We’re getting one challenge after another.
Our former Parliamentary colleague Borys Wrzesnewskyj did his best to fight for fair and honest elections with his case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And now we learn of serious allegations involving Conservative Cabinet Minister Peter Penashue’s 2011 election campaign in Labrador – more stories in the news of massive spending beyond the legal limit, illegal corporate contribution and interest-free loans.
If true, this is a clear case of breaking the law.
And at this very minute, we have three by-elections being waged in Durham, Calgary-Centre and Victoria.
The only way to combat all this is to have fully funded by-election campaigns so our candidates Grant Humes, Harvey Locke and Paul Summerville can advocate for true democracy and transparency in Parliament.
Since we’re highlighting Stephen Harper’s mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, I’m asking you for $16 – that could be just $4 after your tax credit and that represents one glass of Conservatives’ $16 orange juice – to our Do It For Democracy Campaign so we can raise $150,000 by midnight Tuesday, October 30 and help our Party get Liberal MPs elected to Parliament.
Click here to donate $16 using our pre-filled form. You may also call our toll free donation hotline or contribute by mail. Our phone number and address are both listed below.
Our focus must be on the new challenge in front of us: the three by-elections taking place on Monday, November 26.
To the 383 Canadians that have already generously contributed $16,791 to our campaign, we thank you. But let’s not kid ourselves, the other parties are not going to sit back and watch.
With the help of our hundreds of campaign volunteers, including a large number of young Liberals, we are in a position to expand our operation and reach thousands more voters each night.
But we can’t do it without your support. Our candidates are counting on Liberals like you.
You may also call 1-800-701-7789 (Mon-Fri, 9am to 5pm ET) to donate by phone, or mail a cheque payable to “Liberal Party of Canada”, noting the Do It For Democracy Campaign, to the following address:
Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalfe Street, Suite 600
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6M8
Thank you.
Ralph Goodale
MP, Wascana
Deputy Leader
“The only way to combat all this is to have fully funded by-election campaigns …”
This is a great reason to bring back per-vote election campaign subsidy introduced by Jean Chretien. It was one of the most honest forms of party financing, and the least likely to be corrupted. It should be part of any election funding mix.
It never has been stated for the record. Did Borys lose his fight for justice? I was disallowed a question by being ignored by the President of the Toronto area Liberal gathering for elections of some officials at the library when Borys spoke about the matter.
My question to Borys was going to be: Can the Supreme Court ignore injustice? As there was tone of uncertainity that appear to hang in the air. The laws were never intended to address this kind of issue from what I understood of the matter.
I still don’t know the answer.
What happened? All I can sense is that the decision did not go in favour of Borys.
Agree with Ray. There must be some controls on who can influence our Government as money from certain segments of our society should not be allowed to influence a Government towards their needs.
My question is: where is all the money we donated for Borys’s campaign going? Right into the fund-raising for the 3 by-elections that are actually going forward? I hope so!!
By the way, I thought Borys was very upbeat when he spoke on Power & Politics on the day of the the Supreme court decision. He’s a good man who has been treated unfairly but he is very philosophical about it. And he WILL run in the next federal election when the CPC gets the boot!
Also by the way, for those who are not aware, the decision by the SCC was carried narrowly by the conservative judges named to the Supreme Ct by Harper, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong).
It appears that supreme court has been politicized?
Not true, I don’t think. Two of the four majority votes came from Justices appointed by Liberal PM’s – the other two from conservative.
Just a thought! Harper chose someone who would enhance conservative agenda, while liberals went for the objective competence in their appointment process.
I think Vic Toews is an example. He is scheduled to become a judge as I understand it. He is strongly proconservative.
Not sure what century this guy comes from though! I must admit I find him to be an old fashioned tyrant. In any case that is my opinion.
Not everything is a matter of political partisanship and not everything is about “us” vs. “them”. You walk a fine line when you begin to accuse the highest court in our land of being politicized and I recommend giving it some additional thought and research, and exercising some caution and restraint in doing so.
The Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are all dedicated men and women who have proven themselves, over time, and to the satisfaction of their peers, as being both extremely capable and specifically, non-partisan.
The Supreme Court (as any court) does not make law, they interpret existing law and they adjudicate conflicts between opposing laws. This does not allow much room for partisanship. All their rulings and opinions are analyzed to the extreme by every legal mind in the country – partisanship or bias would become apparent quickly and these Justices would lose what is probably the most important thing to them – the respect of their peers.
One of the main reasons that we do not “elect” Judges in Canada is to avoid the party politics and partisanship inherent in all election processes. These men and women are beholden to no one, do not have to justify themselves to anyone, do not need to stand for “re-election” and are therefore able to make decisions without political influence. It has been suggested that there should be more parliamentary review in the selection process – but I fail to see how that would improve anything – I don’t think we have now, or have ever had, a problem with our Supreme Court appointees. My opinion.
As far as this particular case is concerned, it is important to remember what it was about and who the parties involved were. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj did not take Mr. Opitz to court and no accusations of wrongdoing were levelled against Mr. Opitz in this case. The question was whether mistakes made by Elections Canada officials were “enough” to overturn the election results. Three Justices felt that the lower court had correctly interpreted the laws and that a certain number of votes should therefore be disqualified. The majority of four (2 appointed by Liberal PMs) ruled that not enough votes could be disqualified to have made a difference in the result. I personally do not believe for one second that this ruling would have been any different had Mr. Wrzesnewskyj won by 26 votes and Mr. Opitz had challenged the result. The ruling simply does not allow for any partisan interference or interpretation.
Regarding your statement that ” … Harper chose someone who would enhance conservative agenda … ” , Mr. Harper has appointed 5 Judges to the Supreme Court. As you do not mention any names, it is difficult to comment on this accusation. The most recent appointment (who did not rule on this appeal) was Justice Richard Wagner. At his “vetting” before an all-party HoC committee the only negative thing anyone had to say about him came from the NDP (Francoise Boivin) who said “Well, you’re not a woman and I can’t blame you for that.”. As far as the other four, I strongly urge you to investigate these fine Canadians before throwing any dirt. I think you will find that they are all highly respected legal minds with very little political baggage.
And finally with reference to Mr. Toews … I have no idea where you are getting your information from that Mr. Toews is “scheduled” to become a judge. There was a rumour before the last cabinet moves that he may be in line for a position on the Manitoba Court of Appeals but I don’t think it has ever been suggested that Mr. Toews is in line for a Supreme Court position, and I personally think it unlikely he will even make it to the lower court. It is extremely rare, these days, to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who has never sat as a Justice of a lower court or held a senior position in the legal world (e.g. Justice Louis-Philippe de Grandpré who had been the President of the Canadian Bar Association) although Mr. Chrétien did appoint a “lawyer” in 1998 as did Mr. Mulroney in 1988.
So, Mr. Toews lack of prior experience as a senior Jurist, coupled with his conviction in 2005 of overspending in breach of election laws and tied to his extremely low approval rating for his work in government would obviously make him a poor choice and a difficult sell to Canadians – there is no upside to Mr. Harper to pursue something as unpalatable to the electorate. I wouldn’t worry about it.
Yes Keshav, you are entitled to your opinions. But please, tread carefully – as I said … not everything is “us” against “them”.
Martin;
While your reply is full of good thought I think you might be over reacting to my questions about the potential of bias in supreme court. The other question: Can a supreme court ignore injustice? I don’t know if that question was answered in the supreme court decision. My thinking is that it was not based on what I have heard how the electioneering was conducted and what the election law and rules are. Intimidation and harassment of voters is not a good enough case to annul an election under the current laws of the land according to my understanding. No one ever expected that such would ever happen during elections in Canada. People were afraid to vote as a result and did not vote. Apparently if a vote is cast it is considered legit. If someone was prevented from voting by tactics which we ‘know’ occured that apparently is not a strong evidence and due or sufficient cause to annul an election result under the law. Once again I have not seen the supreme court decision. I don’t know the facts of the case. I don’t know the law. So my judgement is based on common understanding of the issues based on hearsay and impressions.
