H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
I Affirm This
The Nashville Statement
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
The Buzz

Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
Email Me
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Canadian Coalition Government?
As a Canadian, I don't hold a monopoly on having to sit under a government that I did not vote for. When I was a liberally minded fellow, I voted zealously (and mindlessly) for the left most party. I could care less what happened to the world or the country, I cared about what happened to me, and I wanted a government in place that would be most advantageous to a lazy, down and out schmo looking for an easy hand-out.

After I began my career, started a family, and especially had my eyes opened by scripture to the sinfulness, not only of my own condition, but of all men, my politics took on a decidedly conservative turn.

So it has been that when I was a lazy leftist louse, I was disappointed by the conservative government that ruled over me. As I became a conservative, I was disappointed by the leftist government that was in power during that time of my life. To be sure, as I began to say - I have plenty of experience being ruled over by people I did not vote for.

So do most of you.

But very few people in the first world know what it is like to have a government that no one voted into power, "appointed" over them. Yet this draconian practice is still a real possibility in Canada.

In Canada, a minority government happens when after an election there is no one party that holds a majority of the seats in the house (305 seats = 153 seats for a majority). The leader of the party that won the most seats gets to be the Prime Minister, but really, its a weird situation because in truth, most of the country voted for someone else.

Now in Canada we get one vote for our riding or area. As many parties as can field a candidate in the area will be on the ballot - and perhaps a few independents too - but by and large, you vote for the person who represents the party you want to see governing the country. If John Wayne is the leader of the liberal party and I want John Wayne to be the next Prime Minister, I vote for the liberal candidate in my riding.

To be sure, the individual voter in Canada doesn't get much say in who the Prime Minister is going to be. If the party chooses another person to lead them, they become the prime minister. My vote is, in many ways, a vote for the party - and their governance. It is my saying, I elect this party to conduct government on my behalf according to their whims/dictates/promises, etc. Once my vote is in the box, I have no more say than anyone else about who will be the Prime Minister - the party that wins the most seats in the election selects their leader as the Prime Minister.

Yet in the case of Canadian politics at least, members of Parliament can form coalitions after-the-fact. They can form new parties and even jump ship and change parties according to their own caprice. They can't be ousted by their electorate until the next election.

This means that we, in Canada, once we cast our one vote for a party's representative must hope and trust that this person actually stays in the party they represented on the ballot. They don't have to, you see...

Now put all this together, and say that you have (as we do in Canada), a new minority government. It hasn't got enough seats to rule the house, but it has more than any other party. If however, all the other members of parliament decide to form a "coalition" - kinda like an impromptu "new party" - then they will have the majority and they can select from amongst themselves a representative who will become the Prime Minister. At this point the existing Prime Minister must go to the Governor General of Canada (a stand in for the Queen of England no less), who will either okay the new government or call for a new election.

I am simplifying things of course.

That is more or less what is happening in Canada, but what is amazing about the whole process is that a person who represents a foreign nation (England) has the final say in whether or not we put a newly created majority party in power - a party that no person in all of Canada voted for.

I ask my American readers to tell me if this seems like democracy to them?

UPDATE: If you are Canadian, and want to sign the petition. It's at a little over a quarter million people at the time of this update: find it here: http://www.petitiononline.com/CANADIAN/petition.html
posted by Daniel @ 12:46 PM  
  • At 11:57 PM, December 03, 2008, Blogger Bryan said…

    If you want to live in a Republic go to America. I'm really sick and tired of people saying this isn't democratic. We have a parliamentary democracy, not a US style democracy, but until this most people in Canada didn't know there was a difference (I heard a guy phone into CBC today who said that he elected Harper to be President...).

    The fact that coalitions keep being called undemocratic is mindboggling. This is common in Europe (Where proportional representation is the norm). Are they undemocratic? It also begs the question if in fact democratic is the best, but I won't open that can of worms here.

    It's also amazing Dan that you mock our Queen (Yes, one of her titles is Queen of Canada. She is head of the Commonwealth, not just England.) for having a say in how our government runs, and then turn to Americans and ask them their opinion. Why does their opinion matter about our country?

