setting aside his acclamation nomination, I have read the judgment and it speaks for itself. Some of you will not want to read it all but your roles as responsible and engage citizens will push you to do so. It is an interesting legal analysis but a very important decision and the facts shows how political party processes can be used to create unfair and incorrect results.
We all need to be vigilant to better understand how Mr. Anders "nomination" unfolded and who was involved and how they conducted themselves. Constant vigilance is the cost of freedom.
Council for the Party also was the person who defended Stockwell Day in Alberta when he defamed a Red Deer lawyer and school trustee. Defending that case on behalf of Mr. Day, now a Minister in the Harper government apparently cost the Alberta taxpayers over a $1M in legal fees and costs. It became the subject of a review of the government of Alberta’s risk management system. A review that I did along with my consulting firm for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Speaker of the Alberta Legislature at the time.
The bottom line of that review and the Court’s decision on this nomination process for Mr. Anders confirms the first and most cardinal rule for citizens in a democracy…Be careful who you elect!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Ten Reasons Why We Should Not Have a Spring Election
There are many reason why we should not have a spring election. Here are my top 10!
1 There are too many pieces of Harper’s 5 point plan in still in the legislative process. They have not had the time to get passed into law like his crime and punishment, health care wait times, accountability and the policy flux around child care spaces. He had a modest agenda and has not had time to deliver. We will have wasted the past year if we have an early election.
2 None of the parties are really ready to go because they are still all finding their policy footing. The Cons have the money, even though they are pitching the party faithful for emergency funds for a pending election. The Cons are currently so busy reintroducing and repackaging prior Liberal polices they need time to convince Canadians they are still the “new” government and not just a lighter version of an old-style Liberal government.
3 Candidate selection is in process for all parties and there is plenty of posturing, including candidate colleges in some parties. But thoughtful and quality candidates need more time to consider running or not. Rushing this process ensures we will have less than optimum candidates offering their “talents” to serve in governance.
4 Party leaders are all ill-defined in the public mind. Polls show we don’t really know nor do we have a clear sense of who Harper is after 5 years back in leadership in the federal political scene. His recent election promises breaches and his epiphany over the environment from a climate change denier to becoming the new super hero “Eco-man” is causing even more uncertainty as to who he really is. Dion is a known environmentalist and federalist but an unknown as a leader even within his party. Layton is seen as an issues broker but undefined and unfocused and still an unknown as a political leader. May is too new and untested and leading a party that is more unknown than even she is but that will change when the next election happens.
5 The national political agenda is too vague and amorphous so we don’t know what this election would be about other than Harper trying to get a majority. Polls are telling us Canadians are unclear if they even want a majority government, of any stripe, as yet. The environment has turned into a lightening rod and all parties have the poll results that have them crowding to the middle ground and bumping into each other like a Keystone Kops comedy. None of this is helping to gain the confidence of the Canadian voter for any political party right now.
6 Volatility and uncertainty in the mind of the voters is apparent in the polls as of late. Except for about 65% saying they do not want spring election and the environment as the #1 issue, nothing is certain or even ascertainable as to exactly what the public wants of its government today. Canadians are not yet over their “test drive” attitude towards the Cons from the last election. In 2006 Canadians elected a minority government on purpose and those purposes have not yet been served. Anyone who causes the election for superficial reasons will be punished in the polls. Any spring election will not be perceived as being about the wishes of the people but about the egos and thirst for power of politicians.
7 We need time to see if Harper will be serious about his budget promises and just how authentic he is about his conversion and version of vert-nouveau. Announcements of program funding and rhetorical political promises are one thing, action and outcomes are entirely different matters
8 We need to wait for some provincial elections to happen and the implications they hold for the future nation to be understood. For sure we will need time to digest the Quebec election outcomes and especially what a minority government in Quebec might mean. We need to understand those implications and even perhaps wait for the elections in Ontario and Alberta to go first because they would be helpful to set some political agendas for the nation and give the federal scene time to focus and define.
9 There needs to be time for the actual outcomes of Harper’s promise to deal with the perception within Quebec of a Fiscal Imbalance and how he will deal with it in fact, and not fiction. We need time to see the real Stephen Harper and his actual execution of policies around equalization and per capita transfers to provinces and how he will actually proceed to decentralize governance to favour the provinces.
