SITE MAP

 

RCC Draft Political Platform -- Review #1

 

Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive]

_______________________________________________________ 

914 – 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada V6Z 2B9

Ph. 604.609.0520

bkempo@hotmail.com

 

May 13, 2010 

Reform Coalition of Canada

 

Gentlemen: 

Re:  Jim McIntosh’s Critique of the Draft RCC Political Platform

_____________________________________________________________________

  

Many thanks to Mr. McIntosh, Treasurer of the Ontario Libertarian Party, for the extraordinary amount of time and effort he put into his review of the draft platform.  Here are my responses and reflections on his views.

 

He begins with the following observation: 

 

This reminds me of the French Revolution. Just add the Guillotine.

 

 

A treatise chapter drew parallels with that purge and the one that’s about to be effected by The People:

 

 

In Robespierre's utopian vision, the individual has the duty "to detest bad faith and despotism, to punish tyrants and traitors, to assist the unfortunate and respect the weak, to defend the oppressed, to do all the good one can to one's neighbor, and to behave with justice towards all men."

------------------------------------------ 

 

The choice instrument, was the guillotine -- it was quick and humane. […] About 15,000 people perished officially and over 100,000 people were detained as suspects. 

Tremble all ye oppressors of the world! Take warning all ye supporters of slavish governments. . . . 

Call no more reformation, innovation. You cannot hold the world in darkness. Struggle no longer against increasing light and liberality. Restore to mankind their rights; and consent to the correction of abuses, before they and you are destroyed together.

 

A Discourse on the Love of Our Country by Richard Price (1723-1791) 

Source: Steven Kreis, historyguide.org

 

 

 

Fundament institutional reform necessitates replacing the prime minister, premiers, cabinets federally and provincially and the senior civil service because three decades of the Beijing leadership, China’s millionaires and billionaires and the country’s criminal triads being allowed to formulate policy and make executive decisions created a political and corporate culture inimical to Canadian interests.   They were given five years to be in compliance with domestic and international law; and failing to modify their offending behaviour justifies full accountability, namely their removal and stripped of their assets as proceeds of crime.  The public will want them not only gone, but also impecunious for the pain, suffering, injury, loss and death occasioned by their unlawful policies and abdications of public interest responsibility.  No pensions and golden parachutes for any of them. The RCC offers an alternate governance solution.

 

 

I see nothing in your policies that will prevent the same problem from re-occurring with a different cast of characters.

 

 

The “different cast of characters” will be the RCC’s political coalition; which will manage, i.e., oversee the proper functioning of, the new way of formulating policy and be responsible for implementing what is ratified by popular vote.  This is radically different from the current system because it completely does away with backroom wheeling and dealing by old money families, big business executives and their Chinese partners.  In due course an election will be held; the members of the political coalition will go their own ways and lobby for the electorate’s vote.  The country’s federal and provincial landscapes will be clear of not only the old guard’s representative, but also the old money and big business interests that took us down the path to Chinese joint sovereignty, economy monopolization, wealth embezzlement and turning this country into a base of imperialistic operations for the Beijing leadership.

 

 

The “problem” is what two centuries of nepotism, patronage and length Liberal rule in the 20th century produced, namely a “family compact” where those who govern and those who staff accountability institutions are all linked by birth, marriage, other intimate social connections and Ideology.  Where the interests of the wealthy and Chinese intersect, the entire system of government, security apparatus and accountability stop functioning to advance what Canadians value and only serve those policies, practices, agendas and relationships.  To terminate this circumstance the old guard has to be surgically removed from the body politic and the new paradigm of governance will involve the proposed policy referendum system – giving The People a front row seat in deciding how their government will function. 

 

 

As long as we have a government that has the ability to pass virtually any legislation to interfere in the economy and our personal lives, then we have not corrected the root cause. As long as governments can pass laws that benefit one group or organization at the expense of others, corruption will occur. We just won't be able to call it corruption if there's a law supporting it. 

 

 

Jim rightly points to what political philosophers since ancient Greece have called the “tyranny of the majority”.  To prevent this the referendum voting threshold to authorize policy must be high.   75% has been suggested. 

 

 

As long as bureaucrats are handing out other people's money to a wide variety of 'deserving' organizations, they will be tempted to pass some of it to their own choices of deserving 'organizations.'    

