Name Lloyd Sereda
Riding Foothills
Interests performing arts, heritage culture, systems / methods
Web site lloyd.sereda@gmail.com

My story

I am a retired interdisciplinary community developer with senior degrees and careers in public service, academe and consulting. I live on a country estate in the Foothills riding in south west Alberta.

Recent posts

  • # DefendingDemocracy:
    The price of meaningful participation in your governance has been hiked 27% from $1200 to $1500. If the young, the poor and otherwise marginalized found $1200 unaffordable, how does the $1500 help Canadians to begin to participate again? Big money was supposed to be barred from the process. Considering the HarperCon…[Read more]

    Vote
      6  
    • Another proposed change that hasn’t got much attention but should be a concern is the exemption of fundraising costs as an election expense.

      This will, no doubt, free-up lots of money for other campaign activities such as attack ads. It will also favour the large, mainstream parties such as ours, so I don’t expect to hear any of them…[Read more]

      Vote
        5  
      • I also have to wonder if it will not be that difficult to hide other legitmate expenses or costs under “fundraising”? This is the governing party that was convicted in the in and out scandal. I agree it will be tempting for the LPC to waive this through. We shouldn’t on principle – it will hurt smaller parties, including most likely the ndp. And…[Read more]

        Vote
          5  
        • I agree. We should oppose this. Ironic because a strong NDP benefits the Conservatives more than us as we’re competing with them for centre-left and urban votes. I also see it as a way of bringing alternate sources of money to bear. This government is desperate to stay in power. This move suggests they understand money is what it takes to…[Read more]

          Vote
            6  
          • My takeaway from this bill is mixed. OTOH it does deal with some of the more egregious areas of electoral fraudie., robo calls and vouching. I might even come around to the separation of powers since it might at least shut the tories up for a while, although i hate the idea of caving to their meme that ECs is a liberal tool -…[Read more]

            Vote
              2  
    • The strange part is that originally it was the Conservatives that lowered the contribution amount from $5000 to $1100 (then up to $1200). They did this at the time because they saw that the LPC had few donors but who were contributing the larger amount. The move was originally done to knee-cap us. Unfortunately for the CPC, the LPC got much better…[Read more]

      Vote
        6  
      • Further to your point, you’ll note there is zero attempt to lower the tax credit, which also rewards the party with the larger donors. A 75% write off[?] in some cases is an absolute scandal imo.

        Vote
          2  
    • How does raising the donation amount make elections fairer?

      How does taking the Commissioner of Elections and moving them under a government ministry (i.e. a buffer before parliament) make elections fairer?

      Why does it take 242 pages of legislation to address robo-calling and in-and-out scams? Could this be, once again, to limit meaningful…[Read more]

      Vote
        8  
      • Martin: I do not know the answers to your questions but I’m glad you’re asking them.

        Vote
          4  
      • Sure doesn’t help in the confidence department, with spin doctor, Pierre Poilievre as the lead government spokesmen on this!

        Vote
          4  
        • Poilievre is an idiot. At his news conference, he said the government believes the commissioner should be more neutral. “The referee should not be wearing a team jersey,” he said.

          He’s got it SO WRONG! Put that way, he is saying that the “teams” are the conservatives vs. Elections Canada. WRONG. If we want to pursue his silly little analogy…[Read more]

          Vote
            4  
          • Glad someone else thinks Poilievre is less, than any kind of MP.

            Actually, he has even lost Evan Solomon on P&P at times, with his outside the box description/explanation of issues. Very bizarre individual.
            Good liar though, thats how he got to be the Minister of “lets pull the wool over Canadians eyes”

            I guess that’s why SH put him in charge of…[Read more]

            Vote
              2  
      • http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/04/reform-elections-in-haste-repent-at-leisure/#comment-1231234237

        Well’s notes[even though in principle he likes the bill ] that there’s a disconnect as there nearly always is with what this govt says it for – Fair elections, open debate and scutiny – and what they actually do.

        Vote
          2  
        • Typical conservative strategy at work … create a massive bill that contains what (on the surface) appear to be some good ideas. BUT … bury in there some very questionable ideas that no one asked for e.g. Allow larger contributions – which has nothing to do with “fairness” and lots to do with which party will benefit the most and … Move the…[Read more]

          Vote
            3  
          • This bill is a poison pill, I’m sure of that. Even most commenters on the major newspaper web sites are not convinced of this. Some points which on the surface look like democracy but are designed to give a CON advantage:
            * Increasing the amount of money – currently they rely on fewer larger donors
            * Laws against robo-calls, impersonation and…[Read more]

            Vote
              5  
            • All excellent points Hugh. I would add Elizabeth May’s concerns about eliminating vouching … she said ”To improve voter turnout, we should repeal all the changes, including the photo ID requirement, that make it harder for young people, First Nations, the poor, and seniors to vote. We need better voter enumeration in advance. In Canada, our…[Read more]

              Vote
                3  
            • Hugh: Thanks for the summary. Fund raising costs exemption allow for a minimal efficiency in spending. It renders “in and out” not only legal but “nonourable”.

