Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 8, A Simple Question?

On March 25^th, Conservative party was defeated on an Non-Confidence vote, why? What was the vote about? Why plunge Country into another election? Could have this election been avoided?

So what was the Non-Confidence vote about? There was a Commons committee looking into the government for any contempt of Parliament (wrong doing and misleading Parliament).

1. Who inserted the “Not”?

   1. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was brought in for questioning, because there was a memo that the government was going to fund international relief organization, Kairos. Parliament agree to this funding, however afterwords someone inserted “not funding” Kairos. So the question is this, who inserted the not and why. During question period this question was brought up. And Minister Bev Oda said “she didn't know”. It took a commons committee to get to the truth. It turns out that one of her staffers inserted the “Not” and used a stamp with her signature. My question is why change the funding after Parliament was good with the funding. And why Minister Bev Oda not get the copy of the revised memo and share it with Parliament.

2. How much do the Jets cost?

   1. Conservative claim that the total for the CF-35a will cost 75million per jet and the program will cost in total 9billion.
   2. Now Norway sign a contract for the F-35 and they are paying over 200million per jet, Israel is going to be sending over 150million per jet. And if you go to Wikipedia has the price of 122million per jet. US government got a quote of 150million per jet. (there is a US law that any company selling military equipment can not sell the equipment cheater to foreign countries.).
   3. A watchdog group is claim that the total program is going to cost Canadians 29billion, really? WOW 9billion to 29billion.
   4. Conservative claim that they have a “Memo of understanding” and or a “contract”. I have heard both, regardless Conservative need to release these documents for all Canadian to see the truth. How much this jets do cost us, Yes US, the Tax payers.

There are other items coming into light, like the Auditor General Sheila Fraser drafts about the G8 Summits where leak out. Now the final report isn't going to be release, we have to wait for Parliament is back in session. But both drafts has this common thing in common: the Conservatives asked for 80million for border improvement, however 50million was spent in the riding of Parry Sound - Muskoka witch happen to be Minister of Industry, Tony Clement riding. So what did we pay for new sidewalks and city improvements. No where near any borders. Why did Conservative mislead Parliament about this? Why didn't they just come back to Parliament and say “We have 50million extra that we would like to thank they riding of Parry Sound – Muskoka for hosting the G8”?

I do have other questions that I know that I will not get

1. Conservatives claim that they can clear up the budget a year early, how? They brought out a budget 2-3 weeks before this statement, what change? Are they planing on cutting some services? Raise taxes on the middle class?
2. Why can't they produce document on their program sending (prions and CF-35)?
3. Why is someone that has been convected of fraud is working in the PMO, where top secrete documents are?
4. Why did he pointed new senators that are under investigation for fraud?

So is this Conservatives government corrupt?

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 7, Why is minority government bad for Canada?

Is minority government bad for Canada? No, it is not bad for Canada. There has been 13 minority government in Canada. Dose the party with the most seats has the right to govern the country? No, they do not have a “Right” to govern the country, after all the majority did not vote for them. So the question is how can a minority government can govern the country?

The best example is the Lester Pearson government

1963 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	128	41.52%
PC – John Diefenbaker	95	32.72%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	24	11.92%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	17	13.24%

1965 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	131	40.18%
PC – John Diefenbaker	97	32.41%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	21	17.91%
RC – Réal Caouette	9	4.66%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	5	3.66%

• PC – Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
• RC – Ralliement créditiste, this party is Quebec base party

During these 2 term was the most productive Parliament. The Liberal and the backing of the NDP. National identity, Canada got a new flag.

1957 - 1965	runner up	runner up	1965 - present

Other and very important bills that where past that we have today

• Canada's health care system
• Canada Pension Plan

1972 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Pierre Trudeau	109	38.42%
PC – Robert Stanfield	107	35.02%
New Democrat – David Lewis	31	17.83%
Social Credit – Réal Caouette	15	7.55%

The most notable from this government is the creation of Petro-Canada

Other notable minority government

Longest term:

• Liberal – William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1921–1925, 3 years (233 days)

Shortest term:

• PC – Arthur Meighen, 1926, 0 years (3 days)

Longest time as government:

• CPC: Stephen Harper – 1^st term 2006–2008, 2 years, (207 days)
• CPC: Stephen Harper – 2^nd term 2008–2011, 2 years, (142 days)
• In total 4 years (349 days)
  

Minority governments from the 1950's to today

There has been 9 minority and 10 majority government

from 1962 to 1968 and 2004 to 2011 are the longest stretch of minority governments

So is minority governments hurtful to Canada, No. Out off the last 61 years it's almost 50% time we had minority government. What isn't good for Canada is a government, try to push their agenda through, without regards of parliament. What made a good minority government is a government that works with the other parties. Currently the opposition parties are willing to work with each other, however the current government shows very little interest in working with the opposition parties.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 6, The Aboriginal Question

When I was installing satellite systems, I quite often go into some of the Aboriginal communities. At time it felt like I was going into a 3^rd world country. Why is that? All the Aboriginal responsibilities fall under the Federal responsibilities. So here are some of the main issues facing the Aboriginal peoples.