I very clearly had heard in the news about Vic Toews slated to get that judicial appointment as he was qualified under the rules. So clearly there is an update to that news according to you.
It is not unusual for a politcally appointed attorney general to get a significant judicial position on the bench from what I seem to know. The fact that all judges in the supreme court came to the same conclusion and were differeing in their opinions shows to me that there is a degree of subjectiveness involved in judgements of a court. Do the judges have different values so as to come to differ in conclusions and judgement?
I don’t know how judges are selected. If I were a conservative then I would pick someone who thinks like me. In the US supreme court it is supposed to be the case. Republicans appointed conservative judges in the supreme court according to what I know. It lead to changes in decisions and judgements.
I am not sure if we can answer such questions in a knee jerk fashion. It has to be studied carefully. By the way don’t let the first sentence in the para imply that I am suggesting anything about your statements! But I would like to see an independent and objective answer by an expert panel. Unless this has been done already and I am not aware of.
I am simply giving my impressions and asking questions. That is the reason for this forum. people can clarify if they have information to the contrary!
” If I were a conservative then I would pick someone who thinks like me. In the US supreme court it is supposed to be the case. Republicans appointed conservative judges in the supreme court according to what I know. It lead to changes in decisions and judgements.”
The media isn’t always impartial. You may have read the above in a Republican leaning media outlet. When Chief Justice John G. Roberts was appointed to the Court by GDubya, the media made a lot of noise about his political views (mostly to the right)… wishful thinking on their part and also a bit of subliminal brainwashing of the public. BUT, that’s not how he has ruled on significant cases. As Martin said, Supreme Court judges tend to be neutral. And Justice Roberts has shown himself to be just that.
I don’t know the truth.
U.S Supreme court has changed its stance on things such as capital punishment. It has back tracked on miranda ruling to an extent. So the judgments do change! These were based on Supreme court appointments made by the conservative administrations according to what I know.
So the only way to determine facts from fiction is to have an unbiased examination of the issues.
We must separate fact from opinion.
We all do have opinions.
The supreme court today does not usually represent the people as those appointed come from political parties that have their own agendas and it depends wholly who is in power at the time of appointment. To have a true representation of the people would require that the people vote for each appointment and that is very unlikely to happen.
Sorry, John but I have to strenuously disagree. The very nature of any electoral process requires partisanship and party politics. Elected judges would be far more beholden to those parties that nominated them, paid for their campaigns and got them elected, than with our current system. The only thing worse would be if they were elected to fixed terms and had to run for re-election … then we would truly have a politicized court.
Our judges are mostly bound by their deep respect for the law and by the desire for the respect of their peers. They can rule however they want and no party can interfere or threaten to remove them from the bench.
Of course each judge, as all people, have their own beliefs and ideology, but mostly it is kept out of their rulings. Sometimes the court may lean a little left and sometimes a little right, but I think it is well balanced.
I just don’t see how electing judges would help anything … how does that remove any partisanship or bias?
I think the system we have works
Martin, I tend to agree that has happened in the past but times have changed. For example just look at what Harper has done with his appointments to the Senate, either do what I say or you are gone. Now that is not the supreme court today but it can be the future unless there are some controls of what parameters one must follow.
How we ensure that a leader can not circumvent what citizens desire is the question. We all at one time thought our senators who were supposedly appointed for life would represent our interests also.
” For example just look at what Harper has done with his appointments to the Senate, either do what I say or you are gone.”
Do you have a specific example John where Mr. Harper has actually carried out his words? This is news to me.
Published by “CARP”, the Canadian Association of Retired People.
“The prime minister says the new senators are pledged to support his government’s efforts to reform the Senate, including term limits.”