              Vote
                0  
    • Brent Rathgeber, M.P., has some useful (and more than a bit disturbing) things to say about how the Canada Elections Act treats Independents, like him: http://brentrathgeber.ca/fairness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/

      Vote
        4  
  • Too bad the HarperCons are uninterested in public administration; else they may have recognized an opportunity where they see a “drug threat” in J.T.’s marijuana initiative. To wit: 1. Tough on Crime: Crooks will be rendered unemployed and not able to collect E.I. 2. Health: Standard, wholesome, inspected product rather than “old fire water”…[Read more]

    Vote
      2  
    • If we can control alcohol and cigarettes, sort of, we can do the same for pot. There are so many benefits to ending the hypocrisy.

      Vote
        3  
      • With a little luck Patricia, we may have a bit less alcohol and tobacco and a bit more weed. Less harm, more benefit for more people. Real job creation and a product folks asked for, rather than had it imposed. We should be able to do better with marijuana because we cannot claim we did not know better.

        Vote
          -1  
  • Martha Hall Findlay has an excellent idea in her proposed day care initiative: It was developed by Mr. Dryden and received support from day care advocates (pre-election); it targets young middle class voters; it can improve the fiscal (including saving) position of the middle class; it provides an entree point for federal/provincial cooperation;…[Read more]

    Vote
      1  
    • Lloyd:
      There is no secret that Ontario cannot contemplate National Day Care.
      It would sound like Alberta has run into some problems that they will not be able to afford National Day Care.
      It seems very naive to introduce this into our platform for the 7th time when we have not got it off the ground in the past.

      In fact one of the reasons Harper…[Read more]

      Vote
        2  
      • Michael: I truly hope LPC is still a party of free speech and you are free to ”speech” freely. I know Ms. Findlay researched the issue and I certainly know the leadership of the advocacy for day care. I published a thesis titled ”Day Care effects; A retrospective Study” (U/A) and you have some authority for your position I’m sure. Perhaps you can…[Read more]

        Vote
          1  
        • Lloyd:
          If you have researched this issue then how much does it cost for each province and have they agreed to pay for it?

          There were also some special problems with providing Day Care for the FNs.

          Was that all worked out in your thesis?

          Vote
            0  
          • Michael: The provinces already know how much it costs because, contrary to your suggestion, they all signed on to it, save Quebec. Quebec, had its own program, but if there was federal money in support of this initiative, Quebec could participate as could Ontario in support of industrial activity there. Please reread the benefits in my post,…[Read more]

            Vote
              0  
            • Lloyd:
              I know for one that Ontario has not signed on because they are broke.

              If the other provinces have signed on then why haven’t they got it going?

              The Federal Government is not involved, they can start on their own. So why haven’t they?

              Vote
                0  
          • Michael: My thesis demonstrates my relationship to the day care community: Though it was an evaluative study of a real program, its raison d’etre was to improve the way we measure results. It had no direct connection to federal programming, though it did anticipate a need to consistently measure results, ergo, results based. But should you have…[Read more]

            Vote
              1  
            • Lloyd:
              I can’t seem to find your comment on this web site, so I am repeating it here.

              “I checked with the local day care advocacy and my source and the answer is Ontario was a signatory. Harper cancelled the program on dogma grounds, and as a hidden “spending cut”. It is not in the national interest to not involve the federal government in…[Read more]

              Vote
                0  
              • Michael: The difficulty with what you say on this site, (e.g. )” I am guessing it died because he could not get the provinces on board.” That is two slanderous falsehoods attacking LPC and principled members like Mr. Dryden. It is a matter of public record supported by links that 1. The program did not die, it was terminated by the HarperCons. 2.…[Read more]

                Vote
                  1  
                • Lloyd:
                  Jean Chretien had a majority. I don’t see how the neocons could overrule a majority government.

                  Vote
                    0  
                  • Michael: The program in question was a Dryden program, with Martin as PM. The program was fully provinced save Quebec, for fairly obvious reasons, viz. to attract and keep labour. Standardising is a federal jurisdiction as in the case of health, transportation, etc., Charter supported. HarperCons inherited the program and terminated it…[Read more]

                    Vote
                      3  
                    • Lloyd:
                      Sorry, I did not provide links because I thought you were familiar with the history of National Day Care by the Liberal Party.

                      Jean Chretien proposed this in 1993 but tied it to economic growth. He also ran into problems because the provinces did not want to match the payments.

                      There is no mention of the neo cons until later.