    As everyone knows I don't like any of our political parties, but I am a Monarchist and therefore have absolutely no issue with what is happening. It's how our system works; if you don't like it go to a Republic (or work to change this to one), but stop whining.

  • At 12:49 AM, December 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi Daniel,

    I to have been caught in the political ping-pong game of our so-called democratic elections. I was born (1951) and raised in Toronto and hate to admit that since the Tredeau days, I have pretty much given up on the idea of democracy.

    Now, Michaelle Jean, our Governera General, will have the difficult task of playing a mediator role (Canada cannot, should not be without a governing body). But unlike most mediators, she has only one week to hear all sides of our mud-slinging, politically elite's high-school antics and best decide what would be best for Canada, with the Queen's blessings I have been led to believe. She has access to the highest advisors in all fields she may find necessary to consult with.

    What bothers me the most about all the media and public attention this situation is generating, seems to me that most forget what triggered this event. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc didn't just decide to form a coalition one day because they had nothing better to do. Harper in one of his most underhanded and seditious attacks on Canadian Democracy to date tried to all but eliminate the opposition parties. Harper took control of the government in the manner of a high-school bully as if he had a strong majority rather than a weak minority.

    "The opposition parties all say Flaherty's mini-budget, which strictly limits federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011"....banning public-sector eh, our politically elite trying to sneak that into effect sorta like the martial law the Americans had thrown at them.

    A combative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday the government won't back down on a single measure, despite the opposition threats.

    Heck, give them their coalition (Dion will be replaced) but only if they agree to tax-payers conditions:

    1. there cannot be another election for three years, tax-payers reserve the right to vote on issues

    2. they implement a complete transparent government including expenditures (GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT)

    3. they all work together to clean up or economy, medical system, educational system, garbage problem and implement ways to make Canada green again. Unemployment and poverty would would be minimal as every Canadian would need to be involved in some way, hence being compensated by the some 50% taxes taken from every employed person. I believe it's time our government became just that, ours.


    Sandy McInnis

  • At 9:18 AM, December 04, 2008, Blogger Daniel said…

    Bryan, you grow sick and thereafter tire rather easily.


    While there are many different forms of government that employ (to one degree or another) the principles of democracy, not all forms of government are equally democratic, it stand to reason therefore that some forms of democracy™ are more democratic than others, and although it tires you that any one points it out, there is nothing wrong with drawing attention to those areas of our governance that I personally find lacking.

    Likewise, I think you mischaracterize what I have said as mocking the Queen, for I do not mock the Queen, I mock a system of government that empowers an appointed official - one whose function is to sit as a "stand-in" for the English throne, to make an arbitrary decision that supercedes our vote.

    That I mock, and it is mock worthy.

    I appeal to my American readers for the very reason that they are not being governed thus, and their opinion will be untarnished by a "this is how Europe does it so it must be best" attitude.

    I too am a monarchist, in the same sense as you are, but I don't let my kids play in traffic just because my King has rule over the traffic. Which is to say that political indifference dressed up as a pious appeal to God's sovereignty is just another form of head-in-the-sand thinking.

    There is nothing wrong with being offended by, and drawing attention to, a lack of democracy in a so-called democratic system, and there is nothing spiritual about ignoring it.

  • At 9:29 AM, December 04, 2008, Blogger Daniel said…

    Sandy, I am convinced that had Harper broken the law, or governed in a way that could be challenged and undone, he would either be in court or have his efforts reversed. I mention that because the point is not who is good, or who is doing the best for democracy™, or which party should be in power, etc. etc., nor is it really to identify all the things that can be done in our system to the disgust and frustration of many in the nation - the point is that our "democracy" allows it.

    I very much doubt the coalition, if given reign, will accomplish anything more than giving Dion a Prime Minister's pension. Can anyone imagine the Bloc consistently siding with anyone on anything for long? The point of the coalition is to oust Harper as P.M. - all the talk of democratic "purging" is just poetic obfuscation - flim flam.

    I agree with you though, banning public sector striking? My oh my.

    Only in Canader eh? Pity.

  • At 9:30 AM, December 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said…


  • At 9:05 PM, December 04, 2008, Blogger Bryan said…

    In some ways your right Dan, I am sick and tired of Canadians who want Canada to be America, so ya, I may have gone over the top with my comment.

