I’ve been watching over the past few weeks as some of the Conservative backbenchers have finally broken the wall of compliance with the Prime Minister’s Office and stood up to speak up on behalf of their constituents. I’ve wondered how long elected MPs would continue to behave like a troupe of marionettes being controlled by the minions in the PM’s Office. It has taken far too long, but thankfully, human spirit is beginning to emerge.

The break in the wall of compliance started with some backbenchers wanting to bring forth the long dead abortion issue. Personally, the issue needs to remain dead but if it serves as a catalyst to re-assert freedom of speech into our House of Commons, then so be it. While the Conservatives are not the only party to attempt to assert party discipline on the freedom of speech of the elected parliamentarians, Harper and his minions have taken it to an all new level.

It’s a trend that I hope continues on both sides of the house. Some lively, honest debate on the legislation which is destined to govern our lives is long overdue. The National Post carries an interview today with Brent Rathgeber about his becoming one of the 10 MPs who have stood up to the PMO in defense of their right to speak up and represent their constituents.

The people and the media need to take some responsibility for the trend towards the stifling of honest debate and the rise of partisan sniping that dominates Question Period these days. Instead of developing a culture that holds the individual MPs to account for their stands on issues, we have been conditioned, largely by the media and then reinforced by political parties to associate the party’s position with the individual.

The party’s official position comes from their policy conventions and is delivered through their leadership. That is not to say that every member of the party is going to agree. If that was the case, people who vote one way would never consider another way and only new voters would ever decide the outcome of elections.

There could be hope for democracy in Canada. I have to admit that it’s a bit stunning it is coming from the Conservative side of the house but I’ll take hope where it can be found. God Bless Canada.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

I grew up watching CTV news and Mike Duffy was one of the reporters I regularly watched. How often have I observed his skepticism over politicians and their pork barrel conduct on the public dime. It seems that now Duffy is receiving that public dime, he is just as inclined to take as the ones he’s scorned in the past.

After weeks of media members trying to get some answers from Duffy on the question of his claimed living expenses and where he actually does reside, he finally has decided that maybe, just maybe he ‘made a mistake’ claiming the expenses he did. He claims that when completing the annual declaration on residency it is confusing and not clear on where he should claim his place of primary residency.

It seems that there is a couple of standards being used here to determine eligibility for the seat in the Senate and another for living expenses related to that appointment.

To be appointed to the Senate the constitution requires residency in the area the Senator is to represent and ownership of property with the value of $4,000. Yes the value is pretty antiquated but the principle remains, you need to own real estate in the area. Actually being resident in the area, well in our mobile society, residency can take on several shades of grey.

For most people, our roots are where we were born and raised. We may even deliberately retain those roots by owning property of some description that allows us to return to those roots on a regular basis. All too often, the ability to make a living means we have to be on the move, away from where our roots are to other areas of the country or for that matter the world.

When it comes to the living expenses the Senator is able to claim, to me, it becomes a matter of integrity. The rules allow that if the Senator’s primary residence is more than 100km from the National Capital Region then the Senator may claim up to $22,000 in travel expenses. This is a fair and for the most part reasonable allowance for someone who is coming from the region they are to represent and needs to establish a living arrangement in the National Capital Region in order to attend to their duties as Senators.

When a Senator already has a residence in the National Capital Region and in particular if that person has been known to be using that residence on a regular basis prior to the appointment to the Senate, he should be declaring himself ineligible for the travel allowance. That speaks to integrity. I know, something in short supply in that bubble called Ottawa.

So, to me if someone like Mike Duffy has a residence in the region he represents, and spends at least a portion of the year in that area, he should be considered to be resident in the region for the purposes of being appointed to the Senate. Since integrity is in short supply, there likely needs to be some rules laid out on what a portion of the year means. Let’s get really radical here, maybe if the perspective Senator isn’t a full time resident of the region the provincial government should be consulted to determine if they even agree that the candidate could in fact represent the region.

The purpose of the Senate is to be a chamber of sober second thought on the legislation that the House of Commons passes. It has become a place of political appointments by the government in office and has become an extension of the House. An elected senate wont solve that problem. It will mean that two branches of government will be lying errr … vying for the public vote.

