I remember that day as if it was just yesterday.
Started in the morning in Niagara Falls at the Burroughs campaign. Hit the Valeri campaign in Stoney Creek in the afternoon. Headed over to the Powers campaign in the late afternoon and evening and counted ballots in Freelton. Yes I said Freelton. As the results poured in we headed down the highway over to the Queensway to celebrate one victory. Ignatieff's!
When the result of the election became apparent as the evening progressed there was one thing I heard from Liberals from every corner of the province and from coast to coast as I fielded and made calls:
"We'll be back in a year!"
Well folks. It's 6 years later and we still haven't figured out what we stand for other than we are the best alternative (even though voters denied that too in May) and we are the natural governing party. Oh, and we like pot.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The First Person to Officially Announce for Liberal Leadership is...
...Scott Yee! Eat your heart out Bob Rae. Scott beat you to it.
Here's his presser:
While Mr. Yee names all the parties that he has belonged to, I think his memory of events may be "selective". He failed to mention that he ran for the Marijuana Party in 2004 in the Danforth. Didn't see that party in the list of the many he's belonged to.
Here's a heads up Mr. Yee - I don't think the use of the Liberal logo is allowed on your leadership page. Just sayin'.
Here's his presser:
Message flagged Friday, January 20, 2012 4:00:04 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1:00 A.M. PST, January 20, 2012
SCOTT YEE ANNOUNCES HIS BID FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
VANCOUVER - 29 year old Scott Yee announces his plans to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, with his top 20 campaign ideas that Yee says will transform Canada forever.
One of Yee's top priorities is Monetary & Taxation Reform. Yee wants to end the debt-based monetary system, which makes up 95% of the Canadian economy, and is created by the banking system through the personal debt of Canadians, and instead increase the % of the money supply created by the government through a population-based system to fund all levels of government, therefore eliminating the taxation system.
As this would pump $816 billion into the Canadian economy, the fractional-reserve system will be reinstated, and the reserve ratio is to be set at the required % to equal $816 billion, therefore currency levels will stay the same.
This means the Government of Canada will no longer have to pay interest to create it's own money, and having a permanent money supply will make government spending recession proof.
Because there will no longer be any sales taxation, the penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and half-dollar will all be eliminated, leaving just the loonie and toonie in circulation.
Yee also wants to create a national housing program by partnering with municipalities. Cities will provide the land, and run the housing program locally. The federal government will provide the funding, and the profits from housing will be shared 50/50.
To see all of Yee's top 20 campaign priorities for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, please go to his website.
Contact Info:
Email: liberalleadershiprace@aol.com
Website: http://liberalleadershiprace.wordpress.com/
While Mr. Yee names all the parties that he has belonged to, I think his memory of events may be "selective". He failed to mention that he ran for the Marijuana Party in 2004 in the Danforth. Didn't see that party in the list of the many he's belonged to.
Here's a heads up Mr. Yee - I don't think the use of the Liberal logo is allowed on your leadership page. Just sayin'.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
5 People, 1 Guitar, 28 Million Hits
...and in only 14 days!!!! Eat you heart out Lady Gaga. Walk off the Earth is a sensation.
Here's the original
Here's the original
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Liberal Delegates Might Want to Read This
From: Maria Minna [mailto:mariaminna@rogers.com]
Sent: January-09-12 3:17 PM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Constitutional Amendments.
January 9, 2012
Dear Liberal Colleagues:
I want to share with you my concerns with the major and sweeping changes being proposed to the Liberal Constitution. I believe that, if passed, they will have a major impact on the culture and future of the Liberal Party of Canada.
First, I want to address the time allocated for discussion and voting. Despite the massive restructuring of the party’s constitution and its operations, the organizers have put together an agenda that, in my view, does not work to the benefit of delegates or an open party. There are two different Q&A sessions on Friday (1:30-3pm & 3:30-5pm) to explain, I presume, the changes which include adopting the primary system. It seems to me that time allowed is disjointed and does not allow for debate. Delegates should be getting the explanations at the same time that the constitutional amendments are being done so that, once discussion on a given amendment is over, delegates can vote with information fresh in their minds. As it is, these small time frames may make delegates feel they have had their say and not attend the real show which is the constitutional amendments which takes place in two different time slots on Saturday (1-2pm & 5-6:30pm).