    However, there is a real disagreement between us. I happen to think our democratic system is good. Superior then the Americans, but not as good as a proportional representational system would be. You seem to think the American is the best. We can critique each system all we want, but I'm betting we have slightly different starting points that lead to our conclusions. But since I'm still in a cranky mood about all this ado...

    I also truly do believe that by mocking the representative of the Queen your mocking the Queen. I don't see how you can mock the job of an official representative of the crown in her official capacity, and not be mocking the person she represents. You will of course say that your not mocking the GG, but the role she plays. How can you separate the two?

    Needless to say I disagree with your mocking of the system. It's not an arbitrary decision like flipping a coin is. It's a decision that no doubt is reflected and thought out. Such language as "arbitrary" is quite misleading. I happen to like having the crown make the final decision, someone who isn't partisan, but above that.

    Furthermore, you make it sound like we have a right to determine what the government of Canada does, but the government is the Queen's government. She has granted us the right to vote it in, but she still has final say on it.

    You disagree with that? Then don't call yourself a monarchist, call yourself a Republican. As I've already pointed out, that is what this whole discussion is about.

    You make it sound like an appeal to the American is objective because it doesn't have the "Europe knows best attitude". True, they don't have that attitude, they have the "American is best" one, just as I have the "Canada is better" one. You can't appeal to a neutral party to adjudicate what system is the best, because each is involved in a system.

    And what is this about God's sovereignty? Where was this brought up? Did you misunderstand what I said when I said monarchist? When I say monarchist when talking about politics, I mean I support the crown. I don't always agree with it, such as the decision that was made in this current case, but it's the will of the crown so I will abide by it.

    Now actually on to something more interesting?

    I think that both parties have played this situation so poorly that it's sickening. Harper went way overboard with using an economic crisis to hurt other parties. The opposition rightly called him out on this and refused to back down. Harper backed down, but the opposition had a taste of power and wanted to go all the way and get it all, and didn't leave themselves with any room to back down (Maybe threating a coalition unless changes were made without actually going ahead with it before giving harper a chance to make changes was a bad idea?). Harper goes nuts and attacks the coalition as undemocratic (which it's not) and as empowering separatists (which it doesn't any more then they have been in the past by conservatives and NDP). He then appeals to the GG to end the session (Why not sleep in the bed you made Mr. Prime Minister?) thus ending anything government can do to help out in the economic crisis and confirming the coalition's argument that he's more concerned about keeping power then working on the economy (although that criticism can be made to a lesser extent against the coalition as well). The GG instead of forcing parliament to work things out and get something done, allows a break until after Christmas when the issue may come up again...or may not if the Liberals can find a way out of this situation they put themselves in.

  • At 9:55 PM, December 04, 2008, Blogger Daniel said…

    Bryan, someone must have hurt you bad to put such a bee in your bonnet! lol.

    I don't say that America is best, nor do I imply or hint any such thing. Perhaps you have our discussion confused with some other one? I simply say that there is nothing democratic about someone no one voted for (the GG) having the power to put into place a government no one voted for. An appointed person, appointing a government is not what most people think of when they think of democracy™

    As to the monarchist thing, I assumed you were referring to the King of kings and not the Queen of England - you patsy. <smirk>

    I am still giggling over that last one, give me a sec...

    Okay, yeah, about who did what and how bad it was, and how good the other guy is - that is all politics, and this post isn't about politics, its about democracy, and the utter lack of it in such a thing as an appointed person appointing a government over one nation on behalf of a foreign nation.

    I don't think the American system is perfect, and I think it is sorely in need of repair in many places. IMO, the judicial branch could use a good enema, lobbying should be outlawed, and earmarking etc. is just plain garbage. But we have our own versions of many of these things in Canada too. If you hate the states, fine, but just because you have a baseball bat in your hand, and a hankering to swing it - doesn't make everything else a baseball. ;)

    If you think you're upset about politics now, wait until you've been alive another twenty years. Right now politics is all about opinions, wait until you have enough property and responsibility that politics actually begins to affect you personally - your opinions will be far more practical than the ideals you presently espouse. You heard it here first. ;)

    Love ya dude.

