I’d like to make four points in answer to criticism of the proposed coalition:

1. In Canada we do NOT elect a Prime Minister, we elect a Parliament.  Parliament then decides which group has the confidence of the House to govern and that group’s leader becomes Prime Minister.
2. The Bloc ran in the last election NOT as separatist but as an anti CPC (stop Harper) choice. They received more than 50% of the vote in Quebec.  Quebec is very much a part of Canada and this Quebec anti CPC vote must be included in the Canadian totals.
3. Over 60 % of the Canadian electorate all across Canada (yes there are both Liberal and NDP seats west of Ontario and in all of the Western ridings not held by the CPC one or the other ran second). The proposed coalition represents a majority of all Canadians; Harper’s Conservatives do NOT.  The House has both a moral and legal right to place its confidence in the proposed coalition. Talk of a coup d’état is nonsense!
4. In the economic update and the accompanying proposed legislation, Harper showed what the CPC would do if it had a majority. He was behaving very aggressively and uncooperatively.  Canada thoroughly rejected this right wing platform in denying him a majority; Canadians wanted a working minority government to hold the CPC’s right wing in check.  In a minority government the governing group has to work with the other parties and make compromises.  Harper’s tactics last week make it impossible for this House to work with him.  He and his PMO have to go! At the very least turn over the CPC to the moderates in the party.

I think Harper is anti-parliamentary democracy or maybe he just doesn’t understand it.  In a parliamentary system the Prime Minister has to have the confidence of the House to govern. It is the House of Commons that picks the Prime Minister not the party or the voters! Harper’s past and present government is marked by disrespect for parliament and attempts to “get around” parliament.  Harper’s strict muzzling of his own backbenchers is a symptom of his disrespect for parliament and members of parliament. He was and is trying to govern as if he were President. Doesn’t he realize that nearly 63% of the electorate DID NOT vote for the CPC? I support a coalition to replace Harper and perhaps an election after a new Liberal leader is elected. The present CPC government must go!

I think the Bloc, Liberals and NDP should go to the Governor General with the same statement modified for 2008 that Harper agreed to in 2004; “As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal (change to CPC) minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38^th (change to 40^th) Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.”

I understand from the Ontario experience in 1985 that the Bloc needs only to sign an agreement that it will not vote for any non confidence motions aimed at the coalition government for a specified period.  I think they can agree to that if the coalition agrees in writing that it will respect the rights of Quebec and well not do anything that would hurt the interests of Quebec.

Hey how about a preamble to any agreement to form a coalition government with BLOC support.  Something like this: “We a coalition of Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party stand for peace, welfare and good government. We undertake to respect Quebec’s status as a nation within Canada and Quebec’s and Canada’s interests. We believe that Canada is facing a very grave financial situation and that fiscal stimuli must be introduced forthwith for the public benefit and welfare of all Canadians.”

Two articles in today's (April 15, 2008) Waterloo Region Record caught my eye.  Ottawa to pay pork producers to kill off pigs as market collapses announces that Ottawa will pay pig farmers up to $50 million to slaughter their breeding pigs if they agree to wipe out their entire herd and stay out of the hog business for three years. Ottawa hopes to reduce the glut and bring prices back up.  Global food crisis may wipe out seven years of progress  reports on "a rapidly escalating global food crisis..[reaching]..emergency proportions..."  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is calling for "short-term emergency measures...to meet urgent food needs and avoid starvation and longer-term efforts to significantly increase production..."  I hope I'm not the only one to see a serious problem with Ottawa's hog policy in light of the global food crisis. These are breeding hogs that could be used in areas of the world where people are starving, to help them raise food to lift themselves out of poverty and hunger. Why waste all these hogs?  Why not send them to subsistence farmers in the Third World?  Surely there are philanthropic organizations that would pick up the shipping costs. Our hog farmers might feel better about a solution to Canada's hog glut if they could actually help alleviate the global food crisis.  Much better than slaughtering all those hogs.

                The walks of those who do not comply with the by-law will not get shovelled for a least a few days after a major snowfall.  Home and business owners have 24 hours after the snowfall ends to clear their sidewalks.  Then someone has to report them, another day or two. Then a by-law enforcement officer visits and issues a warning, yet another day or two.  The walk can go un-shovelled for up to a week by which time there can be yet another major snow fall and we start over. This definitely does not help the physically challenged nor Councillor Geoff Lorentz’s mail person colleagues..

                Then there is the problem of what to do with owners who are in hospital or on vacation during a big snow or ice storm.  Do they deserve a whopping big fine just because they could not make arrangements for someone to shovel while they are away?  You can end up in hospital for a lengthy stay without any prior warning and a person going on vacation can often forget this detail.