                      Hope this…[Read more]

                      Vote
                        1  
                      • Day care advocacy and I have the history, Your link is a cbc editorial. You need to respond to my sources before I bother wasting any more of my time on you. The object is to attract voters, not alienate them.

                        Vote
                          1  
                        • Lloyd:
                          I checked the Day Care Advocacy Web site and can find noting about the Liberal Platform in 1993.

                          If you have a different understanding of the history, that’s fine. I lived through it and I guess you can discard that too.

                          Good luck with explaining this to others and getting the provinces on board.

                          Vote
                            0  
    • Lloyd, could you provide a link to Martha Hall Findlay’s proposed daycare iniative – I am having dificulty locating information regarding it. Thanks.

      Vote
        0  
    • Lloyd,
      Thanks for bringing this policy topic up. I am glad Martha Hall-Findlay is supportive. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce (CCC) is on board with the personal, social and economic benefits a national child care program would bring. The CCC advised government that a publicly funded child care system is key to Canada’s economic recovery.…[Read more]

      Vote
        4  
      • Thanks Peter: I appreciate your link and the notion that we are recognizing a very old principle; something about an ounce of prevention being worth megatons of jails. We are talking about a much overdue investment. In turn, I will soon leave a (I hope, coherent/cincise) summary with numerous links backgrounding the issue and highlighting some of…[Read more]

        Vote
          2  
        • Lloyd, I look forward to your further evidence in substantiating this policy position. There was a longitudinal study done in the U.S. that tracked a group of disadvantaged children that had access to such top quality child care during the first few years of life. Although, I cannot find the study right now, I know it is out there. …[Read more]

          Vote
            3  
          • Thanks again Peter: In particular, for the news re. longitudinal study results. Corelational studies are easier to do but less consistent and less reliable. My own study was a retrospective one. At the time it was one of 4 in a literature of thousands. You will find in my additional bibliography that quality of care is the most important…[Read more]

            Vote
              0  
    • I was referring to the costs stated in those reports. The $11 B per year is if all provinces participated.

      Vote
        1  
    • I will post the entire backgrounder ASAP. Cost is complete at $11 Bil. but it will be (at least it should be) allocated by beneficiaries.
      In the meantime, please read how benefits are determined. Peter Skipper’s linc (above http://www.chamber.ca/ … etc. above is a good one). Frankly, if the LPC. skews benefits in favour of the young middle…[Read more]

      Vote
        -1  
    • #nationalchildcare
      I agree Mike. Provincial politicians would LIKE to be able to provide universal child-care programs. IF they received sufficient transfers from the federal government for it, they would. BUT that isn’t the case and won’t be in the foreseeable future … so provinces are NOT going to commit funds to such programs on their own…[Read more]

      Vote
        1  
    • Peter: I’ve done my best with the child care backgrounder. Please review and comment:

      Vote
        -1  
    • The usual saw is to trivialize an initiative that deals with national administration but does not increase the profit of the 1%. Child day care is trivia proof because UNICEF rated 25 industrialized countries for child care adequacy and Canada was tied for last place. Even the US was ahead. To understand this issue scan this item and note the one…[Read more]

      Vote
        2  
    • Michael: Personally, I’ve never known any mothers who *don’t* work — whether it be in the home or in the paid workforce.

      Vote
        3  
    • Roy: The low wage policies and the policies related to revenue driven deficits, along with cost of living side effects driven by consumption patterns of the newly rich and imported rich make it necessary for families to have multiple earners. Their offspring might want to leave this vicious circle but without a good grounding of quality care, they…[Read more]

      Vote
        -1  
    • Universal, affordable, accessible high quality child care is a benefit to the country rather than a cost. There is enough research to support this. Liberals need to be forward thinkers, using educated, open minds to improve the country not biased, conservative perspectives. In fact, the economic benefit to the country is between 2 to 7 times the…[Read more]

      Vote
        3  
    • Cheryll: I stand corrected. The benefit-cost fraction is in effect a range $2vs$1 to $7vs$1. My only excuse is some folk do not include value of work of stay-at-homers in calculations, claiming it too difficult to calculate. Having been a stay-at-home parent, I suggest they use median of top earning CEO-s and have said CEO pay it.

      Vote
        2  
    • Douglas: You have not responded to my summary post, hence, I’m compelled to clear up some misconceptions you left behind: 1. No one confused “kiddy warehouse care” for quality day care, however labeled. Quality care conforms to national versions of the standards described in OECD source rating Canada’s child care quality as tied for last of 24…[Read more]

      Vote
        2  
  • #nationalchilcare: Some folks would have us believe that deficits preclude us from doing anything to recover, that national administrations cannot invest in necessary programs that give decent returns, because they invested in ones that caused deficits. However, enterprising folks work, plan, propose and supply responsible benefit/cost estimates…[Read more]

    Vote
      2