Category: Politics

The old adage states that, “Opportunity only comes a-knockin’ once.” This week represented an opportunity for the federal Liberal Party, one they shunned.

Lise St-Denis, the Member of Parliament for Saint-Maurice-Champlain, was elected for the first time in May as a member of the New Democratic Party. However, she crossed the floor this week to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. Her given reasons were that she more aligned with the Liberals’ social policies and job-creation policies, as well as rejecting the NDP policy on pulling Canada out of the NATO mission in Libya. However, she is also quoted by CBC as saying that she had been considering this since the election in May and that, “It’s been six months that I’ve been reflecting and discussing.”

Crossing party lines is always a point of contention, particularly when it happens a short period of time following an election. The argument is that the member is elected based on people knowing some idea of the policies that member will support come from the platform of the party banner under which they ran. Riding associations also reflect badly on the process since they contribute both money and volunteer effort to elect the member running for their party. Consider the case of David Emerson, who was elected as a Liberal in the 2004 and 2006 federal elections; however, was named a Conservative cabinet minister in a surprise move two weeks after the 2006 election. The Liberal riding association, arguing that he had been elected as a member of that party, requested that he repay the $97,000 that they had spent during the election campaign, a sum that Emerson never repaid.

St-Denis has also been brought to task by the NDP for her change in party affiliation. Guy Caron, Quebec NDP caucus member from Rimouski — Neigette —Témiscouata — Les Basques, has called for St-Denis to resign her seat and run as a Liberal in a by-election to determine whether or not her constituents support her decision. According to Caron, “Quebec voters rejected the Liberals and voted for the NDP.” St-Denis, when asked if the constituents voted for her or the NDP in particular, she responded with the somewhat tasteless comment that, “They voted for Jack Layton, but Jack Layton is dead.”

On to the concept of opportunity…  Ms. St-Denis’s joining the Liberal party was announced at a press conference, accompanied by Liberal Interim Leader, Bob Rae and Quebec caucus chair, Denis Coderre. Rae stated, “The rebuilding of the Liberal Party of Canada depends on people like Ms. St-Denis who have the courage of their convictions and who join our fight against a Conservative government rooted in rigid and dangerous ideology.” Coderre commented, “I have always admired people who make decisions based on their principles and convictions, and I can assure Lise, on behalf of my colleagues in our Quebec Caucus, that she will have all the support necessary to better serve the constituents of Saint-Maurice-Champlain.” In sum, the Liberal Party seems to think highly of both Ms. St-Denis and her decision to join the party.

As we remember, the Liberal Party was dealt a substantial blow in the May 2^nd general election. While not the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives under Kim Campbell, it can be seen as being more than the electorate dealing them a slap on the knuckles. It has become obvious that the party needs serious rebuilding to get back into the game and many have proposed that, like the Progressive Conservatives, the party’s shelf life may not extend past the next federal election. To be blunt, no one will really know that until after the next election; however, it is certainly safe and sage to suggest that something different has to happen to ensure their survival. The party has to put forward some message that clearly states, “We’re new, we’re different, and we’re not like the other parties.”

Ms. St-Denis presented a chance for the party to do that. Publicly announcing her intent and rejecting it would have offered the Liberals a chance to say, “That’s old time politics and we don’t do that.” It could easily have offered the chance to start the rebranding of the party as something other than the “same old same old.” Rather, the leadership cheerfully accepted her into the fold… the fold of tired, old politics and a Liberal Party that much of the electorate sees as no longer relevant in the current political environment and rejected in the last election.

So, here’s a reminder for those delegates in the upcoming Liberal convention. Opportunity doesn’t knock often and you never really know if it will knock again…

This year, new corporate tax reductions take effect, reducing the federal corporate rate from 16.5% to 15%. The idea behind this, and a bizarre one, is that by allowing corporations to retain money by reducing taxes, they will increase spending the retained money. This is supposed to be an additional bonus by aiming this at corporations to allow them to spend more in times of financial instability.

While this sounds good, it probably results in the exact opposite of its intention. Remember how corporate taxes are based. Taxes are paid on the corporate revenues minus the allowable expenses. Those allowable expenses are things such as salaries and benefits, monies spent on expanding the company or those spent locally on parts, supplies, services, etc. In short, taxation, in a punitive form, serves as the encouragement for companies to hire employees, maintain a sustainable rate of growth and purchase materials and services relative to their business.

Shareholder dividends also fall under the heading of allowable expenses, so these too are not taxed at the corporate level. Rather, the individual recipients, should they be Canadian, pay personal income taxes on these as personal investment income.  Non-Canadian investors are a little more difficult to tax in this manner, since they should be declaring this income in the country of their own residence, where they will be taxed according to those rules.