                Good citizens with no signs of a health problem can end up dead from shovelling snow as was the case in the heart attack death while shovelling snow during the last big storm of a prominent parishner of my church.  The proposal to have city crews clear all walks will actually save lives.

                I do not like the fine system on principle. Municipalities are governed by municipal councils NOT ruled by them. The job of municipal council is to make decisions about municipal financing and services.  Because land owners owe fealty to the Queen, representatives of the state may order them to maintain the roadway and / or crown land adjacent to their property but it is not appropriate for city council to make such orders.   We elect city council to govern not rule and they do not represent the monarch as provincial and federal governments do.

                I realize that the $3.8 million proposal to have city crews clear all walks would have added to my tax bill and adding such a cost would not go over well with voters.  I’d like to suggest that the city come up with a proposal where city blocks or neighbourhoods could opt to pay for such a service in their tax bill by a local vote and simple majority.  I understand that admittedly some time ago, this was how sidewalks were originally installed and paid for in Kitchener and why some streets to this day do not have sidewalks.  Neighbourhoods that opt in would be exempt from the fine. I think this issue is worth a second look for the sake of saving lives and making Kitchener more pedestrian friendly.

I'm not pleased with Kitchener council rejecting the $3.8 M proposal to have city crews clear all walks. Increasing the fines for property owners who fail to keep the side walks in front of their homes and businesses clear of snow and ice is not a solution.  The fine will be just another cost of doing business in Kitchener for businesses and absentee property owners.  It will be added to the price and rent they charge.  It will not get the sidewalks cleaned.  Who it really hurts are all the senior citizens who live in their own homes and the disabled who will still face uncleared sidewalks. Shovelling snow has already caused one death that I know of and I’ve seen the difficulty a physically challenged student had getting to school after the last big snow fall. I can’t help but note that the majority of councillors are physical fit and not yet senior citizens. I urge them to reconsider; we senior citizens are increasing in numbers and we vote. Mississauga and Kingston to name but two Ontario cities have had citywide ploughing of sidewalks for years.  Get with it Kitchener.

A fundamental feature of democracy is majority rule and the consent of the governed; government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is about the importance of the individual in the context of government. (See the various definitions in the reference books.) Democratic government is supposed to be about people NOT political parties. In the riding system, a member is supposed to represent the people in the riding not a party or political point of view. Riding representatives are supposed to speak for all the people in the riding as well as on Province wide issues.

 The best system is where everyone represents themselves in a town hall type of meeting as occurred in the ancient Greek city state democracies. But in a large modern state this is impractical and impossible. So we elect representatives to represent us. The party they belong to should be relevant only as an indication of where they stand on certain issues. Even then we have a right to expect them to exercise their judgement, listen to their conscience and listen to us voters. Granted parties are necessary to ensure that a program the majority of the people want is carried out – without a party, party discipline and party platform, you get the kind of government you have in Toronto where they can’t agree on very necessary new taxes. Never-the-less a party not having a seat is irrelevant in a system based on the government being responsible to the people.

Proportional representation is based on the party system and just isn’t the same thing as representing people; it is designed to give parties a voice even if they can’t convince enough voters in a single riding to win a seat. In the proposed MMP system, you can’t get around the fact that list members are going to be primarily responsible to the party that put them on the list not to the people. The people are voting for a party not an individual person on the second vote even though they know who is on the list. Automatically awarding a party seats if it gets a set minimum percentage of the vote could destroy the dynamics of the party system.  Compromise is a strong Canadian trait; we generally chose the middle ground and party platforms are made up of compromises.

            Yes, we are political entities; we discuss ideas all the time.  We  feed our ideas to both political parties when we attend party meetings and conventions and to our government through committees - who do you think is making presentations at the second reading committee stage of legislation. I know I was listened to when I voiced my opposition to amendments to the public libraries act that would have made library boards committees of council to my Member of the Provincial Legislature even though I hadn’t voted for him. The committee also listened respectful to our (KPLB) presentation and asked some very good questions. Our riding representatives certainly hear from us and hopefully listen when issues like the environment or same sex marriage are being debated. I repeat, whether or not a particular party has a seat is irrelevant if our riding representative is truly responsible and doing his/her job.

            In my experience our current first past the post system is working relatively well despite a drop in voter turn out and riding winners receiving less than 50% of the vote. Voter turn out won’t be increased by MMP nor will MMP fix  the less than 50% problem.  I usually vote for the person reather than the party and he/she isn't usually the winner. I don't feel I've wasted my vote when that person doesn't win and I will continue to vote as long as I'm able. It's democracy and there are other ways to get my ideas across.  First past the post works for me while the proportional part of MMP just doesn't feel right.