The two small different time slots for constitutional discussion and voting are also disjointed and do not allow for enough continuous time to debate and vote. The discussions and amendments should take place at the same time with plenty of time dedicated to this critical piece of our party’s restructuring. I am also concerned that some delegates may leave Saturday night and others may be busy attending other functions such as hospitality suites and we may get low turn-out.
Given the importance of the changes being proposed, I would have expected a good deal more time earlier in the day to be allocated. If the current executive really means it when they say they want an open party, then they should make the Friday (because having a general Q&A by itself is a waste of time) and the Saturday time slots all a constitutional debate and voting and collapse all the time slots earlier in the day while people are more engaged.
In a reply to a Liberal member on the same issue, the LPC’s Andre Brisebois explained that the reason for the agenda structure was that some members wanted policy discussion. Meanwhile LPC spokesperson Sarah Bain stated in an interview that “the three-day conference was planned as a policy convention, but has adopted an emphasis on renewal at the request of membership.” She also says that, “the resolutions that have garnered the most votes online would have the Liberals establish a renewal commission.....”
So, given that the road map, including the primary system, is the core of the renewal debate why relegate them to bits of leftover time?
I do want to share with you my concerns with the proposed primary system which creates a two-tier system -- supporters and members.
1. I believe our leadership process could be hijacked not to mention possible manipulation of data. Since it would be open to anyone who cared to register, the only thing a voter has to do is to sign a paper and that gives him/her the right to vote for the Liberal Leader, no fees needed. Remember that this is one of the only two most important privileges that the current paid-up member has in the Liberal Party.
This same supporter can register today, vote and deregister when voting is over. No other obligation is expected of them except to pledge that they are not a member of another party which is easy to do as most people are not members of the parties they support. We could potentially end up with supporters of other parties registering and voting for the Leader they think is the weaker one, thereby hijacking our process. Similarly, special interest groups could register and influence the process unduly.
The election of riding candidates will even be more influenced by special interest groups and cause major problems for the party.
Registration to vote can happen as late as 27 days before voting.
2. A member of the Liberal Party, on the other hand, has to pay a membership fee of $10 for the privilege of voting for the next Leader and of course is expected to do all the work of running a riding association, volunteering at riding events such as summer picnics, work in elections, raise money for the party and much more.
3. The constitutional proposal also has the election of a leader taking place over a period of 70 days, region by region across the country with results being made public as each region votes. This is the American primary system. In Canada we have changed election laws so that results of one region cannot be made public until the rest of the country has voted so as not to influence or discourage those voting later. I do not support having voters either influenced or demoralized as the vote rolls across the country. This could also skew the results.
4. The leadership vote is to be held in the different EDAs which means volunteers in associations having to manage possibly thousands of voters with interest groups controlling the vote.
5. There is to be a Leadership Committee within the party who is supposed to oversee the whole process, but I don’t believe that a volunteer committee can ensure no manipulation in such a complex system.
I don’t believe that our party has the infrastructure (I don’t believe any party has) to administer such a large number of registrants (several million possibly) not to mention the financial cost. We have had huge challenges in the past running large nominations in ridings and have had some very bad messes. This large-scale exercise across the country would lend itself to manipulation, and huge costs and major problems which could do a great deal of damage to the party. We are an organization of volunteers -- not Elections Canada.
6. Our leadership candidates of 2006 spent years trying to eliminate their leadership debt and some, I believe, are still trying. With a much larger campaign which would be required with a broader voting base, a long primary would entail major expenses both for the candidates and for LPC . Among other things, this could cause women to stay out of the race. The additional cost to LPC alone has not been assessed both in terms of human and monetary capital.
7. The powers of the President of the Liberal Party would change dramatically in this case but there is nothing in the document to address this.