• Housing – many of house are in disrepair and some of these houses will have more then 1 family living in them.
  
• Clean and safe water.
• Rundown infrastructure.
• Education – there is a very high dropout rate
• Health - majority of them have to travail over an hour to see a doctor.
• Very high unemployment rate
• Very high suicide rate within their youth.
• Very high crime and substance abuse.
  

I am just scratching the surface. So what can we do about all these issues? Here are some of my ideas, and not everyone going to like them on both sides.

The first thing we need to do is to look at all land dispute, both sides are going to have to give and take on these issues. The Aboriginal people are going to have to decide what land are the most important to then and let out of some of them, and we are going to let some land go even if it is in Caledonia, Ontario (Just south of Hamilton, Ontario). Now that we have the land disputes settled we can move on to some more issues. So how should we solve all these issue? Let the Aboriginal people decide on their on direction by allow them to government themselves, take most of the responsibilities for themselves. They know what their communities needs and wants. Lets look at Ontario, in my area, there is few Aboriginal communities. Kettle Point (including Ipperwash), Muncey, Moraviantown, Walpole Island and Six Nations (they are all in southern Ontario). Now if we take all of these communities in southern, eastern and northern Ontario link them together and setup a system of government. Giving them the same rights and responsibilities as the provinces.

What will this do and how will this benefit the the Aboriginal people? And how will this be paid for?

Let look at the second questions first, how will all of this get paid. Now the Aboriginal people may not like this, but they will need to pay their share of taxes. They are currently being exempt from paying taxes. This method of getting moneys from the Federal Government isn't working. They don't have a voice in government, they don't have a say on how moneys are spent in their communities. With in their communities they can set a “Provincial Tax Rate”. This will create a win – win for everyone. Because the non-aboriginal people won't have to pay for all the programs for the Aboriginal people and the Aboriginal communities will have a new source of income to pay for their programs.

This is an example, let take Ontario, let call this new province UACoO (Unite Aboriginal Communities of Ontario), they will have their on legislature witch they can vote for members. They would also receive transfer payments from the federal government. Responsibilities, would be the same as the provinces, with includes Health care, education, welfare. So now what we have done here is to take these responsibilities from the federal government and put it into the hands of the Aboriginal peoples. They live in these communities and they know what issues need to be address. They can also look at there youth and develop programs to keep their youth in school and after school programs. With these programs, will help with the problems that they do have with their youth, (namely substance abuse and the high suicide rate). Giving their youth hope for the future and not despair.

The biggest issue and maybe hard is the unemployment, but they can create some opportunities to employment, for example:

1. Policing their communities
2. EMS
3. Fire Fighters
4. Community health centers
5. Infrastructure programs
6. Education

It a fact that if unemployment rate is low, the crime rate goes down as well. Of course this will not happen over night but again we are giving them something that is very important, hope for the future and not despair.

I believe that this could work and could be beneficently for everyone in Canada. Canada will have new strong, proud independent Aboriginal Communities. They will have their own voice in government determining their on direction on solving their own issues.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 5, The Senate

One thing I haven't hear about too much about, The Senate, with the only exception with Jack Layton during the debates. “I don’t know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem happy in the Senate,”. He pointed out two issues with this one statement.

How dose our government works:

Parliament is divided into two “Houses”, lower and upper. The lower house is the House of Commons. The House Commons is where bill are introduce, debated on and if passed goes to the Upper House the Senate. The House of Commons we vote for our representative. Now in the Upper House, the Senate, we do not vote for these representatives, they are pointed by the Prime Minster. In the 2004 Election, the CPC promised to bring in an elected, equal, and effective (the "Triple-E Senate" ). However Prime Minster did not make this change in fact he continue to point senators (some are being under investigation by the RCMP with fraud charges). The NDP view is it should be abolished.

Now I believe it should not be abolished, however I do believe it need to be reformed, and this is what I think it should look like:

All regions of Canada should have equal representation, just like the “Triple-E Senate” (with the exception of Ontario, witch there will be 2 Northern and Southern Ontario and the Territories witch will be less. There is currently 105 seats in the senate, so we can increase it to 108. All regions will have 9 senators (exception of Ontario will have a total of 18 and the 3 Territories will have 9 (3 each). Why Ontario is has 18, the main reason is that Northern Ontarian has a different point of view to compare to the Southern Ontarian. Even economic is quite different. Where Southern Ontario is more manufacturing and high tech and Northern is more resource based.

Elections should be a fixed date, like every first Tuesday of October every 3 to 4 years. Candidates can be associated to a party in the lower house or region parties can be in the senate and not in the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois can be in the Upper House and not in the Lower House.

Another tough is to add 9 more seats for the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. ( 3 seats from east, 3 seats from central and 3 seats from the west.).

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 4, Why are there some many election?