10 Finally why are we wasting the time and money for an election when there is no pressing need and no clear issue demanding a mandated resolution? We have yet to see significant real results from Harper and that is not because he has not been trying. He has.
We as Canadians need more time for Harper to prove himself to be worthy of the al powerful position of Prime Minister in a majority government. He wants to afford us less time for that to happen and that is why he is pressing for an early but pointless and likely inconclusive election this spring.
Harper is worried that over time this summer, Dion will become better known, more defined and respected as a political leader. Layton has the same fears over the emergence of May and the Greens who might eat even more of his lunch with more time to become known, defined and respected.
Dion and May need more time to become established and organized so they will not be anxious to go early and they will hold their noses and vote for the budget. Besides they can benefit by seeing the Harper budget and green plan and taking time to comment on the merits and question the Cons actual commitment to the policies they propose. Past actions tend to show the Cons are just that; con-artists on policy and political promises.
Consequently, I expect Harper will try to engineer his demise this spring and if Layton is nervous enough about the Greens and May he will oblige the Cons and force an election. It will not be on the Cons budget but rather on their environment proposals that Layton will see the reason to cause an election.
1 There are too many pieces of Harper’s 5 point plan in still in the legislative process. They have not had the time to get passed into law like his crime and punishment, health care wait times, accountability and the policy flux around child care spaces. He had a modest agenda and has not had time to deliver. We will have wasted the past year if we have an early election.
2 None of the parties are really ready to go because they are still all finding their policy footing. The Cons have the money, even though they are pitching the party faithful for emergency funds for a pending election. The Cons are currently so busy reintroducing and repackaging prior Liberal polices they need time to convince Canadians they are still the “new” government and not just a lighter version of an old-style Liberal government.
3 Candidate selection is in process for all parties and there is plenty of posturing, including candidate colleges in some parties. But thoughtful and quality candidates need more time to consider running or not. Rushing this process ensures we will have less than optimum candidates offering their “talents” to serve in governance.
4 Party leaders are all ill-defined in the public mind. Polls show we don’t really know nor do we have a clear sense of who Harper is after 5 years back in leadership in the federal political scene. His recent election promises breaches and his epiphany over the environment from a climate change denier to becoming the new super hero “Eco-man” is causing even more uncertainty as to who he really is. Dion is a known environmentalist and federalist but an unknown as a leader even within his party. Layton is seen as an issues broker but undefined and unfocused and still an unknown as a political leader. May is too new and untested and leading a party that is more unknown than even she is but that will change when the next election happens.
5 The national political agenda is too vague and amorphous so we don’t know what this election would be about other than Harper trying to get a majority. Polls are telling us Canadians are unclear if they even want a majority government, of any stripe, as yet. The environment has turned into a lightening rod and all parties have the poll results that have them crowding to the middle ground and bumping into each other like a Keystone Kops comedy. None of this is helping to gain the confidence of the Canadian voter for any political party right now.
6 Volatility and uncertainty in the mind of the voters is apparent in the polls as of late. Except for about 65% saying they do not want spring election and the environment as the #1 issue, nothing is certain or even ascertainable as to exactly what the public wants of its government today. Canadians are not yet over their “test drive” attitude towards the Cons from the last election. In 2006 Canadians elected a minority government on purpose and those purposes have not yet been served. Anyone who causes the election for superficial reasons will be punished in the polls. Any spring election will not be perceived as being about the wishes of the people but about the egos and thirst for power of politicians.
7 We need time to see if Harper will be serious about his budget promises and just how authentic he is about his conversion and version of vert-nouveau. Announcements of program funding and rhetorical political promises are one thing, action and outcomes are entirely different matters
8 We need to wait for some provincial elections to happen and the implications they hold for the future nation to be understood. For sure we will need time to digest the Quebec election outcomes and especially what a minority government in Quebec might mean. We need to understand those implications and even perhaps wait for the elections in Ontario and Alberta to go first because they would be helpful to set some political agendas for the nation and give the federal scene time to focus and define.