Interestingly, I’ve taken two courses in accounting that stressed how to deal with corporate taxation. The first surprised me many years ago when the instructor, a chartered accountant, informed us that the first rule of running a small business is to make little or no profit. Huh? Basically, he stated, that profit is taxed so ensure, before fiscal year end, that you spend monies on supplies or new hires to prevent making a larger profit, and hence, paying more taxes. The second course, run by the Federal Business Development Bank, reinforced this by paying a great deal of emphasis on the same lesson.

So, what do lower corporate tax rates achieve? They certainly appeal to a fiscal conservative base that the government is “pro-business.” This throws a bone to this group since no Conservative federal government has been fiscally conservative since the first go round for Arthur Meighan. However, the result of this will encourage corporations to horde profits, rather than spend, particularly in the face of a probable EU recession and its effects on this side of the Atlantic. As for its planned result, expect higher unemployment and less investment as the year unfolds. Lower tax rates are the actual “job-killing” tax the Prime Minister told us to fear during the election campaign. The law of diminishing returns probably kicks in at some punitive level of taxation, but we had the lowest corporate tax rates in the G8 before this reduction applied.

Sadly, this is basic economics. Given a federal government led by someone with a Master’s degree in economics, the approach, similar to Reagan’s failed “trickle down” economics, is somewhat at odds with reality. Where is the planning and leadership we should see with potential economic instability? We should expect more from our government than paying lip service to one group to the detriment of the majority…

Two events this week have called the right to die question before the public. First, Gloria Taylor, a BC resident with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig ’s disease), and four others have filed suit before the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide. Taylor said her condition is deteriorating and she wants the ability to say when she dies.

If you are unfamiliar with ALS, it “is a rapidly progressive, invariably fatal neurological disease that attacks the nerve cells (neurons) responsible for controlling voluntary muscles. “ It results in the loss of the ability to move your arms, legs and body and causes the muscles in the chest and diaphragm to loss their ability to move, making it impossible to breathe without a ventilator. Most patients die from respiratory failure and the normal life expectancy of someone suffering from the disease is three to five years (for a description of ALS, its symptoms and treatments, see the National Institutes of Health web page).

This morning, a report by a Royal Society of Canada panel of six Canadian experts in bioethics, clinical medicine, health law and policy, and philosophy released a two year study on euthanasia in Canada. The panel recommended that Canadians should have the right to choose assisted suicide without legal penalty. This was based on a variety of factors, including the fact that several other jurisdictions have had euthanasia laws on the books without leading to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. The recommendations stated that “Canada should have a permissive yet carefully regulated and monitored system with respect to assisted death” and that doctors and patients should have the rights as individuals to choose whether to participate in assisted suicide based on their moral beliefs. They also considered palliative care in Canada and made several recommendations on the current palliative care system.

This is the second time the question has been placed to Canadians with such national prominence. In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, also suffering from ALS, lost her case in the Supreme Court to have the assisted suicide laws overthrown in a 5-4 decision. She, with the help of an anonymous doctor, ended her own life in 1994. No charges were filed in her case.

This is a contentious issue with organizations dedicated to both the pro and con sides of the argument. Any discussion that reaches parliament probably will be heated and emotive.

My opinion on this manner is easiest expressed in terms of what treatment I would like in these circumstances. I would like the choice to say when I have decided that my time is over. I have absolutely no desire to burden my family and friends with a lingering death and leave them in a situation where their lives are on hold for the sole reason that mine is. Guess what. The world will not end because I’m not here. At some point after my passing, people will eventually move on and speeding this is a good thing. And, I would like to have a number of options available should that time come, above and beyond saying, “I’m going skiing and may not be back for a while.”

The arguments against assisted suicide have largely concerned moral standards and the potential that people may be forced to involuntarily commit suicide by doctors or relatives. Washington and Oregon states both have good laws and regulations that prevent this and the Royal Society panel found no evidence that this has occurred. Any new law permitting assisted suicide in Canada could easily incorporate the Washington and Oregon provisions.

This leaves the moral question. If, as recommended by the Royal Society, this becomes an individual decision of patient and doctor, then their moral viewpoint on the issue is the only one that should matter. My morals incorporate the belief that I should be able to choose an alternative to a long, painful death from a debilitating disease. Others feel differently. They should have the right to choose otherwise for themselves; however, there are many groups that feel that I should not have that choice for myself and I resent the arrogance, and that is exactly what it is, of those who would inflict their moral viewpoint on others.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Canada finds in favour of Taylor et al. If not, with the current discussion once again in the news, it is past time that parliament consider this question with an open and objective mind. I’m placing my hopes in the hands of the Supreme Court, since “parliament” and “open and objective minds” lately seem to be two concepts too far apart…

I’m beginning to understand why the voting rate has declined to the extent that it has. It’s not that hard to realise why people can be so disillusioned with politics and politicians in light of recent events.

Thursday’s news is a perfect point to highlight this state of affairs. After several years of deliberation over campaign funding irregularities, the Conservative Party of Canada and their fundraising arm plead guilty in a plea bargain to overspending their allotted amount of advertising. As part of the plea bargain, the related charges against four individual members of the party were dropped. The party was fined a total of $52,000. To most, this would represent an action that we should, at least, express some embarrassment for. Absolute contrition would be an even better response.