Reform is needed, there is no question on that, the question is how to bring it back to its roots and make it truly a chamber of sober second thought that serves the people. Come to think of it, the House of Commons needs the same question asked.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

Kathleen Wynne and Sandra Pupatello went into the convention closely contending for first place. I’ll confess, I didn’t know a lot about either woman having not paid a lot of attention to the race for Liberal leader. I had to some extent tuned out to most of the campaign as I had other things in my life to take up my attention. However, Saturday, I took a much harder look at the situation knowing that the person who emerged at the end of the day would be premier of this province. I took some time to do some reading on the background of the two women.

I liked aspects of both of them. I think they are both strong women who have grown to become the women they are today. They are both leaders, both willing to take on a fight and carry it through, both able to engage with others. I can relate to the scrappy nature of Pupatello, it’s my first instinct in many ways. I’ve learned as much as my instinct is often to hell with the outcome, man the barricades and game on…. most times a less combative way of getting results is a lot more productive. Save the big stick for an end game, not the first round.

It is in that understanding that I found myself drawn to see Wynne as the more likely winner. Her activist background shows she can scrap with the best of them but she first tries the less combative approaches before resorting to the big stick. Right now, Ontario needs a lot less combative approach. One thing that still remains to be seen is if she will have the courage to look into the issues that have cast dark shadows on the conduct of the Liberal government and cast light on the dirt that most Ontarians are tired of seeing.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the teachers cries of foul in having contracts imposed. Keep in mind, this is not all teachers and educational support workers, many had settled their contracts in a pragmatic manner knowing that Ontario has a deficit to wrestle to the ground and that they have enjoyed as much as 25% increases in their income over the last several years. Something few Ontarians were able to enjoy. However, having said that, I’m not convinced it was necessary to be as combative as the government appeared to be in how they got the needed contracts in place.

As far as Wynne being gay goes, I never asked about what McGuinty or any other political leader does in the privacy of the boudoir, so why exactly should I care what she does? I’ve already heard comments in my circle of friends and acquaintances condemning her as our Premier because she is gay. Sadly it says more about the person making the comment, than about Wynne. If that is all they can come up with to convince me she wont make a good Premier, it’s pretty slim.

There are much bigger fish to fry in this province.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

While several unions have seen the writing on the wall and accepted the changes, others held out. The provincial legislature brought forth Bill 115 which would give the government the authority to impose a contract where a collective agreement could not be reached with the respective unions. This happened in September and by January, the Ministry of Education imposed a contract on the holdout unions.

The unions knew this was coming, they reacted by withdrawing extracurricular activities for the kids. So, the kids were to once again pay the price for teachers being unhappy with their employer. This isn’t new, I’m in my 50s and it was happening when I was in school. They also staged a one day protest in December when they were still without a contract, that was legitimate and legal.

They are claiming that it isn’t about the money, it’s about Bill 115. They claim that Bill 115 is unconstitutional and as such should be struck down and the contracts made invalid. They may be right. That would be a decision that would need to come from the courts where civilized people normally take grievances like this.

The union’s planned walkout tomorrow when a contract is in place is illegal. Some are arguing that since it is not a collective agreement then there is not a contract. Well until the courts support the union’s argument that the bill is unconstitutional, it is the law and the contract has been legally put into place.

Note, I’m referring to the teacher’s unions here. I am not making blanket statements about the teachers of this province. Yes, they do belong to those unions and theoretically are the driving force behind the decisions made to boycott extracurricular activities and to stage the walkouts. The fact is that only a portion of the teachers are involved in these decisions and often they are the teachers most pro-union, those who are not in agreement being all too often shouted down.

There are teachers who just want to teach their kids, to work with them on those extra activities that can make such a difference in their student’s lives. Yes, they are not particularly happy about what the government is doing, they also aren’t very happy with what the union is doing. They don’t want it taken out on the kids. I applaud those teachers and would surely love to hear them speak up. The problem is that those who have indicated they are not in agreement and just want to get on with working with their students are being given a very clear message, toe the line or face consequences.