  • At 4:15 PM, December 05, 2008, Blogger David said…

    I find it humorous that someone from a nation whose national security is largely dependent on a powerful neighbor thinks their system is somehow superior.

    But, to get back on topic and answer your question, Daniel, that does not sound very democratic. It doesn't make any sense at all. But then, true democracy is no good, either. Democracy is nothing but a tyranny of the majority. That's just as evil as any dictatorship.

    That's why this [ahem] inferior nation was intentionally founded as a Constitutional Republic, with "a government of laws, not men." It's a system that has kept us free, stable, prosperous, and strong for over 200 years. The fact that the farther we drift from that foundation, the less free, prosperous, stable, and strong we are should not go unnoticed.

  • At 6:16 PM, December 05, 2008, Blogger Bryan said…

    David, is your only criteria for best system of government national security? That seems pretty ridiculous.

    Daniel, I overstated saying that you think the American system is best, but your comments clearly show you think it is better. Replace the best, with better, in what I said and the rest of that paragraph still stands.

    Patsy? Really Daniel, for supporting the Queen that's what I get?

    About the whole political side of thins, I don't think you can get away from bringing that in. That is to say I don't think you can abstract the system from the situation. It's a philosophical position, I know, but whatever. The situation flavours your view of the system, and the system falvours your view of the situation. The two cannot be kept in nice neat boxes.

    I don't hate the United States. If I overstep saying you think it's best, surely you overstep here. I respect the States and understand the important relationship we have with them. I think your mistaking pride in Canada (yes, that actually exists) and the crown, to mean hatred of what is not Canada and the crown. America has it's own political tradition, that is fine. We have our own as well and I'll fight tooth and nail to protect it and keep it ours. What I'm upset at is people who want to make our political system into a republic similar to America.

    You keep predicting my opinions on politics will change, and you may be right on it, its not something I want to predict. However what I don't understand is the glee your seeming to get out of this anticipated change. Your keep talking (not just here but in past discussions on politics) as if it will be so great when I give up my idealism and join the rest of the world being pragmatic putting my own affairs first in who I support and such...Is this really a change to take glee in?

    Seriously Daniel, is it? Should giving up of idealism something to anticipate. Should you not want instead the change to be in the opposite direction, to have everyone re-embrace idealism and force to government to conform to what they could be instead of the power grabbers (and holders) they appear to be now?

  • At 6:51 PM, December 05, 2008, Blogger Daniel said…

    Bryan, the glee is a paternal thing - you know, like watching children grow up. When it happens to you, and if you live long enough to prosper, it will, then you will find yourself making decisions that are grounded in the reality you live in and not the ideal you would like to see implimented. Unless you get a job as a University professor, in which case you can continue to dream of and reason from the ideal situation, because your life (and maturity) is sort of arrested in that fishbowl of "make believe" we call university. Which is to say that in general some, but certainly not all, university professors never grow out of it because they never get an opportunity to practice what they preach. It is the actual "practicing" of living in reality that reveals the hollowness of idealism, and you are way, way to bright to linger long in it.

    So yeah, there is a glee, even a deep dark one. Because I -know- that one day, should you live on this earth long enough, you will learn that much of what you have been taught in university is nice, but impractical, and your wife will not let you live in an impractical way, and you won't want to either.

    I could be wrong of course, and that would be a disappointment, for I would consider it a failure of your intellect to stagnate like that - but we shall see. ;)

    <insert glee here>

    I have come to expect sin from a sinful world, and have learned by sad experience, that all my own idealism and hope cannot and will not make bad people act nice, so I am not holding my breath on the world suddenly embracing idealism - since idealism is typically defined by liberal minded - "let's all get along" sorts, and frankly, their utopia would be a hell of sorts to me.

    But back to politics, you do seem to hate the US, but I will accept my overstepping that and reduce it to the idea that you are simply a Canadian patriot, though putting the words Canadian and patriot together in my mouth makes me feel like I am trying to swallow six elbows at the same time. ;)

    Time will tell on these issues. I think you missed the high brow nature of David's comment?