Why are there some many election? It seem that there is an election every 2 years. Our style of government is based from the British Parliamentary. Currently there are 4 parties that has seats in the House of Commons and there are 308 seats and to form majority government, a party needs 155. The last 4 elections Canadians voted in minority government. So the party with the most seats did not get 155, so the last election the Conservatives 143, Liberal 77, NDP 37, Bloc Québécois 49. The opposition parties has 240 seats. Now it is possible that the Conservatives could have got support from 1 or more opposition(s) by have a loose agreement that the second party will vote on bills to support so that they can pass or form a coalition government, witch means that the second party would get some cabinet positions.

When a government is voted in, they do have 4 years to govern the country, unless they lose an non-confidence vote. Not all bills are confidence vote. If a government loses a non-confidence vote, the Prime Minster will go to Governor General, and at this time the Governor General can call a new elections or go to the opposition party(s) to see if they can form a new government.

This is one style of governing another one is like the USA. Lets compare the 2 different styles with the budget for this year.

Canadian – the opposition parties vote nae, the government falls with a non-confidence vote, Canadians go to another elections (** Please NOTE that, this is not the reason why we are in an election. I used the budget as example).

USA – they can not agree on their budget and it does not pass, the USA government shuts down. Yes it shuts down putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Because they can not pay them. And minority of their services will stop operating.

So the question is this: 1- do you want to elect a newer government? 2- a government that is shuts down until they can work thing out.

So do the Americans have less elections? No they have more then we do. A President is elected for 4 years. Here is a brake down of their elections. They do have fixed elections date, November 4^th

Example:

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Type	Presidential	Off-year	Midterm	Off-year	Presidential
President	Yes	No			Yes
Senate	33 Seats Class II	No	34 Seats Class III	No	33 Seats Class I
House	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats
Gubernatorial	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV	2 states NJ, VA	36 states AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY	3 states KY, LA, MS	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV

So Some Americans vote every 2 years and others vote every 4 year. And Canadians will have election very 4 years unless if the government is brought down on an non-confidence vote. Here is a time line from 2000:

November 27^th, 2000, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won majority government.

June 28^th 2004, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won minority government.

January 23^rd, 2006, Stephen Harper tried to setup a coalition government but failed, but the Conservatives brought down the government with an non-confidence vote. The Conservatives won a minority government.

October 14^th, 2008, Stephen Harper called an election to get a majority government, The Conservatives won a minority government.

May 2^nd, 2011, Liberal brought down the government with non-confidence vote. The vote was about contempt of Parliament. This was the first time a contempt of Parliament charge has resulted in a motion of non-confidence not only for a Canadian Government, but for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Power and Politics on Vote 4 the Internet Campaign

Open Government vs. Closed Government

We need to have an open and transparent government, that will follow the code of ethics. Let look at The Conservative Party of Canada, they had minority government for the last 5 years.During the general election of 2006 Stephen Harper promise to clean up Ottawa by bring in a Code of Ethic making the government more transparent, did that happen?

Open and Transparent --FAILED--

Following a Code of Ethics --FAILED--

The way how Stephen Harper is running his election campaign (2011) is the same way he ran his government. It is micro managed, staged and very well scripted. His campaign rallies are not open to the public. If you are not a Conservative, you are denied entry. In London Ontario, Stephen Harper was in town on April 3^rd for a rally, and two Londoners where asked to leave the rally because they where friends with Michael Ignatieff on facebook, and had a picture of them with Michael Ignatieff for their profile picture. For the full story please read this (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/17875211.html).

While campaigning in Halifax, reports asked him; “Why do you only take 4 questions?”, he did not give a reason why but asked if they had a question on a different topic. Stephen Harper takes 4 questions from national reporter, 2 in english and 2 in french and 1 from local reporter. These networks that sent reports to follow the Prime Minster and pay about $10,000 a week to travel with the leader, are frustrated at the lack of access. (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1236141.html). He is give me impression that he is hiding something or that he is afraid of the reporters.

Canada is in need of replacing her ageing CF-18 Hornet, everyone agrees with this, however the question is this: Is the CF-35a Lightning II the best jet and is it the best price? Is the government being honest and open on the cost of these jet?

For the first question, has two answers Yes and No. It will do the job that we need it to do, however we don't need a stealth jet fighter. The second part is no, this jet was priced at 75m per jet and now it has gone way over budget

The second question, the government claims that the jet are going to be costing us 75m. But wait a sec why is watch dog group in the US is claiming that the Jet will cost 110m and more? How can Canada get the Jets at 75m and US has to pay 110m per Jet? Please note that their are 3 different types of jet, the one that Canada is get is F-35a (b/c) version are wroth more. Here are some links about the jets and reports on the jets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110328/fact-check-stealth-fighters-110329/20110329?s_name=election2011&no_ads=

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/canada/article/823878--u-s-expert-says-jet-costs-will-soar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html?ref=rss

Is this the best jet for Canada? I would have to say no, we can not afford this cost. Why is the government stuck on this jet for? What's wrong with looking at other jets? Like F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? They cost 55m, witch makes it more affordable for us.