From my perspective, Harper has required these Senators to do as he has instructed them to do. When it stated “his” I assume it was he, Stephen Harper, controlling that statement, not the Conservative Party.
Thx for the quote from CARP John.
Do you think this sort of control is unique to Mr. Harper?
Braun:
The conditions for employment thru appointment were stated by the Prime Minister himself. I think this was unique unless someone can point to the contrary. But now they have been appointed one Mr Duffy is supposed to be spending lot of tax payers money to do his job. He was the one so vocal about liberal governments being what they are in wasting money and spending on frivolties. I think that makes him a hypocrite.
Chandra: I have always voted Liberal. I consider myself a Liberal.
However, I don’t wear rose coloured glasses all the time. :-))
How easily Liberals and all politicians forget about scandels – “The sponsorship scandal, “AdScam”, “Sponsorship” or Sponsorgate”.
Current Liberal Senator Art Eggleton was not scandel free when in the caucus – “Eggleton was fired from the cabinet in May 2002, after he had hired his former girlfriend to do some research, creating an uproar over non-tendered contracts and Liberal conflict-of-interest scandals.”
Wolfgang,
Yes I do believe most of this relates to Harper himself, however it has carried forward to the Conservative elected members of Parliament who are also by association part of the problem. We no longer can even trust them to represent their constituents as they cannot even stand up to HARPER.
This is why it is so important for Canada to have the Conservative Party removed as a majority. We do not want or especially need an absolute ruler directing our country. Canada is not a plaything for Mr. Harper, it is for Canadian citizens.
What other country or even a prime minister would allow the banking system to control their own Destiny? It is just amazing at what this individual has been able to do, and all with the help of Conservative members of Parliament elected (sometimes illegally) to our Government.
” the Conservative elected members of Parliament who are also by association part of the problem. We no longer can even trust them to represent their constituents as they cannot even stand up to HARPER. ”
John, I don’t disagree with your statement above. BUT, the Conservatives are not unique in having a Whip to control their caucus. That what I see as a problem with the Party system. What principle is being used by Parties to take away our representation?
Furthermore, what PRINCIPLES and PURPOSE do any of the parties adhere to. Beyond that, and more importantly, what do “we the people” demand from our elected officials and bureaucrats as the PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES we want them to govern “ALL” Canadians by. The LPC certainly doesn’t have a clear and concise PURPOSE and set of principles by which they will govern all Canadians. None that I’ve seen articulated. Until that changes, Canadians won’t see much change on how our elected officials will govern, no matter which party is in power.
Can you please share your thoughts on that John?
The “Priniples & Purpose” that all elected members of Parliament should be required to perform, is STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY, no matter which Party you belong to.
HARPER IS NOT STANDING UP FOR HIS COUNTRY, when he allows criminals to participate as Conservative members of Parliament, when he allows our Banking system to control their own Destiny, when it is only his thoughts that are to be followed. That sounds like he is more like a dictator or a gangster. That is not part of a democractic system.
John wrote: “The “Priniples & Purpose” that all elected members of Parliament should be required to perform, is STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY, no matter which Party you belong to.
HARPER IS NOT STANDING UP FOR HIS COUNTRY, when he allows criminals to participate as Conservative members of Parliament, when he allows our Banking system to control their own Destiny, when it is only his thoughts that are to be followed. That sounds like he is more like a dictator or a gangster. That is not part of a democractic system.”
—————————————————————–
So just what do you mean John when you write “STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY”? How does that mean? You put those 5 words in the same category as purpose and in principles.
I view Purpose as what an organization stands for. It’s what drives everything that they do. It gets at the deeper reason for being and not just about policy. It’s the fundamental reason for being. For instance, the purpose of government can be “to protect and enhance the lives of all Canadians.”
I view Principles as the guidelines by which an organization will achieve its Purpose. For instance, the principle of governing for “all” people could be just one of several principles… “In all that we do, we must include “all” Canadians. There could be a different principle for corporations even though the law categorizes corporations as people… which I don’t agree with.