  • At 8:03 PM, December 05, 2008, Blogger David said…

    Bryan, of course my only criterion for the best system of government is national security. What else could you conclude after reading my entire comment? Or maybe you didn't read that far.

  • At 10:37 PM, December 05, 2008, Blogger Bryan said…

    I did read your whole entry David, several times. I understand what your saying in the rest of your entry, and I don't see how to fits with your first comment, so obviously I'm loosing something in reading it.

    Daniel, the world is a less magical place with your views in it.

  • At 2:07 AM, December 09, 2008, Blogger sandysjourney said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • At 1:33 AM, December 12, 2008, Blogger sandysjourney said…

    I was asked on another post how I figured Harper forced the coalition, well I will try my best to state this as I have been led to believe it to be.

    Harper's government introduced (Jim Flaherty's) mini-budget which has been referred to as one of his most underhanded and seditious attacks on Canadian Democracy to date. Flaherty's pen slashed at democracy by trying to eliminating the current funding to political parties knowing full well that it would bankrupt most of them, especially in remote regions, (I'm positive he realized they would have to rebel to that one), toughening the plight for women to fight for equal pay (yes another 'thumb' on women's liberties, why are they so afraid of us) but most important to diminish what little democracy we have left by trying to implement a "no strike" policy for three years. (Well I was around when they implemented sales tax, TEMPORARY solution they explained... we all know the tune to that song.

    ** I have not met a Canadian yet who doesn't love this nation and the democracy we stand for.(wikipedia....In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties) When the concept of unions was conceived, and implemented, working conditions were deplorable u should be thankful u will never have a chance to experience, thanks to the concept of workers unions, hope for a decent existence was finally achievable, workers were finally motivated to dedicate themselves to their job with hope for the future, the introduction of unions pulled bottom dwellers into the work force which any economist knows is imperative to a healthy economy. That was then...now ..we have the knowledge of knowing the extent of corruption that can manipulate top levels, to the constant whining of the fat soakers...yes, I believe unions need some necessary amendments but neither the Harper party (Flaherty's mini budget) nor any other political party, have the right to eliminate any Canadian's fundamental right to go on strike (unless all parties agree) since it creates a dangerous precedent.**

    "When the opposition party challenged Harper's (Flaherty's) mini-budget, the combative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the government won't back down on a single measure, despite the opposition threats."

    Hence the forming of the coalition of the three (most of the discussions that I have read on line seem to have the most disagreement on this issue, as some would like to believe that Harper was caught off guard on this move while others wish to believe the opposition were merely being power hungry with back-room deals)

    I'm convinced Harper deliberately dared the three stooges to form this coalition, which they were so not ready for, (Dion in the process of stepping down and the party in the process of trying to elect a new leader, let alone the joker card, the Bloc, **give me a break**) mainly because he pulled a similar manoeuvre back in 2004, which proves he was so not ignorant of what he was doing. He knew full well Canadians would cry foul, knowing full well Canadians did not want Dion as Prime Minister....Canadians did not want another election....Canadian did not want a weak government during these economically troublesome times...
    Does anyone truly believe Harper is of diminished capacity. knowledge is knowledge

    (this is a copy I found on line of Harpers proposal for a coalition back in 2004, notice the block was also included)

    September 9, 2004

    Her Excellency the Right Honorable Adrienne Clarkson,
    C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
    Governor General
    Rideau Hall
    1 Sussex Drive
    Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
    As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
    Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
    to dissolve the 38Th 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.
    Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
    Leader of the Opposition
    Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
    Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
    Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
    Jack Layton, M.P.
    Leader of the New Democratic Party

    O M G .....WAKE UP CANADA!!!!!!!

    NO ONE TRULY WANTS TO DIMINISH WHAT LITTLE DEMOCRACY WE HAVE LEFT, except maybe the ignorant, arrogant exuberance of those who seem to do little more than spew cheap sarcasms in lieu of constructive thought. Are we not all sick and tired of being held hostage to their political ping-pong game of power while they continue wasting taxpayers hard earned money on exorbitant political expenditures, let along a dooming election.
    These passionate discussions, that have been sparked by this coalition, erupting from coast to coast, cannot be achieved in any other forum.
    We have the technology to finally communicate instantly from coast to coast, therefore making it more difficult for the governing elite to pull the preverbal "wool over our eyes". Maybe even to prevent them from imposing an undemocratic manoeuvre as the right to strike and disabling them form manipulating Canadians into situations such as the "Martial Law" the Americans recently had imposed on them.