9 There needs to be time for the actual outcomes of Harper’s promise to deal with the perception within Quebec of a Fiscal Imbalance and how he will deal with it in fact, and not fiction. We need time to see the real Stephen Harper and his actual execution of policies around equalization and per capita transfers to provinces and how he will actually proceed to decentralize governance to favour the provinces.
10 Finally why are we wasting the time and money for an election when there is no pressing need and no clear issue demanding a mandated resolution? We have yet to see significant real results from Harper and that is not because he has not been trying. He has.
We as Canadians need more time for Harper to prove himself to be worthy of the al powerful position of Prime Minister in a majority government. He wants to afford us less time for that to happen and that is why he is pressing for an early but pointless and likely inconclusive election this spring.
Harper is worried that over time this summer, Dion will become better known, more defined and respected as a political leader. Layton has the same fears over the emergence of May and the Greens who might eat even more of his lunch with more time to become known, defined and respected.
Dion and May need more time to become established and organized so they will not be anxious to go early and they will hold their noses and vote for the budget. Besides they can benefit by seeing the Harper budget and green plan and taking time to comment on the merits and question the Cons actual commitment to the policies they propose. Past actions tend to show the Cons are just that; con-artists on policy and political promises.
Consequently, I expect Harper will try to engineer his demise this spring and if Layton is nervous enough about the Greens and May he will oblige the Cons and force an election. It will not be on the Cons budget but rather on their environment proposals that Layton will see the reason to cause an election.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Courts Kill Rob Anders Conservative Acclamation Nomination in Calgary
I will do a more thorough posting on the Rob Anders court decision over his recent Conservative constituency nomination process in Calgary West once the decision is on line and I have read it. That should be early next week I expect. In the meantime media reports do not auger well for the CPC in being an open and transparent organization.
Political parties have so much influence on our politics in so many ways, it was nice to see a group of party members take their complaints about the propriety of the Anders acclamation nomination to the Courts for rulings. Political parties are so very unrepresentative of the general population and are too often run like private clubs, especially at the constituency level.
They should be, and be seen, more as fundamental democratic institutions and therefore they must have more transparency and accountability then currently is the case. This is a glaring democratic deficit in our system that may need a culture shift towards more citizen engagement instead of a strictly legislated solution.
The Anders “acclamation nomination” reported comments from the Court decision underscores this need as Judge Hawco says:
“The party did not follow its own rules with respect to setting the date for the nomination meeting or with respect to conducting a fair and effective candidate selection process,”
“I am satisfied that the decision of the panel was not correct and that its decision must there be set aside. As a result, the acclamation of Mr. Anders also must be set aside and a new nomination meeting and process must be set in place.”
At least the Judge didn't say "they broke every rule in the book" although I have not yet read the decision so I can't say what the full implication of this judgement is yet. If this Party cannot be fair and reasonable within its own ranks to its own members, can we trust them to be fair and reasonable to dissenters? Can we trust them to be fair and resonable at all especially since they want to rig the judicial selection process in order to politicize the courts? They disbanded the Court Challenges Program because they could not see any reason why a government would pay for lawyers so people could challenge them on Constitutional and other issues. That attitude is dangerous to democracy and devastating to dissent.
Is that the kind of party and the kind of elected representatives we want in a free and open democracy? Is this the kind of political culture that Canadians will consent to be governed by? Character counts. Quality character and a competence to govern for the benefit of the people is not being well demonstrated by the Harper Cons these days. Instead we see the Harper Cons overwhelmingly preoccupied with positioning for power.
Good government is about meeting the needs and preserving the rights of the citizens’ and not about partisan pandering for power Mr. Prime Minister. Good governance starts at the political party level. I expect Leader Harper will want to be sure this nomination mess in Calgary West is cleaned up and quickly.
Political parties have so much influence on our politics in so many ways, it was nice to see a group of party members take their complaints about the propriety of the Anders acclamation nomination to the Courts for rulings. Political parties are so very unrepresentative of the general population and are too often run like private clubs, especially at the constituency level.
They should be, and be seen, more as fundamental democratic institutions and therefore they must have more transparency and accountability then currently is the case. This is a glaring democratic deficit in our system that may need a culture shift towards more citizen engagement instead of a strictly legislated solution.