So what does “Stand Up For” mean John?
sorry Wolfgang,
but the more I look at that wording “protect and enhance the life of all Canadians” the more I feel that it is not up to someone else to determine how to protect and enhance their lives. This is exactly what Harper could say, I am protecting you by increasing our armed forces tremendously and this will enhance your life. That is not quite what I would consider strong enough. Could be just a little bit too much of interpretation on the part of those making that statement.
John wrote: “the more I look at that wording “protect and enhance the life of all Canadians” the more I feel that it is not up to someone else to determine how to protect and enhance their lives. This is exactly what Harper could say, I am protecting you by increasing our armed forces tremendously and this will enhance your life. That is not quite what I would consider strong enough. Could be just a little bit too much of interpretation on the part of those making that statement.”
——————————————————————
I used “to protect and enhance the lives of all Canadians” merely as an example. It’s not up to me to come up with a final statement of PURPOSE. But thank you allowing me to spark your interest.
The word “protect” can mean many things. Not just militarily. It could be protection of personal property, medical protection and so on. To only use PURPOSE without surrounding it with some basic PRINCIPLES, yes you run a high probability that someone can take and give whatever interpretation they wish. You really have to think about both.
A politician or bureaucrat can just as easily decide “I Will Stand Up For You” when it comes to our military and buy some new jet planes and build up our navy using taxes and borrowing money.
So John, what do you think would be the most effective and efficient statement of PURPOSE & PRINCIPLES that would satisfy “all” Canadians. More importantly, what would cause our elected officials and bureaucrats to be more effective and efficient for ALL of us ?
Sometimes my words are not always interpreted by others the way I mean, especially when my emotions are very involved in the topic. I kinda like yours, especially the one on purpose. When I say “Stand up for” it is with the personal feeling that “One must be willing to change and voice opinions” on what you perceive to be wrongs. I believe it is wrong to have a leader that willingly allows elected officials that use illegal means to be members of your Party. That could mean you are guilty by association, or even that you encourage that type of activity. I also am rather concerned that our leader has absolved his responsibility by letting our Banking Community rule their own destiny. No leader in a Democratic Country would initiate such an action. We are not ruled by Banking institutions but rather supposedly by Canadian Law.
Anyway that is what I mean, however I am willing to change opinions as long as mine are incorrect, if not I will “Stand up for” them.
I appreciate your passion John. I only wish more Canadians were as passionate as you. :-) And thank you for the compliment about a possible PURPOSE statement.
I mean no disrespect John but when I read your “Stand up for” slogan it reminded me of NIKE’s “Just Do It” slogan.
Nike as you know just dropped Lance Armstrong from their sponsorship program. I have to wonder just what does the “it” in Nike’s “Just Do It” stand for. :-) Nike probably knew for a long time what “it” stands for in sponsoring athletes like Lance Armstrong. NIKE has hundreds of athletes who they sponsor. How can they not know. I don’t think they want to know as long as they’re selling NIKE products and making a ton of money.
Makes me wonder what “Stand up for” means.:-) I know you mean it to be for the good of all Canadians. BUT, like NIKE’s slogan, a lot of politicians would interpret “Stand Up For” to mean whatever they want it to mean…. their own agendas, NOT our agenda. And they would implement policies to achieve their agenda while doing good for some Canadians and harm to others…all without regard to principles.
Organizations that have a clear, concise and understandable PURPOSE, bounded by clear, concise and understandable PRINCIPLES always do well for everyone including themselves. That’s why I’m convinced that “we the people” need to direct our elected officials and bureaucrats with a clear, concise and understandable PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES that won’t allow them to weazel out of what “we” want them to do for all Canadians.
Does this make sense John?
There should be a law in the Elections Act. Crime against democracy. If you harass, intimidate voters and prevent them from voting by your actions then it should be possible to call a re-election or in the very least dish out severe penalties against the offenders.