 

 

The only groups and organizations that will benefit are those that a large majority of Canadians endorse as deserving of their tax dollars.  For example, if The People want funding for social justice and anti-poverty associations to be a high priority – like eliminating homelessness by constructing enough social housing to accommodate those living on the streets, then that will be official government policy.  If they want single parent families to have special support programs and tax breaks, then they will be authorized by them.    

 

 

Government is all about force; passing laws that define when it is 'legal' to make or prevent someone from doing something. Force is only moral when used to protect life, liberty and property. Once you have passed laws against murder, assault, kidnapping, theft and fraud, what more is there to do? Parliament should be like Army Reserves; they only need to meet for a few weeks each year to take care of housekeeping, like supply bills. 

 

 

There is merit to this argument; because when the referendum system is functioning, Parliamentary processes like Question Period, House and Senate committees and expensive studies will be unnecessary.  They will be replaced by the national broadcasts of debates by experts and specialists who will educate and inform the public before the vote.   Only when the referendum is unsuccessful twice in a row in reaching the threshold of approval and the government must make a decision will there be committee-like hearings – televised on CPAC and reported on by the media to keep the public in the loop.  After a couple years the policy will be put to a vote again; so never will the government have a monopoly on the policy formulation process.   

 

 

MPs should receive travel and living expenses and a small honorarium. Or maybe they should raise the money from their supporters, as long as they can’t return the favour through the government.

 

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

                            - Attributed to George Washington

 

Beyond paying for out-of-pocket expenses, and instead of a set annual salary, MPs might get paid for what services they perform on a piecemeal basis.  And perhaps there ought to be an additional requirement that compensation for services rendered be based on performance and success.   

 

 

[Re: (i)] Every step will be taken and expedited to return indivisible sovereignty to Canada;  "By "Canada" I assume you mean the government of Canada, essentially the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Is it not this group that you are accusing of giving up our sovereignty? It seems to me that your new (RCC?) cabinet will have far more power than the current one. The Libertarian view is that government already has far too much power and that members of the government will use that power to their own advantage.    

 

 

No, I mean returning the exclusive right to make policy and executive decisions to The People by way of the referendum system.  Formulation of policy is no longer monopolized by the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal-(Beijing) triangle of power and wealth which hijacked our parliamentary system.    

 

 

Political authority will not emanate from the RCC leader and cabinet because they don’t have the ability to decide issues of policy.  That comes solely from the referendum system.  

 

 

Jim warns of “members of the government [who] will use that power to their own advantage”.  When it comes to appointments, employment and awarding government contracts, nepotism and patronage will be outlawed by legislation; and entitlement to consideration for these offices will be replaced by merit – credentials, expertise and experience – and for contracts a tender system devoid of those influences.  

 

 

[Re: (v)] Every step will be taken to freeze, seize and custodianize capital and assets, both real and personal, which are the proceeds of crime; "Will this be before or after the trial?   

 

 

Current law allows for the pre-trial seizure of assets.  I see nothing inappropriate about that rule.  With the reverse onus burden of proof imposed on the richest Canadians and executives of the largest corporations, i.e., guilty until proven otherwise, they’ll get their assets back if they are cleared of complicity and loyalty.  

 

 

The reverse onus burden of proof was discussed by Canada’s highest court.  It is stated in R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, per Dickson C.J. and Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.:  

 

To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be satisfied. First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve, must be "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom": R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. The standard must be high in order to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain s. 1 protection. It is necessary, at a minimum, that an objective relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

 

[...]

 

Parliament's concern that drug trafficking be decreased was substantial and pressing. Its objective of protecting society from the grave ills of drug trafficking was self-evident, for the purposes of s. 1, and could potentially in certain cases warrant the overriding of a constitutionally protected right.

 

 

To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, Chinese joint governance and government corruption and criminality that procured, perpetuated and protected it is substantial and pressing and it is critical to eliminate them from the body politic.   Protecting thirty million Canadians and the nation’s neighbor and allies and the rest of 21st century civilization from Chinese imperialism warrants the suspension of the usual burden of proof.   

 

 

With the U.S. government having used an electron microscope of surveillance on every mover and shaker in the country since the early 1970s, their trials will easily prove whether they got their wealth legitimately or by violating our constitution and domestic and international law. 

 

 

[Re: (ix)] All federal and provincial appointments to government offices, the judiciary and administrative tribunals will be null and void.

 

You propose to essentially eliminate the entire bureaucracy, including courts? Does this mean you plan to repeal all legislation which these agency, board and commission appointments are intended to enforce (the free market solution), or do you plan to appoint a new set of crooks?  