So, imagine my disgust to hear the response of Fred DeLorey, the Conservative Party’s director of communications, who said in a written statement quoted by the CBC, “This is a big victory for the Conservative Party of Canada… Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today.” A second response quoted on CTV news was equally astounding. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said. “We acknowledge there were some administrative mistakes and we are paying for those through a modest fine.” But, he said, “the practice in which we engaged in was legal and ethical.”

This is not the response one expects after you have been caught cheating in an election, admitted it in a formal statement of fact agreed to as part of the plea, and fined the maximum amount for the offence. Being caught and fined is a huge victory? And, bluntly, how the hell is something that you are willing to plead guilty for either legal or ethical? Last, but not least, no one was “cleared.” The charges were dropped to save a trial for all of the offences with the plea of guilty on the biggest offence.

Is it any wonder people can’t get excited over politics? If this is the standard for what we’re electing, why bother? We should expect better, and we should be getting it…

Here we go again. CBC North is reporting today that a newly minted MLA was convicted of falsifying documents to obtain a wilderness tourism license. Yesterday, Kluane Yukon Party MLA Wade Istchenko called a press conference to confirm that he had been convicted for misreporting his credentials to obtain the license in 2008 and was fined for the offence. He stated that it was a “lapse in judgement.” Premier-elect Darrell Pasloski is quoted as saying he did not have prior knowledge about the conviction but that it would not affect his place in government. Pasloski reportedly stated that, “by coming forward, Istchenko is demonstrating a commitment to openness and honesty.”

Openness and honesty? Time out, here. I have questions regarding the timing involved. If Mr. Istchenko felt that he should disclose this for transparency’s sake, why did he not do this as part of his campaign rather than after being elected? Failure to present this during the election is a bit misleading. Or, did he release this disclosure now before another source, such as the press, threatened to do so? If this is the case, I’d be curious to know whether or not he intended at all to bring this up or to just let it stay hidden. Neither of these possibilities imply “openness” and the failure to disclose this to the party as part of the candidacy procedure does nothing to improve the appearance of this. After all, it would be difficult to say that failing to disclose a three-year-old conviction to your own party was an oversight.

I agree that this situation rarely arises. There has been some similar history of this when Dennis Fentie’s criminal record for drug trafficking was put forward as a hint of a minor brush with the law for selling marijuana, when it turned out later that he had been convicted and imprisoned for selling heroin. This fact did not impede Mr. Fentie’s being re-elected in another majority government in the next election. However, this certainly casts a somewhat distasteful appearance to his political career.

Maybe, it’s time to amend the Yukon Elections Act to require a disclosure of convictions as part of the candidacy selection process. How this is done is probably up for some discussion. For example, should there be a time limit on convictions before disclosure is required? Should this only apply to Criminal Code convictions or should territorial offences also be included? And, the big question is: should the disclosure be a public document or one only made to the party involved or the riding association?

To be honest, I think that, someone who has been convicted of an offence and has not re-offended has paid for their indiscretion. People make mistakes, people change, and none of us are perfect. However, we do expect a high standard of conduct for those in public office. And, to be honest, hiding such a conviction during an election campaign probably speaks more to a candidate’s character than the actual offence committed itself…

14 October 2011

Mary Dawson, Parliamentary Commissioner
Conflict of Interest and Ethics
Parliament of Canada
Centre Block, P.O. Box 16
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

By E-Mail (ciec-ccie@parl.gc.ca)

Dear Ms. Dawson:

I am writing to file a request regarding the current plan of the Minister of Labour to table back to work legislation in the event of a strike by Air Canada flight attendants. My request is due to the fact that I find some aspects of recent policy quite disturbing and feel that your intervention in this matter may be required to ensure that such legislation is dealt with in an honest and responsible matter.

In a point of background, the minister has suggested that the legislation is required to protect the function of an “essential service.” Personally, I find it difficult to rationalize how a private corporation that has competition for both domestic and international service can be seen as essential. Contrast this with the plan to eliminate the Coast Guard Search and Rescue station in St. John’s, NL. The argument for doing so as a budget cutting measure is that, despite the fact that it will require dispatching rescue services from as far away as CFB Shearwater, outside Halifax, NS, and adding approximately two hours to providing rescue services, this station is seen by the government as non-essential.

Unfortunately, this incongruity could be perceived as being the result of ulterior motives other than ideological ones. My request is, therefore, as follows. Could you please consult with the members of the House to determine which MPs hold shares in Air Canada or its subsidiaries and suggest to those members, regardless of party affiliation, that voting on this legislation could represent a perceived conflict of interest? Also, if permissible under privacy legislation, etc., could the list of MPs who are Air Canada or subsidiary shareholders be made public to ensure the openness and integrity of the voting on such legislation?

Yours truly

Douglas Rutherford