    Heck, give them their coalition, a true coalition the three stooges and Harper...(put them all in a dungeon together until they can do the job they claimed they could do during the elections, with maybe the green party as opposition (just maybe the nation can concentrate on keeping Canada green).
    but only if they agree to Canadians conditions:
    1. they implement a complete transparent government including expenditures
    2. they all work together to clean up or economy, medical system, educational system, garbage problem and implement ways to make Canada green again. Unemployment and poverty would would be minimal as every Canadian would need to be involved in some way, hence being compensated by the some 50% taxes taken from every employed person. I believe it's time our government became just that, ours.


    I started posting on line a few years ago, trying to implement a "watch dog" on government spending, which went no where, then I heard of Obama's GOOGLE FOR GOVERNMENT http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/ ...which is a form of transparent governing. The U.S. is starting this "transparent government spending" from the top, their newly elected president, (mainly in the need to try to ease americians' minds that overspending will now be transparent and that their gazillion dollars will no longer be spent on bailing out failing, antiquated profit greedy institutions), which makes it still a government controlled idea...I believe Canada also needs a "Transparency Act" but instead of being government controlled, it should be citizen controlled, starting from our most local M.P. dealing with local and community issues and expanding to Provincial, Federal and global concerns.
    I believe that every Canadian taxpayer has the right to know how the government spends our tax dollars. I believe that every person that receives a government pay check should be accountable on how tax dollars are spent, after all we do claim to be a democratic society.

    A Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to hop online and see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks, down to local expenders and will also allow everyone a direct line to express any and all concerns along with positive input as to how to proceed with any and all issues, both in the present and with future concerns.
    With all the horror stories of senseless tax dollar expenditures will we ever have trust in a politician that is against providing taxpayers with details on how well their money is spent.
    Along with demanding fiscal transparency from the federal government, taxpayers should have the expectation that provincial and local governments will also embrace new technologies to make details about spending decisions and performance readily available at a click of the mouse along with the ability to express personal views. We also need to adopt a system to require that the public have at lest three days to review tax and spending bills before they are voted on.
    Several states have already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
    We all know government is plagued by red tape, isn’t efficient and doesn’t work as it should. Increasing transparency and accountability is a huge first step. But We also need policymakers to make significant changes after we all get to see the horror and reckless spending that will be revealed by this improved system.
    Initiatives at any level of government that pair transparency with accountability will set us on the road to performance-based government rather then our current system which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects.
    Taxpayers have to demand that elected officials at all levels of government respect us enough to show us what they’re doing with our tax dollars on our behalf. It is after all our government, our country, our province, our city or town and our money.

    I have recently been informed that Google is American. I'm sure Canadians are intelligent enough to produce a similar Canadianized format for a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, the students graduating from tec institutions today are absolutely amazing and they all need jobs.
    I understand there would be security concerns, but consider, we have come a long way since the day we all were convinced (by our government) of the demons that live in cyber...but...think of all the banking done one line now ..secure enough,...or pay pal ...anything can be overcome with the right approach...far better this than the BS we are dealing with now, and, as east and west are not that far apart in their beliefs, (ummm, I don't mean political beliefs) maybe we could stop the governing elite form separating us andy further.
    Don't let the "issue" fool you. Seeing as the majority of Canadians (including myself) believe that Canada is the best country on the planet, I believe it is time to form a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT that represents Canada from coast to coast so that we can finally get to fixing the issues we face rather than being held hostage to their political ping-pong game of power.

    The coalition should be dead after the next budget as I think Harper will come up with an acceptable budget...at least he should, but they will continue to play their ping-pong game of power at the tax-payers expense if we, as Canadians, do not implement a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT. can I add that I think this is the best time to demand this move as most of the nation is paying attention.

    Thank you for listening (some food for thought if nothing else)

    Sandy McInnis


Post a Comment
<< Home
Previous Posts
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5