The Anders “acclamation nomination” reported comments from the Court decision underscores this need as Judge Hawco says:
“The party did not follow its own rules with respect to setting the date for the nomination meeting or with respect to conducting a fair and effective candidate selection process,”
“I am satisfied that the decision of the panel was not correct and that its decision must there be set aside. As a result, the acclamation of Mr. Anders also must be set aside and a new nomination meeting and process must be set in place.”
At least the Judge didn't say "they broke every rule in the book" although I have not yet read the decision so I can't say what the full implication of this judgement is yet. If this Party cannot be fair and reasonable within its own ranks to its own members, can we trust them to be fair and reasonable to dissenters? Can we trust them to be fair and resonable at all especially since they want to rig the judicial selection process in order to politicize the courts? They disbanded the Court Challenges Program because they could not see any reason why a government would pay for lawyers so people could challenge them on Constitutional and other issues. That attitude is dangerous to democracy and devastating to dissent.
Is that the kind of party and the kind of elected representatives we want in a free and open democracy? Is this the kind of political culture that Canadians will consent to be governed by? Character counts. Quality character and a competence to govern for the benefit of the people is not being well demonstrated by the Harper Cons these days. Instead we see the Harper Cons overwhelmingly preoccupied with positioning for power.
Good government is about meeting the needs and preserving the rights of the citizens’ and not about partisan pandering for power Mr. Prime Minister. Good governance starts at the political party level. I expect Leader Harper will want to be sure this nomination mess in Calgary West is cleaned up and quickly.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Stelmach Goes to Albertans for Ideas on GHG Reduction
The Stelmach government now goes to Albertans and is looking for new ideas on how to reduce green house gasses. The government and industry can have expectations placed upon them but so can individuals play a role in making a difference.
Informed citizen engagement is the key to any positive policy change. This effort to engage citizen on climate change is broadly based and looks to be an aggressive outreach to engage Albertans.
Lots of ideas are emerging on how individuals can make personal changes have to be understood and acted upon if the challenge of climate change is going to be tackled effectively.
Will it all be about making the other guy change towards doing the right thing and I can avoid change myself?
The environment is the #1 public policy issue and with a high level of commitment compared to other issues, including health care. Will we start to see people making personal changes in lifestyle because they understand the nature of the finite system we have on our planet. Garth Turner has a Handbook for individual actions on climate change posted on his website and it is worth a read.
One can not only hope – but we can get involved, get informed and become actively engaged. Citizenship has its rights and its responsibilities. I will be fascinated to see how this initiative unfolds and am optimistic that it can make a real difference.
Informed citizen engagement is the key to any positive policy change. This effort to engage citizen on climate change is broadly based and looks to be an aggressive outreach to engage Albertans.
Lots of ideas are emerging on how individuals can make personal changes have to be understood and acted upon if the challenge of climate change is going to be tackled effectively.
Will it all be about making the other guy change towards doing the right thing and I can avoid change myself?
The environment is the #1 public policy issue and with a high level of commitment compared to other issues, including health care. Will we start to see people making personal changes in lifestyle because they understand the nature of the finite system we have on our planet. Garth Turner has a Handbook for individual actions on climate change posted on his website and it is worth a read.
One can not only hope – but we can get involved, get informed and become actively engaged. Citizenship has its rights and its responsibilities. I will be fascinated to see how this initiative unfolds and am optimistic that it can make a real difference.
Quebec Welder Firing is About Safety and Literacy, Not Discrimintion
The recent “firing” of the Quebec Ironworker for failing to pass a safety exam in the English language is being misinterpreted as to what is really about and what is really going on.
This is not an example of a human rights abuse. Nor is it the old chestnut of the west being anti French language. I am old enough to remember the mantra about bilingualism as being French being shoved down our throats. The ghosts of those old attitudes seem to emerge out of this incident. This situation is nothing to do with any of that.
What this is actually all about is safety and literacy. If the reverse were true, say in an iron oar mine in rural French speaking Quebec, and a unilingual English speaking worker could not pass a safety test in French, in that setting, he ought not to be hired either. If you are working in a complex and dangerous environment and you can’t read the safety procedures or the operations manuals to deal effectively with emergencies and other non-standard events, then you are a danger to yourself and to co-worker.
