I haven't entirely made my mind up about the robo-call scandal. I've got a feeling it's going to get worse. (I hope I'm wrong about that) But one thing is for sure; we have a problem here.
The Liberals are leveling some very serious allegations of corruption, and tampering as it comes to last year's federal election. The scheme involved Edmonton marketing firm placing robo-calls on behalf of the Conservative Party misdirecting voters to different polls. The Conservatives have admitted it happened in 9 ridings, and have fired what Prime Minister Harper calls one rogue worker. the Liberals place that number of ridings affected much higher at 27 and have added accusations of voter harassment.
It's worth repeating; Canada we have a problem here. I've worked for Elections Canada enough to know a bit about the ins and outs on how the agency works. At a polling station for example nothing happens without the Deputy Return Officer (D.R.O.)If they should step away for any reason business shuts down. Another example; If a scrutineer gets too rough in any way with voters D.R.O.'s can ask them to leave, and I in serious cases can have them arrested. Another rule; candidate representatives or signs representing any candidate aren't allowed within a certain distance of the polling station. This makes me wonder how the Conservative election worker could come that close to voters as Bob Rae and the Liberals allege in today's Toronto Star.
The scandal looks bad for Canadian politics in general, worse for the Conservative Party. If I were Harper, I'd appoint the most anti-Conservative judge I could find and call an Inquiry. I'd give him some teeth, and find a way to do it outside Ottawa in order to keep the political games to a minimum. If the worst is true of the party I would immediately call by-elections for all ridings affected.
This won't go away simply because Harper fired the person allegedly responsible, and kind of admitted he was wrong. This is our electoral system, and Harper is the guy in charge. He first needs to admit there is a serious problem here, and address it quickly. His political future could depend on it.
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Crown-First Nations Gathering
Yesterday,The First Nations People met with members of the government, including the Prime Minister, and Governor General in what was known as the Crown-First Nations Gathering or #CFNG as it was known on Twitter.
The day started out with speeches from both the Prime Minister and First Nations Assembly Grand Chief Shawn Atleo. I watched both speeches, and they felt like two parties at the start of a negotiation. The Prime Minister said they wouldn't repeal the Indian Act, but would find creative ways to work around it. The Grand Chief called the Indian Act an obstacle to prosperity; recalling images of a boulder on the highway.
At this point, it's safe to say everyone agrees the Indian Act has been doing more harm than good. In an ideal world, it would be gone, no matter what had to happen. In hindsight the Indian Act was an ignorant piece of legislation that paved the way for disastrous programs like the Residential schools, and in some ways the Reserve system itself. It broke the trust between the First Nations, and Europeans- a trust that is only in the early stages of being repaired.
But this isn't an ideal world. It's a lot messier than that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged that reality, when he referred to the Indian Act as a tree with deep roots that goes back through history. This legislation has behind it over 140 years (1876) of history, and traditions behind it. Breaking that is going to prove a huge challenge. And I don't think you can ignore it; I think they should at least acknowledge .
Not to mention what would happen to the amendments since that legislation was passed, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrined what rights granted to Natives under the Indian Act. I would imagine the constitution would likely have to be reopened, or amended to allow for the changes. At this point realistically repealing the Indian Act wouldn't work unless there was some kind of framework that could potentially replace it.
Harper's so-called "creative ideas" could turn into finding ways to help First Nations to form more partnerships such as those he described in his speech. Or it could be something like working with First Nations to reform the Reserve system; making sure all who live on Reserves enjoys the same living conditions as those who live off of them.
The tree that is the Indian Act can't be cut down yet. The thing about trees is they occasionally need pruning, and reshaping to allow for new growth; and that takes creativity and skill. It may take a while, but I think the Indian Act will in the long term will be repealed. I just think it's going take a lot of creativity and hard work before that can happen; and it may be a generation from now or more until it does.
The day started out with speeches from both the Prime Minister and First Nations Assembly Grand Chief Shawn Atleo. I watched both speeches, and they felt like two parties at the start of a negotiation. The Prime Minister said they wouldn't repeal the Indian Act, but would find creative ways to work around it. The Grand Chief called the Indian Act an obstacle to prosperity; recalling images of a boulder on the highway.
