Category Archives: democracy and good government

Wrath of Khan

conservative party, democracy and good government, foreign affairs, liberal party

Back in August, I supported Bill Graham’s decision to allow Wajid Khan to serve as a special adviser to Stephen Harper on the Middle East and Afghanistan, arguing that “we need more cross-party cooperation and dialogue, not less — especially in a minority government situation.”

In the wake of Khan’s defection to the Conservatives, I stand by that principal. In fact, the CBC reports that it was Stéphane Dion’s insistence that Khan pick a side that forced the move. Dion also made a statement to the Liberal website, saying, “I was never comfortable with Mr. Khan serving as an adviser to a Conservative Prime Minister, as Mr. Khan has done since August of last year.” Other Liberal MPs had “questioned how Khan would balance his allegiance to the party with his new role as an adviser to the prime minister.”

The fact that the obvious answer, “he’ll do whatever he thinks is best for the country,” didn’t seem obvious doesn’t speak well to our MPs’ assessments of each other’s motives. (Nor, unfortunately, of Dion’s.)

That being said, Khan’s assessment that “the best leader for Canada is the man who now has the job” isn’t doing much for my opinion of him either.

Let Us In. (We’re Cold And There Are Wolves After Us.)

democracy and good government, green party

With the possibility of a spring election in the air, people are starting to talk again about the televised leaders’ debates, and more specifically, whether or not we should be in them. (Shockingly, I think we should.) The decision will be made by a “broadcast consortium,” comprising the executives of the television networks that broadcast the debate, using whatever criteria they want. (I tend to think the decision should be made by Elections Canada using democratically set criteria, but here we are.)

I’m optimistic that they’ll make the right choice this time. We’ve already received some unlikely editorial support, including from the Toronto Sun. About a month ago the Green Party launched demanddemocraticdebates.ca, a website that aruges our case and asks visitors to declare their support. During the last campaign more people signed the Green Party’s petition to be included than sent questions to the actual debates.

A belief that this blog has been generally lacking in bullet points motivated me to outline the following arguments, some new and some old, as to why we should be in the debate.

  • The Green Party of Canada has had increased and sustained presence in the media between elections.
  • The Green Party has held one major policy conference and several smaller policy forums since the last election.
    (those first two points were cited by one broadcast executive last time around as prerequisites for being included in the debate)
  • The Green Party has unique perspectives on issues that are extremely important to Canadians but are not otherwise being discussed. Witness the fact that the climate crisis was completely absent from the last leaders’ debates, and yet is now the number one issue in the minds of the public and the media. That would not have happened if the Green Party had been included, and our democracy would be stronger for it. We have demonstrated an ability to speak to issues that matter to Canadians in ways that other parties are failing to do.
  • Green Party candidates received over one million votes in the last two federal elections. Those Canadians deserve to be represented and heard.
  • The Green Party receives over one million dollars of tax payer money each year. The public deserves to know what we stand for (and where their money is going).
  • The Green Party has demonstrated staying power (vs. the Canadian Action Party and some other small parties, which got popular for one election and then lost ground).
  • Every single Canadian has been able to vote Green for two (and soon three) elections in a row, but has not been allowed the same access to the party’s ideas. The Green Party is only the fourth party in the history of Canada to run a full slate, yet we are the first to do so and be excluded from the leaders’ debates.
  • Elizabeth May received almost as many direct votes to become leader of the Green Party of Canada than Stéphane Dion did for the Liberals (2145 vs. 2541). This highlights the strength of her mandate and the legitimacy of our leadership selection process.
  • Elizabeth May’s inclusion in the debate will make for engaging and compelling television, and will help increase both ratings and interest in democracy, driven both by those who support us and those who don’t.

Just in case the network executives who are making this decision don’t visit my site, you can take action here.

My First Press Release

democracy and good government, green party

Well, actually, this was my first press release, but this morning’s release (on the wire here) is my first as Democratic Reform Advocate. See below.

—

Harper Can’t Dictate Democracy, Green Party Says
Senate reform must be decided by people, not politicians

OTTAWA, Dec. 14 /CNW Telbec/ – The Conservative government is overstepping its bounds by attempting to unilaterally change this country’s democratic systems, Green Party of Canada democratic reform advocate Chris Tindal said today.

“Democracy isn’t just another political issue,” said Tindal. “Our democratic systems need, by definition, to be determined by citizens, not just politicians. They especially shouldn’t be dictated by a Prime Minister whose party received just a little more than a third of the vote in the last general election.”

The Canadian Senate, while in need of reform, has traditionally played an important role in Canadian politics as a place of sober second thought and long-term planning. Any good ideas that the government’s proposal may include, such as a move towards proportional representation, lack legitimacy unless they come directly from citizens.

“The Senate is just one piece of the very complicated web that makes up our democracy,” added Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “To tinker with it in isolation from other democratic systems, and without an appreciation for the many functions and long history of the Senate, is dangerous to say the least.”

The Green Party of Canada recognizes the need for democratic reform, including Senate reform. Greens support the creation of a Citizens’ Assembly to determine what Senate reform is necessary, similar to the Citizens’ Assembly dealing with proportional representation that is currently under way in Ontario.

-30-

You Know You’re In Trouble When…

conservative party, democracy and good government

…your name’s Steven Harper and The Toronto Sun starts pointing out how backwards your policies are.

The column in question was brought to my attention by my blogging (and real-life) buddy Matt Ross. I could just send you to his blog and leave it at that, but instead I’m going to paraphrase him in a self-serving attempt to retain my readership. (Note to Jane Pitfield: paraphrasing with credit is one thing, plagiarizing is another.)

The columnist is Greg Weston, the column is Harper’s double-talk. (See also doublespeak and doublethink.) While I commend you to the full piece, the summary is this: our government is now less transparent and accountable than it was before “The Accountability Act,” to the point where if another sponsorship scandal happened today, we might not find out about it.

Fact: The proposed Accountability Act would add 12 new blanket exemptions and exclusions, almost doubling the current number of secrecy provisions preventing certain kinds of government documents from being released.

Fact: Draft audits and other evidence of wrongdoing exposed by whistleblowers could in future be sealed for up to 15 years.

I know I’ve already blogged about this issue a fair bit, but the precision of Weston’s criticism is worth noting. And of course it’s also notable because, well, The Sun should be Harper-friendly. And with friends like these…