8. The primary system would give the Liberal Leader and his/her office more power over Caucus and the Party. As a recent Member of Parliament with almost 18years of experience, I can say with first-hand knowledge, that, most of the time caucus is not considered or listened to by the leader and especially his office. There is very little accountability to caucus members. Especially during our years in opposition, we could have avoided a great deal of pain and losses if the leadership and their offices had listened and taken into consideration the expertise and advice of caucus members. Therefore, I am convinced that a Leader who is so broadly elected will feel even less accountable towards caucus let alone any accountability to the party at large.
9. I see no checks and balances in this proposal. In the American Presidential system the President has to go to Congress and Senate to lobby to get his agenda approved. We do not have a presidential system in Canada and our Parliamentary system already gives the Prime Minister huge powers which would become that much stronger with a primary system that elected him/her as leader of the party.
Colleagues, I am not saying that this system should not happen in Canada, but I believe that, if and when it ever does, we have to have in place all the proper checks and balances, address the issue of membership better, and not run the process ourselves but have Elections Canada run it to ensure a true independent and accountable process for Canadians to see.
In the meantime, I would recommend that we establish a Change Commission to study the recommendation and look at all the issues raised above and more and report back at the end of 2012 or at the next convention. In the meantime, let’s elect our next leader with the one member one vote which we established at the last convention and have never put to use.
Please share these few thoughts of mine with your Liberal colleagues and, if we are on the same wavelength, make sure the convention organizers know how you feel before the convention gets under way.
Sincerely yours,
Maria Minna
Hon. Maria Minna, P.C.
Former Member of Parliament
Beaches-East York
Sent: January-09-12 3:17 PM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Constitutional Amendments.
January 9, 2012
Dear Liberal Colleagues:
I want to share with you my concerns with the major and sweeping changes being proposed to the Liberal Constitution. I believe that, if passed, they will have a major impact on the culture and future of the Liberal Party of Canada.
First, I want to address the time allocated for discussion and voting. Despite the massive restructuring of the party’s constitution and its operations, the organizers have put together an agenda that, in my view, does not work to the benefit of delegates or an open party. There are two different Q&A sessions on Friday (1:30-3pm & 3:30-5pm) to explain, I presume, the changes which include adopting the primary system. It seems to me that time allowed is disjointed and does not allow for debate. Delegates should be getting the explanations at the same time that the constitutional amendments are being done so that, once discussion on a given amendment is over, delegates can vote with information fresh in their minds. As it is, these small time frames may make delegates feel they have had their say and not attend the real show which is the constitutional amendments which takes place in two different time slots on Saturday (1-2pm & 5-6:30pm).
The two small different time slots for constitutional discussion and voting are also disjointed and do not allow for enough continuous time to debate and vote. The discussions and amendments should take place at the same time with plenty of time dedicated to this critical piece of our party’s restructuring. I am also concerned that some delegates may leave Saturday night and others may be busy attending other functions such as hospitality suites and we may get low turn-out.
Given the importance of the changes being proposed, I would have expected a good deal more time earlier in the day to be allocated. If the current executive really means it when they say they want an open party, then they should make the Friday (because having a general Q&A by itself is a waste of time) and the Saturday time slots all a constitutional debate and voting and collapse all the time slots earlier in the day while people are more engaged.
In a reply to a Liberal member on the same issue, the LPC’s Andre Brisebois explained that the reason for the agenda structure was that some members wanted policy discussion. Meanwhile LPC spokesperson Sarah Bain stated in an interview that “the three-day conference was planned as a policy convention, but has adopted an emphasis on renewal at the request of membership.” She also says that, “the resolutions that have garnered the most votes online would have the Liberals establish a renewal commission.....”
So, given that the road map, including the primary system, is the core of the renewal debate why relegate them to bits of leftover time?
I do want to share with you my concerns with the proposed primary system which creates a two-tier system -- supporters and members.