 

 

Because complicity is so ubiquitous and multi-institutional, every major appointee and high level employee will have to be scrutinized to determine whether he or she broke the law when fulfilling duties.   In principle their positions will be “null an void”.   In practical terms, they will keep their posts until it comes under review through a systematic review across the entirety of the federal and provincial civil service, administrative tribunals and administration of justice (Bench, Bar, law enforcement & attorneys general).   

 

 

Since nobody in administrative tribunals or the judiciary can be trusted, Commonwealth countries will be asked to supply adjudicators.   When Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December 2007, the then President Pervez Musharraf acceded to international demands that outside investigators, which turned out to be Scotland Yard, be called in to guarantee the integrity of the findings.  Similarly, outside expertise is necessary to demonstrate that reform is conducted in accordance with democratic standards of fairness. 

 

 

Describing replacements as “crooks” fails to appreciate that the appointment and employment process will no longer be influenced by the interests of the “family compact”.   While clinical cynicism is understandable, if this system of staffing civil service department heads, the courts and administrative tribunals is set up properly the vast majority of new government officials will effect their responsibilities by reference to Canadian values and not to the old guard parochial interests of wealth and power.  

 

 

One of the tasks of the government that succeeds interim governance is to conduct a top-to-bottom review of all existing legislation and regulations.  Amendments will be made to exorcise that which advanced nefarious policies and practices.   The People will be asked to submit suggestions what they want and don’t want.  And after the nationally televised discussion and debate by experts and specialists a referendum will be held to determine what stays and what goes. 

 

 

[Re: (vi), (vii), (ix-xii)] The RCC will essentially nationalize a significant portion of the economy. ("Custodianize", independent receiver (appointed by the government?), and Government policy will determine what will be done with them). I shudder at the thought of government-appointed bureaucrats running a significant portion of our economy, and how they might benefit at the expense of ordinary citizens. Again, will this be before or after they are found guilty? If after, then there probably won't be any sort of operation or assets left to seize. 

 

 

 

There is a substantive difference between “nationalize” and “custodianize”.  The former entails full and perpetual government control, usually no or no reasonable compensation to owners and shareholders, and civil service management of on-going operations with no input from the public.   The latter is temporary and the asset managed by private sector, independent, receivers and business specialists who will ensure the business continues generating revenue, increases returns for investors and shareholders in line with free market principles and expectations, held in trust for the benefit of Canadians and divested on terms that are beneficial to the public.  

 

 

The “held in trust” part entails seizing and turning over to the Treasury corporate profit and assets that are part of the hoarding/embezzlement constituent of Canadian business as proceeds of crime.  And divestiture will strike a balance between what legitimate investors and shareholders are entitled to and what The People are entitled to by virtue of the fact that it was their tax dollars that helped turn the business into a profit generator and keep it that way over an extended period of time.  Taken into account are unlawful and undue government incentives, loans and grants, tax breaks and preferential treatment by the civil service. 

 

 

[Re: (ii)] Will justice be seen to be done? Foreign judges (how does this aid sovereignty?) will preside over complex cases (I assume we will still have due process) that the average Canadian will be unable to understand. Will the Tribunal's proceedings be open to the public, and decisions published? 

  

 

Foreign judges will come from Commonwealth jurisdictions; who will apply what is widely employed jurisprudence throughout the Commonwealth of Nations.  Lawyers who conduct research for a lawsuit often seek out authorities from these jurisdictions because they have virtually identical principles, rules, policies and protocols.   Consequently, procedure and justice will be just like what is observed in Canadian courts everyday.  All results will be publicized. 

 

 

[Re: (vii)] Detain all Chinese even if not charged with a crime? The RCC will pass a law to establish the Canadian version of Guantanamo?  

 

The primary reason for immediate detention is being here illegally – entering the country and getting landed immigrant status or Canadian citizenship under false pretences.   The prevailing presumption is that every one who emigrated here from China since 1970 did so in violation of immigration law.   Why they are deemed illegal entrants see December 3, 2009: China finally grants Canada Approved Destination Status, Canadian News Wire.  

 

 

“Guantanamo” is a loaded description when discussing the kinds of detention required to address the problem in Canada.  Beijing’s imperialism is a serious global threat – one that is profoundly more menacing than al-Qaeda ever was or ever will be.   Plus, operating behind Canada’s façade of democratic respectability is callous disregard for the Criminal Code and international law that warrants incarceration without bail.  Totalitarians and triads do not by definition follow the law.  For all practical purposes, given there are somewhere between 800,000 and a million of them to be deported, the least threatening will be free until their hearing and compelled to leave over time.  Incarceration will only involve wealthy Chinese and triad members.  