The teachers are parents and taxpayers. They know that in the last several years they have enjoyed increases in their income while the parents of many of their students have lost good paying jobs and were unable to replace them. The lack of being able to find equivalent income also means the government receives less tax revenue while needs continue to grow. Something has to give.

The teachers are not alone among public servants facing pay freezes. Their unions need to deal with the issue like adults and take the government to court to get a ruling instead of trying to bully the government and the people of this province (which includes the teachers they are supposed to represent) into giving in to their demands from the street. In other words, grow up and set an example to the children you teach.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

However, this audit, regardless of timing , needs to be paid attention to as well. Not in order to discredit the protest by Theresa Spence or the Idle No More movement. She does need to respond to the audit and move to correct the very serious errors being made in managing the community she has stewardship of.

While she’s wanting to call the government to account, she needs to be accountable for her part in the care of the Attawapiskat community. Even in the most careful operation, some supporting documentation can go astray but 81% of audited transactions lacking supporting documents is inexcusable.

It raises some very serious questions about how the money was used. Appropriate documentation of expenditures not only keeps the air clear but can serve to demonstrate just how effective the support sent to the reserve is or is not. The community has the right to know, the government has the right to know and so do the public.

That doesn’t let the government off the hook for their actions, nor does it make the concerns of our First Nations any less important. Let’s keep things in perspective here, the problems go deeper than housing on a remote reserve.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings the NRA kept its head down and out of the limelight. Not a bad move for an organization which encourages the proliferation of guns in American society. Guns are deeply entrenched in American culture, 88 out of every 100 Americans own at least one gun. As we learned in Newtown, some own small arsenal of often powerful weapons.

The NRA keeping it’s silence didn’t last long enough on this. On Friday their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, called for armed guards in every school. In his world, he thinks bad guys with guns can be stopped by good guys with guns. So, let’s just arm a few thousand more people. When you start expanding the number of people with guns, you create another pool of people who could potentially become ‘the bad guy with guns’.

I’ll give him credit for one thing, he has a point about the level of violence on TV and in video games that young people access. That does need to be addressed in some manner, but he needed to also admit, the proliferation of weapons of all types in the culture has contributed to the escalating level of violence. One feeds the other.

The way society deals with mental health issues also needs to be addressed. There are no simple answers how to do this but it is becoming increasingly clear that the current ways are not working and that is not just an American issue. In the name of human rights and dignity, not to mention cost savings, the asylums of old were closed turning many mentally ill people into the streets or left them dependent on others.

The vast majority of these individuals are no harm to anyone but themselves. They manage to find their way through life at some level without being a threat to anyone. Then there are those, like Adam Lanza, who are a time bomb waiting to happen. In his case, his mother contributed to not only her death but 26 other innocents through her gun ownership. It wasn’t intentional on her part, her desire to teach her mentally ill son ‘responsibility’ through gun use turned out to be tragically irresponsible.

So what is the answer(s)? They are many and varied. The one guarantee for failure is to not even try to arrive at a solution. The surviving children of Newtown (and everywhere else) deserve to feel safe without being under the shadow of more guns to remind them how their friends died.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

The Conservatives are responding in usual form by attempting to discredit the litigants and their supporters in an effort to have the case thrown out. The Conservatives are not actually claiming the calls were not made, they are trying to claim they a) were not made by the Conservative campaign and b) didn’t influence the outcome of the election.

The investigation by Elections Canada into thousands of complaints across the country at this point hasn’t nailed down the definitive source of the calls but there seems to be a lot of clues pointing towards the Conservatives. I find it interesting that the media outlet following this matter most closely is the National Post, an outlet I find tends to lean towards the conservative viewpoint. They are not defending the Cons, they are bringing the details to light.  I for one find them very disturbing.

In a report this past weekend, they report on the experiences of one of the litigants in the case before the court. The wife received a call for her spouse a few days before election day, reportedly from the Conservative party. Since her spouse was resting, she was asked if she was a Conservative supporter. Her response was an emphatic no. On election day she received another call with the caller claiming to be from Elections Canada telling her that her poll had been moved. She knew this to be false as it was right near her home and they had just voted.