The media stories in defense of this worker has been that he had worked for the same sub-contractor in the area but not on an oils sands site for a few months before without supervision, problems or incidents. We do not know what he was doing and have no reason to doubt his work ethic and skills. If he was doing straight non-critical welding in standard circumstances that did not involve integration with other large project aspects or inherently dangerous circumstances, I see no problem. I also see no comparison to that circumstance to the complex and dangerous Suncor work situation, which he was trying to qualify for n passing a safety exam. We do routine drug testing and criminal checks and why not literacy competency testing of employees for safety purposes?
The working language at Suncor is English but that is not the only determining factor. I understand another project has a significant number of Chinese workers on site under a subcontract with a company from the Peoples’ Republic of China. I understand they are working on installing specific projects parts that were manufactured in China. The working language for them is undoubtedly going to be Mandarin. They can be held responsible for site safety requirements for all their workers because there are enough of them and they are involved in a specific aspect of the overall project. Same will likely be the case for the Synenco project and their Upgrader because they are 40% owned by the PRC. Sufficient numbers of Mandarin speakers working on specific identifiable project aspects will justify safety testing in that language.
The real issue here is the dirty little secret that in Canada our low literacy levels are astonishing. We have statistics to show our literacy rates are so low in the nation, (Alberta actually being marginally the highest in the country), that some 40% of Canadians are still learning to read instead of reading to learn. Can you believe it? It is true.
This is not only a competitiveness and productivity killer; it can be a human killer too. Work crews with insufficient literacy skills are a danger to themselves and co-workers.
Premier Stelmach has recognized this issue and has delegated the challenge to improve literacy in Alberta to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. A good start to a serious problem! Literacy Alberta has developed a proposal for a literacy policy for Alberta that is working its way through the political policy making process. It is worth going to their site to give it a read.
This is not an example of a human rights abuse. Nor is it the old chestnut of the west being anti French language. I am old enough to remember the mantra about bilingualism as being French being shoved down our throats. The ghosts of those old attitudes seem to emerge out of this incident. This situation is nothing to do with any of that.
What this is actually all about is safety and literacy. If the reverse were true, say in an iron oar mine in rural French speaking Quebec, and a unilingual English speaking worker could not pass a safety test in French, in that setting, he ought not to be hired either. If you are working in a complex and dangerous environment and you can’t read the safety procedures or the operations manuals to deal effectively with emergencies and other non-standard events, then you are a danger to yourself and to co-worker.
The media stories in defense of this worker has been that he had worked for the same sub-contractor in the area but not on an oils sands site for a few months before without supervision, problems or incidents. We do not know what he was doing and have no reason to doubt his work ethic and skills. If he was doing straight non-critical welding in standard circumstances that did not involve integration with other large project aspects or inherently dangerous circumstances, I see no problem. I also see no comparison to that circumstance to the complex and dangerous Suncor work situation, which he was trying to qualify for n passing a safety exam. We do routine drug testing and criminal checks and why not literacy competency testing of employees for safety purposes?
The working language at Suncor is English but that is not the only determining factor. I understand another project has a significant number of Chinese workers on site under a subcontract with a company from the Peoples’ Republic of China. I understand they are working on installing specific projects parts that were manufactured in China. The working language for them is undoubtedly going to be Mandarin. They can be held responsible for site safety requirements for all their workers because there are enough of them and they are involved in a specific aspect of the overall project. Same will likely be the case for the Synenco project and their Upgrader because they are 40% owned by the PRC. Sufficient numbers of Mandarin speakers working on specific identifiable project aspects will justify safety testing in that language.
The real issue here is the dirty little secret that in Canada our low literacy levels are astonishing. We have statistics to show our literacy rates are so low in the nation, (Alberta actually being marginally the highest in the country), that some 40% of Canadians are still learning to read instead of reading to learn. Can you believe it? It is true.
This is not only a competitiveness and productivity killer; it can be a human killer too. Work crews with insufficient literacy skills are a danger to themselves and co-workers.
Premier Stelmach has recognized this issue and has delegated the challenge to improve literacy in Alberta to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. A good start to a serious problem! Literacy Alberta has developed a proposal for a literacy policy for Alberta that is working its way through the political policy making process. It is worth going to their site to give it a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)