 

 

There is no need to pass a law; for the Immigration Act contains provisions to satisfactorily deal with this circumstance. 

 

 

[Re: (xiii)] Release all aboriginals found guilty of a crime? So we are going to have a different criminal code for aboriginals? How about Sharia law for Muslims, to name another possibility?  

 

 

Only those who are not a threat to the public will be immediately released.  They are going to be granted parole and placed in the custody of their tribal councils.   There is nothing planned about establishing two Criminal Codes.  Breaking the law will land them right back in prison.  

 

 

The Muslims are a different case.  They are not indigenous First Peoples.  They are immigrants who over many generations were not systematically oppressed and forced into poverty and despair by successive Canadian governments on the federal and provincial levels and this country’s old money families and largest corporations and subject to Third World conditions.  They were not politically and economically marginalized in a way that led to pain, suffering, injury, loss and death in incalculable numbers. 

 

 

That said, to make good on the pledge to be a multicultural society there should be allocations in the law for respecting traditions and customs of immigrants; and only prohibited where they conflict with Canadian values regarding human rights.   

 

 

[Re: (xv)] After two votes that don't meet the threshold for approval by the people, the government will implement the policy anyway? And if a third vote X years/months later doesn't approve, the government can still do what it wants?? To quote the ads for ING, "Save your money." Forget the vote unless it is binding on the government. I like the method proposed in "The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith. Any legislation requires the unanimous consent of the governed. Now THAT is a social contract. 

  

 

 

If the threshold for referendum approval is too high then no policy will ever be implemented.  

 

 

If there is no approval after two votes the Government will implement the policy for a stipulated period of time; then order empirical studies to determine the effects of the policy; followed by the standard format televised discussion and debate to educate and inform the public; followed by another vote.  This pattern will be repeated so that The People will continually be entitled to evaluate the merits of policy that affects them.   There will never come a time when the referendum approach is exhausted and Government steps in and imposes its will on the electorate.   

 

 

[Re: (xvii)] NO NO NO!!! The bigger the area governed, the less responsive the people running it. Amalgamation of Toronto's suburbs was a huge mistake. Amalgamation of Ontario and Quebec (the central region?) would be a disaster. Why would you want to do this? Let's get back to basics and get the federal government out of those areas that are supposed to be provincial responsibilities (health, labour, etc).

 

 

“Amalgamation” of federal and provincial political jurisdictions is not what is intended.  For a short period of time – likely one to three years – federal and provincial constituencies will be collapsed to preclude the need to recruit a thousand Canadians to mirror the existing system. 

 

 

On reflection, putting Ontario and Quebec in the same constituency is ill conceived.  Perhaps therefore there ought to be five temporary jurisdictions. 

 

 

[Re: (xix)] As long as some people think the world owes them a living and others who don't, we are unlikely to get any sort of agreement from 30 million people on any constitution. 

 

 

Undeniably, scrapping the current constitution and starting afresh is a Herculean undertaking.  It could be a work in progress; with the only major change to the way government functions is to implement the referendum system and devolve power to the provinces. 

 

 

[Re: (xx)] I'm not sure how one provides for economic security, or that the government should be allowed to decide what is necessary for it.    

 

 

In principle you are right.  If there’s going to be a devolution to the provinces, then each ought to decide for its citizens what’s in their economic interests.  Issues might arise, however, when it comes to economic matters that are not exclusive to one province, but involve two or more or all Canadians.  For example, an instance could arise where a large-scale investment in one jurisdiction has adverse consequences in another.  Who’s going to referee? 

 

 

[Re: (xxii)] You can be sure that the majority of government salaries and pensions are legal, since these are the people who decide what the law should be. I assume you are not proposing to change the law retroactively. 

 

 

You highlight the circularity in the problem.  If those deciding benefits were acting contrary to law or public policy, contracts ought to be void and all benefits accrued as a result clawed back.   Otherwise, malfeasants will gain a pecuniary advantage where they shouldn’t have.  Those who have no connection to nefarious policies and practices have nothing to worry about.