Other reports have detailed how people were complaining to Elections Canada about a wide range of calls seemingly targeted at supporters of other parties. Elections Canada contacted the lawyer for the Conservatives raising concerns about the reports and received denial and evasion in return. The calls amount to voter suppression, efforts to divert people from exercising their democratic right to vote in a free and open democracy.

The Conservative party, which now forms the government, should have and still should setup an unfettered inquiry into what went on and by who. It should not be left up to citizens to have to use the court system to try to get at the truth. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that the Conservative party, or any of the parties, were not involved in this then the tainted elections should be allowed to stand and those responsible should be facing some serious prison time for their attack on democracy in this country.

If any political party was involved, then those responsible should be facing prison and the ridings where this took place should be holding by-elections. If need be, the calling of a general election should not be ruled out.

I know, some could argue that even if political parties were not involved in this, by-elections should still be held. To some degree, I agree with that argument. However, in a time of financial restraint, the cost of elections caused by the criminal actions of others compounds the crime. If a political  party wasn’t involved then there was no intent to suppress on their part and they should not have to pay the price.

Whoever the guilty party is, their actions amount to terrorism. When we stand by while our rights and freedoms are chipped away, we surrender our democracy to those who crave power for the sake of power and control. Nothing is more basic in a democracy than the right to vote. Choosing not to exercise that right is one matter, having it subverted is another matter.

All Canadians should be deeply troubled when democracy is thwarted.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

Some have called the decision undemocratic because a judge is able to overturn the vote of the people. Some have said the punishment is greater than the transgression. Ford continues to delude himself this is about him raising money for kids and nothing should be wrong with that. He hasn’t admitted to the conflict but then he is planning an appeal of the decision to try to save his sorry butt from being booted.

I think Justice Hackland and the law got it right on all points in this case.

On the face of it, one could try to argue that a judge should not be able to overturn a democratic election over what would seem a trivial matter on the surface. Yes, the people of Toronto elected Rob Ford. They elected him because the majority of those who voted believed he was going to clean up City Hall and reign in spending. They elected someone who they believed would behave in a responsible and dignified manner.

What they got was someone who appears to lack the basic level of knowledge and intelligence to be the CEO of a world class city. He admitted in court that even though he had at least four times received the guidelines that all Councillors are expected to conduct themselves by, he had not once bothered to even look at them, let alone read them.

Even without having read them, it takes only a basic moral compass to understand that you neither become part of the debate or the vote on your own conduct when in a position of trust and responsibility. It would be one thing for him to ask leave of council to speak in his own defense and then excuse himself from the meeting for the matter to be dealt with. Had he done that most basic action, none of this would have taken place. Actually, it could be backed up even further. If he had respected the ruling of the integrity commissioner in the first place, the infamous council meeting would not have happened.

His conduct was but one of a string of buffoonery he’s engaged in since being elected. It was the straw that was able to break the proverbial back through a citizen taking action to call him to account for his conduct using the only route available, the courts and the law. The voters don’t have an option to redo an election until four years has passed.

When the the people can’t speak for themselves, the court and the judiciary is their next line of defense. Justice Hackland carried out that duty. That is democracy. Was the proscribed punishment greater than the crime? I don’t think so. It doesn’t matter whether it was a matter of conflict involving $3,000 or $3,000,000, it’s the failure to act with integrity and responsibility that creates a conflict and the result needs to be removal.

The law already allows for someone to make an inadvertent error and not be found in conflict. Ford made the error through arrogance that he believed he knew what he had to know and failure to educate himself by reading the material given to him that should have informed his conduct. Once told by the integrity commissioner he had shown an error in judgement by using city resources for his personal project he still failed to properly educate himself and proceeded to then take part in the process that decided the outcome of the first wrongdoing, thus creating a second wrongdoing.

He’s made his bed and now needs to lie in it.

Now what we really need, is a law to deal with a real problem, like removing/suspending a Mayor who has been charged with a criminal offense from office. You know, Joe Fontano in London, who continues to hold his job after being charged. Seems the conflict of interest act has it right, now let’s get the rest of it right.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it