We cannot ignore democracy and democratic rights of citizens. We don’t live in a Banana Republic which the conservatives in the riding have tried to do in Borys’s riding.
Based on evidence presented in the court and accepted as facts, the Member of Parliament should have resigned, while calling for a fresh election to ensure the intngrity of the democratic process. That would have been the honoruable thing to do.
We are not from countless other countries which corrupt the electoral process meant to defeat the will of the people.
Canada is might I add democratcially strong and Christian in recent heritage. We must examine the protestant ethic which these very conservatives often preach so much about but fail to implement or practice.
I’m certain that our election process can always be improved. Please see my reply to John about “our” role in politics. I’d be interested in reading your thoughts about PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES. Cheers.
Braun:
You did not mention anything about Ontario Liberals!
To answer your comments: I have on these forums suggested a quality assurance team which is political but professional in nature and can analyse what was promised by the party during the elections and whether it was being carried out during the term of office. In the very least in spirit if that was a vague promise too broad to be defined specifically.
I have tried to raise the awareness of Ontario Liberals on an issue or another, but got little in response to my commentary, which on occasion might have been several pages long documenting arguments and facts.
My sense is that they are too busy with whatever they are doing. They don’t give a damn about what you say. They could not care less. They start to trust their bureaucracy to invent answers and excuses to protect themselves. So they are beholden to bureaucracy. They stop listening to any other opinion.
When the conservatives were in power long time ago. I wrote a letter to multiple parties in the health care business,and several conservative members of parliament in power at the time. Something did happen though they did not reply to me either. They saved over 14 million dollars. The announcement by liberals came immediately after the regime change past the elections. That is how I know something was done after all.
That is how governments behave. They are too arrogant to not give a damn about the citizens!
” That is how governments behave. They are too arrogant to not give a damn about the citizens!”
True. A lot of Canadians are frustrated with our governments. So what are the options?
Vote them out ? Yup. Will that create change? Not likely.
Stop throwing bricks at glass houses and work on the inside of a party? Yup. That’ll work eventually if one has the resources, determination and stamina.
Create a new party? That’s an option for sure. How do you ensure that a new party will represent the will of “ALL” Canadians?
IMO, “we the people” can take back control of our governments by having a serious discussion about what we want the PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES of government to be.
Are you and others willing to have that conversation?
First one must review the options:
Who is the best to represent the interests of all Canadians. Today the formation of a new Political Party can be a rather difficult task and very time sensitive.
The Conservative Party have lost their ideals and no longer represent Canadian citizens for the most part. Their focus has changed to a business only perspective, and at times where business entities actually control them.
The Liberal Party still reflects that attitude that people are important, so this is a good place to start. Here it seems that business owners together with all Canadian citizens can co-exist. We should assume Canadian citizens can cause this charter to meet the responsibilities of today. There is such a growing demand for change, people are becoming discontent with the Political process and we need give these individuals the place where they can call home. Our political party must provide that home, must be willing to meet their needs, and must be willing to provide that in a truthful, honest manner. What is past, is past, with no turning back.
The Liberal Party can be that Party,
Our new Leader can provide the Leadership needed,
And we can provide that home for so many of Harpers discontented followers.
This really is a no-brainier as Canadians are just waiting to remove themselves from Harpers coat-tails.
We just need to provide the home to return to.
John wrote: ” people are becoming discontent with the Political process and we need give these individuals the place where they can call home. Our political party must provide that home, must be willing to meet their needs, and must be willing to provide that in a truthful, honest manner ”
—————————————————————-
Have you read the statement of purpose in the LPC Constitution? The purposes of the Liberal Party are outlined in the Constitution, in Chapter 1, section 2 (page 2). Here is the link to the Constitution : http://bc.liberal.ca/files/2010/05/lpc-2009-constitution-en.pdf
Neither the Conservatives or the NDP have a statement of PURPOSE in their Constitution. The LPC has an opportunity to amend their PURPOSE so that it better reflects “ALL” Canadians.