 

 

I can see where your critique is relevant.  I called the National Union of Public and General Employees for coalition recruitment purposes.  I predict some problems because its membership prospered under the old guard and made the following argument: 

 

 

I underscored in my introduction to you that what's going to happen when the national awareness campaign is successful in triggering public outrage - a kind that will be a thousand times more vitriolic than the reaction to the sponsorship scandal, with the Liberals being ousted from power after 13 years - is anger directed at those who benefited from the status quo.  In my research is this entry: 

 

"A [Canadian Federation of Independent Business] study released in 2003, Wage Watch [discovered that] from 1998 to the first quarter of 2003, the federal public service has increased its workforce by over 20 percent – reversing the cuts made in the mid-1990s and driving overall public sector growth in Canada.  As a result, total federal government wages and salaries increased more than 28 percent from 1998 to 2002. Second, federal employees in public administration enjoyed a 15.1% wage benefit advantage in year 2000 over their private sector counterparts, up from 8.9 percent in 1995.  When benefits are factored in, the total advantage was a whopping 23.3 percent." 

 

 

Jim’s in agreement with terminating monopolies in the economy: 

 

 

[Re: (xxiii)] There are only two kinds of monopolies that can exist for any length of time; government mandated monopolies, and companies that are providing the best product or service at the best price. I agree that all crown corporations and other government intrusions into the economy should be eliminated. Otherwise let the free market operate without government imposed barriers.  

 

 

Jim argues: 

 

 

[Re: (xxiv)] The Party system works because of the power and influence that government has. Without the support of one of the major parties, it is almost impossible to get elected. And getting elected means receiving a very generous income and a gold-plated, indexed pension. Not to mention the opportunities after you retire to work for a corporation that needs government favours to prosper. If government focused on protecting the citizens from force and fraud, instead of using both, the party system would be largely irrelevant. 

 

Jim argues:  

 

 

[Re: (xxv)] Government interference in the economy is the single biggest cause of "institutionalized" inequities. I perceive that you propose to provide benefits to those who have not earned them at the expense of those who have earned them. What an incentive! Will you also arrange for an equitable distribution of intelligence, strength, motivation, and drive? 

  

 

Being a modern civilization entails a social safety net to help those less capable by virtue of genetics, family dysfunctionalities and school problems that inhibit normal development (debilitating peer pressures, bullying, teaching inadequacies, shortage of resources) to become a productive member of society.  The alternative is letting personal problems fester, leading to the taxpayer being responsible for increased welfare, incarceration and health care costs.   That said, those who choose to play the system and extract undue benefits ought not be rewarded. 

 

 

Jim argues:  

 

 

[Re: (xxvi)] It is human nature to be more careful with one's own money than with Other People's Money (OPM). As long as government is entitled to spend large amounts of OPM (taxes) on huge projects there will be waste and corruption. 

  

 

Point taken, but there are some projects like utilities that have to be undertaken by government.  Where proper mechanisms of oversight, forensic accounting and an integrity-laden accountability system are in place, waste and corruption will be significantly reduced.    

 

 

[Re: (xxviii)] Equalization is a form of welfare for provincial government. It should be eliminated along with regional development agencies. 

  

 

The equalization program will be put to a referendum vote; and The People will decide after hearing all the arguments pro and con.     I expect that during interim governance the vote will be in favour of not scrapping it; rather modifying it to eliminate abuse and inefficiencies. 

 

 

[Re: (xxix)] I thought you were in favour of free markets. Subsidizing so-called "green" technologies is not consistent with free markets. Renewable energy will become economic when the non-renewable energy sources become scarcer and more expensive. Pollution is a property rights issue. Your pollution reduces the value of my property. As long as the courts support property rights, the cost of pollution will be borne by the polluter. The problem originated in the late 1800s when the courts denied claims by property owners against smoke stack industries on the ground of the common good (i.e.jobs). 

 

 

There is nothing in item XXIX about subsidies.  The only role of government is to implement The People’s demands that alternate energy and environmentally responsible corporate practices be facilitated and enforced where not undertaken voluntarily.  

 

 

If changes to energy generation and how industrial waste is managed is left to free market principles, environment degradation and climate change will be more acute.  The way capitalism evolved in the 20th century left its principles and practices devoid of sensitivity to these issues.  The People now demand pro-active, pre-emptive, action.  

 

 

[Re: (xxx)] Let THE PEOPLE choose which health care provider is doing the best job at the best price. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Don't try to carve practices and policies in inflexible laws and regulations! 