1. I believe our leadership process could be hijacked not to mention possible manipulation of data. Since it would be open to anyone who cared to register, the only thing a voter has to do is to sign a paper and that gives him/her the right to vote for the Liberal Leader, no fees needed. Remember that this is one of the only two most important privileges that the current paid-up member has in the Liberal Party.
This same supporter can register today, vote and deregister when voting is over. No other obligation is expected of them except to pledge that they are not a member of another party which is easy to do as most people are not members of the parties they support. We could potentially end up with supporters of other parties registering and voting for the Leader they think is the weaker one, thereby hijacking our process. Similarly, special interest groups could register and influence the process unduly.
The election of riding candidates will even be more influenced by special interest groups and cause major problems for the party.
Registration to vote can happen as late as 27 days before voting.
2. A member of the Liberal Party, on the other hand, has to pay a membership fee of $10 for the privilege of voting for the next Leader and of course is expected to do all the work of running a riding association, volunteering at riding events such as summer picnics, work in elections, raise money for the party and much more.
3. The constitutional proposal also has the election of a leader taking place over a period of 70 days, region by region across the country with results being made public as each region votes. This is the American primary system. In Canada we have changed election laws so that results of one region cannot be made public until the rest of the country has voted so as not to influence or discourage those voting later. I do not support having voters either influenced or demoralized as the vote rolls across the country. This could also skew the results.
4. The leadership vote is to be held in the different EDAs which means volunteers in associations having to manage possibly thousands of voters with interest groups controlling the vote.
5. There is to be a Leadership Committee within the party who is supposed to oversee the whole process, but I don’t believe that a volunteer committee can ensure no manipulation in such a complex system.
I don’t believe that our party has the infrastructure (I don’t believe any party has) to administer such a large number of registrants (several million possibly) not to mention the financial cost. We have had huge challenges in the past running large nominations in ridings and have had some very bad messes. This large-scale exercise across the country would lend itself to manipulation, and huge costs and major problems which could do a great deal of damage to the party. We are an organization of volunteers -- not Elections Canada.
6. Our leadership candidates of 2006 spent years trying to eliminate their leadership debt and some, I believe, are still trying. With a much larger campaign which would be required with a broader voting base, a long primary would entail major expenses both for the candidates and for LPC . Among other things, this could cause women to stay out of the race. The additional cost to LPC alone has not been assessed both in terms of human and monetary capital.
7. The powers of the President of the Liberal Party would change dramatically in this case but there is nothing in the document to address this.
8. The primary system would give the Liberal Leader and his/her office more power over Caucus and the Party. As a recent Member of Parliament with almost 18years of experience, I can say with first-hand knowledge, that, most of the time caucus is not considered or listened to by the leader and especially his office. There is very little accountability to caucus members. Especially during our years in opposition, we could have avoided a great deal of pain and losses if the leadership and their offices had listened and taken into consideration the expertise and advice of caucus members. Therefore, I am convinced that a Leader who is so broadly elected will feel even less accountable towards caucus let alone any accountability to the party at large.
9. I see no checks and balances in this proposal. In the American Presidential system the President has to go to Congress and Senate to lobby to get his agenda approved. We do not have a presidential system in Canada and our Parliamentary system already gives the Prime Minister huge powers which would become that much stronger with a primary system that elected him/her as leader of the party.
Colleagues, I am not saying that this system should not happen in Canada, but I believe that, if and when it ever does, we have to have in place all the proper checks and balances, address the issue of membership better, and not run the process ourselves but have Elections Canada run it to ensure a true independent and accountable process for Canadians to see.
In the meantime, I would recommend that we establish a Change Commission to study the recommendation and look at all the issues raised above and more and report back at the end of 2012 or at the next convention. In the meantime, let’s elect our next leader with the one member one vote which we established at the last convention and have never put to use.
Please share these few thoughts of mine with your Liberal colleagues and, if we are on the same wavelength, make sure the convention organizers know how you feel before the convention gets under way.
Sincerely yours,
Maria Minna
Hon. Maria Minna, P.C.
Former Member of Parliament
Beaches-East York
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