At this point, it's safe to say everyone agrees the Indian Act has been doing more harm than good. In an ideal world, it would be gone, no matter what had to happen. In hindsight the Indian Act was an ignorant piece of legislation that paved the way for disastrous programs like the Residential schools, and in some ways the Reserve system itself. It broke the trust between the First Nations, and Europeans- a trust that is only in the early stages of being repaired.
But this isn't an ideal world. It's a lot messier than that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged that reality, when he referred to the Indian Act as a tree with deep roots that goes back through history. This legislation has behind it over 140 years (1876) of history, and traditions behind it. Breaking that is going to prove a huge challenge. And I don't think you can ignore it; I think they should at least acknowledge .
Not to mention what would happen to the amendments since that legislation was passed, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrined what rights granted to Natives under the Indian Act. I would imagine the constitution would likely have to be reopened, or amended to allow for the changes. At this point realistically repealing the Indian Act wouldn't work unless there was some kind of framework that could potentially replace it.
Harper's so-called "creative ideas" could turn into finding ways to help First Nations to form more partnerships such as those he described in his speech. Or it could be something like working with First Nations to reform the Reserve system; making sure all who live on Reserves enjoys the same living conditions as those who live off of them.
The tree that is the Indian Act can't be cut down yet. The thing about trees is they occasionally need pruning, and reshaping to allow for new growth; and that takes creativity and skill. It may take a while, but I think the Indian Act will in the long term will be repealed. I just think it's going take a lot of creativity and hard work before that can happen; and it may be a generation from now or more until it does.
Monday, March 28, 2011
What about coalitions?
Here we are three days into an election campaign that nobody wants, and one that nobody will admit to causing. All parties are jumping on the idea of "coalition" as if it's a dirty word. Ignatieff is saying point-blank he isn't going to enter into one, and Harper is saying he's lying. Adding to the mix is the Bloc Québecois's Gilles Duceppe saying more or less that Harper's a hypocrite who would've entered into one with him, and Layton in 2004 to bring Martin down... and he has the letter to prove it.
I wonder though, what is so bad about a coalition? It seems to be a perfectly valid way of governing. Israel governs itself as a coalition. The United Kingdom- -the mother of all Parliamentary democracies is being governed right now by a coalition. In the United States, the Democratic President has to get along with Republican House to pass his agenda. everywhere governments have to get along with each other, so why not here?
This coalition idea has worked in the past. MacDonald had to work with Cartier. Pearson had to work with Diefenbaker, and Trudeau had to work with people to get his agenda passed too. Cooperation in this form is a proud Canadian tradition. In a way a coalition makes sense, is closer to what most Canadians believe- Liberal social beliefs with a Conservative way (smaller steps toward a larger vision) of getting there.
Whatever happens, the word is out there. Canadians are discussing the concept, and no accusations and arguments among the leaders is going take it out of the discussion. I think quite the opposite- if Harper and Ignatieff keep arguing about it, it could send voters running for a third or fourth choice. Let's change the channel and talk about something else.
I wonder though, what is so bad about a coalition? It seems to be a perfectly valid way of governing. Israel governs itself as a coalition. The United Kingdom- -the mother of all Parliamentary democracies is being governed right now by a coalition. In the United States, the Democratic President has to get along with Republican House to pass his agenda. everywhere governments have to get along with each other, so why not here?
This coalition idea has worked in the past. MacDonald had to work with Cartier. Pearson had to work with Diefenbaker, and Trudeau had to work with people to get his agenda passed too. Cooperation in this form is a proud Canadian tradition. In a way a coalition makes sense, is closer to what most Canadians believe- Liberal social beliefs with a Conservative way (smaller steps toward a larger vision) of getting there.
Whatever happens, the word is out there. Canadians are discussing the concept, and no accusations and arguments among the leaders is going take it out of the discussion. I think quite the opposite- if Harper and Ignatieff keep arguing about it, it could send voters running for a third or fourth choice. Let's change the channel and talk about something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)