 

 

All item XXX says is “The Government will review health care policies and practices with a view to deliver better and faster service, cut costs and waste and emphasize prevention”.  I don’t foresee The People scrapping Canada’s universal health care system.  I do expect they want changes to ensure the cue is shorter and the overall program gets value for the tax dollars that supports it. 

 

 

[Re: (xxxi)] Why just "natural resources wealth?" What about all the other forms of wealth? And why for significant reduction in the cost of higher education? Why not for food, clothing, health care, internet access and everything else anyone might wish for? 

  

 

Item XXXI says is “The Government will ensure an equitable distribution of natural resources wealth to significantly reduce the costs of higher education; interest payments on student loans will be reduced or eliminated”.  I see in some Middle Eastern countries where the population is small and oil wealth vast that governments not only arrange for free education and health care, but also a yearly royalty of $20-50,000 for every citizen.  With Canada having the second largest oil deposit on the planet and a small citizenry, there’s no reason why we can’t spread the wealth around to cover the basics.   

 

 

[Re: (xxxii)] It is excessive government spending that "sustains" the national debt. Things like green technology subsidies, interest free loans, corporate welfare, and public service union monopolies.   

 

 

I don’t take issue with your comment, except the reference to “subsidies”.  There is nothing in the RCC platform about this.  Interest free student loans are not huge burdens on government.  The experts could argue they, and might in the public’s mind, generate long-term benefits that offset costs.

 

 

Of course, “corporate welfare” is not going to be tolerated.  That said, there are some instances where helping small business is valuable.  For example, with Canada’s economy being principally export driven, financing trade commissions in other countries generates market penetration, revenue, profits and taxes.  And R&D and commercialization incentives are always considered good investments in procuring revenue streams that otherwise wouldn’t exist, which produce taxable income.     

 

 

[Re: (xxxv)] Legislating how companies should pay their employees is your idea of a free market? 

 

 

The People have already decided that gender pay equity is a social value worthy of protection and promotion through government intervention in the marketplace.  

 

 

[Re: (xxxvii)] Three federal parliaments??? Why not simply continue with the four you proposed in (xvii), (north, west east and central)? How will it work? Will each one vote on the same bills? Will there be one PM or three? One cabinet or three? If two pass a bill but the third defeats it, does it become law? Will there be the same number of MPs in each? Or are these two extra government buildings, without any legislature, purely symbolic edifices of government importance? This sounds like a silly idea. "SAVE YOUR MONEY." Better to reduce the importance and responsibility of the federal government and delegate more responsibility to the provinces. We already have at least ten parliament buildings.  Only when the population at large recognizes that government is the biggest threat to their freedom and are prepared to reduce it to protecting us from those who would use violence against us will there be any improvement. 

 

 

Building two more Parliaments was an idea I had as a reflection of the new paradigm of governance: the devolution of power and the politics of inclusion.  Canada is an enormous country, with the second largest landmass in the world.  Canadians on the geographical periphery – far east and west – feel alienated, ignored and exploited by the triangle of power and wealth.   This would deliver perceptions of devolution and being included; the latter fuelled not only by close proximity but also by having employment opportunities. 

 

 

My conceptualization is that with Parliament becoming less the center of all political and bureaucratic power than it now is, the new ones would be mostly administrative in nature and all linked by Internet communication channels to optimize the business of government that would lead to cost savings.  

 

 

It sounds like you plan to hold referenda on each policy. Do you plan to avoid conflicts of interest on such vote. That is,will individuals who might benefit from the policy be prevented from voting on the policy? Democracy will suffer when citizens discover they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury.  Actually, the question is pretty much academic, since after a referendum the elected representatives, who presumably know what we need, will do what they think is best for THE PEOPLE anyway.

 

 

 

The number of votes cast on a policy that benefits an organization or group will be in the millions and thus the few cast by the executive and membership will not affect the outcome. 

 

 

Ad because the executive and membership are taxpayers, they are entitled to state by way of their vote how they want their money spent by the government. 

 

 

To your prediction that the government will ignore what the referendum decided is not how the proposed system is designed.  If you're suggesting that the policy is one thing and implementation another, then you have a point.  

 

 

It is an appropriate critique addressed by articulating during the discussion/debate/referendum how the policy will be effected and then sticking to that formula.  The academics and media will become watchdogs who follow how the policy materializes; conducting on-going assessments to ensure the will of The People is carried out.  Where it isn't the government will pay at the ballot box for being negligent, incompetent or inept. 

 

SITE MAP

Make a Free Website with Yola.