RODC February Monthly Report

RODC Monthly Report to Supporters February 2012

A month has passed since our last report to Supporters, and since then there have been several happenings that make us even more determined to work on our overarching goals: first, to elect a truly democratic government in 2015, and second to change the voting system in Canada. To help guide us to our goals, we have drafted our Strategic Action Plan and posted it on our site.  

Our most important campaign is the opposition to the Crime Bill.

The Senate Legal Committee is currently studying the Bill C-10.  Here is a site with the fax numbers of the 12 committee members as well as a method of sending faxes from your computer to the Senate Legal Committee Members.


The Brownstone Group has developed a petition aimed at influencing Senators to reject C-10. They urge you to sign here. 

Leadnow has a site at that encourages us to e-mail letters to Senators expressing our opinion of the Crime Bill.

The CBC is in danger! Here are the words of Conservative MPs seeking to "de-fund" the CBC as published by the Friends of the CBC.

Avaaz has an interesting idea for influencing the outcome of the next election –join a party!  Anyone can join one of the political parties and acquire voting rights.  For more information, and to take action if you choose, click here.

Here are some interesting events that we have been watching over the last month.

Justin Trudeau has made some controversial statements that caught our attention.  To hear him speak, check out these two CBC videos. There will be a commercial at the beginning, so please be patient.

1. With Evan Soloman, Justin explains his controversial comments.

2. On Parliament Hill, Justin speaks to reporters in a scrum on the direction that the current government is taking Canada.

This article entitled Time for 'Occupy Parliament'? may stimulate activity.

And last, but far from least is the challenge laid down by Gerald Caplan in his article in the Globe and Mail: What happened to Harper’s opposition?

Twitter: Please follow us on Twitter @reclaimcanada

We hope you will continue to support us in this new year.  Let is know what you think at reclaimcanada@gmail.com.

Clare Henderson for the Steering Committee

February Monthly Report to Supporters

RODC Monthly Report to Supporters February 2012

A month has passed since our last report to Supporters, and since then there have been several happenings that make us even more determined to work on our overarching goals: first, to elect a truly democratic government in 2015, and second to change the voting system in Canada. To help guide us to our goals, we have drafted our Strategic Action Plan and posted it on our site.  

Our most important campaign is the opposition to the Crime Bill.

The Senate Legal Committee is currently studying the Bill C-10.  Here is a site with the fax numbers of the 12 committee members as well as a method of sending faxes from your computer to the Senate Legal Committee Members.

Leadnow has a site at that encourages us to e-mail letters to Senators expressing our opinion of the Crime Bill.

The CBC is in danger! Here are the words of Conservative MPs seeking to "de-fund" the CBC as published by the Friends of the CBC.

Avaaz has an interesting idea for influencing the outcome of the next election –join a party!  Anyone can join one of the political parties and acquire voting rights.  For more information, and to take action if you choose, click here.

Here are some interesting events that we have been watching over the last month.

Justin Trudeau has made some controversial statements that caught our attention.  To hear him speak, check out these two CBC videos. There will be a commercial at the beginning, so please be patient.

1. With Evan Soloman, Justin explains his controversial comments.

2. On Parliament Hill, Justin speaks to reporters in a scrum on the direction that the current government is taking Canada.

This article entitled Time for 'Occupy Parliament'? may stimulate activity.

And last, but far from least is the challenge laid down by Gerald Caplan in his article in the Globe and Mail: What happened to Harper’s opposition?

Twitter: Please follow us on Twitter @reclaimcanada

We hope you will continue to support us in this new year.  Let is know what you think at reclaimcanada@gmail.com.

Clare Henderson for the Steering Committee

Judy addressing the Rally

Judy Rivard addresses the Rally, June 13, 2012

My remarks today include some quotes I have gathered as a concerned citizen trying to gain a better understanding of the C-38 situation. Let me begin with the following quote.

“The omnibus bills we have before us attempts to amend several different existing laws. Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? “

Stephen Harper spoke these words on March 16, 1994 in the House of Commons when he was a Reform MP for Calgary West. He was referring to the 24-page omnibus budget bill tabled by the government of the day. 

He went on to say, “We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.” END Quote

Bill C-38 the 2012 Budget is over 400 pages; the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper has tabled five budgets of 390 pages or more in its six years in power. Only three times between 1994 and 2005, when the Liberals were in power, did a budget implementation act exceed 100 pages at the time of royal assent. On seven occasions, the bill that passed Parliament was less than 70 pages.

Another former conservative MP stated,

“It makes a travesty of the democratic process to bundle all of this into a budget bill, with all of its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period." Said by Tom Siddon, a Conservative elected 5 times federally between 1978 and 1993, serving as Fisheries Minister from 1985 to 90. Mr. Siddon was Referring to one of the 70 amendments in Bill C-38 when speaking at a House of Commons Subcommittee meeting on Wed. May 30, 2012.

In a letter to the Oakville Beaver last Thursday, June 7, our MP, Terence Young, responds to opponents of the bill by presenting statistics so the average Beaver reader might say the Bill has been sufficiently debated. My math totals 96 hours of debate for 452 pages of legislation that’s 4.7 minutes per page. Unless one is familiar with legislative procedure they might assume this is fine. But we have to consider the scope of the bill. 4.7 minutes per page doesn’t seem to be enough time to repeal acts that took years to set up.

DEMOCRACY IS more than just a vote it’s a process and that process matters. This is not a question of whether a majority government can make lawful decisions by outvoting the opposition in Parliament. They can. This is a question of how the government makes those decisions, whether they have followed due diligence and explained clearly the rationale and the pros and cons of their decisions to the public. Meaningful, informed debate to possibly amend proposed legislation is the purpose of Parliament.

These “omnibus bills” can be an expedient way for the government to make law. While I’m all for efficiency, what’s the rush. If the contents of Bill C-38 is in alignment with the views and values of a majority of Canadians then it should be split and each component able to stand up to open public debate in our Parliament. It should also be able to stand up to a free vote not along party lines so as Mr. Harper stated “Members can be allowed to represent the views of their constituents."


Return to the Campaign Page

NDP Response

The NDP Interim Leader's response to a Letter:

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the Harper government's omnibus crime legislation, Bill C-10.

This Conservative crime bill is a collection of nine bills from previous Parliaments- a number of them are not even related to the Criminal Code or the Justice Department mandate!

Public safety is a top priority for New Democrats. While there are measures in this bill that we support, such as tough new laws on Internet luring of children, there are others that will do nothing to make our streets and communities safer.

With NDP Justice critic Jack Harris taking the lead, we proposed to divide the legislation so Parliament could immediately pass those parts that would meaningfully tackle public safety and help protect our children. We have also put forward a number of amendments to remove offending parts of this bill. Regrettably, the Conservative government rejected our proposals and decided to ram the bill through Parliament, shutting down debate both in the House and at Committee.

The Conservative Public Safety Minister has even tried to amend the bill at the last minute, without success:

http://www.ndp.ca/press/conservatives-pushing-through-crime-bill-public-safety-minister-admits-flawed.

Opposition to this misguided legislation is mounting: Quebec's National Assembly recently adopted a unanimous motion against certain provisions contained in the bill; the Police Chiefs say it is unbalanced; the Canadian Bar Association and crown prosecutors say it will overload our justice system; and provinces are unable to pick up the tab. Even Judge Nunn, who has been used repeatedly by the Conservatives as a validator for this legislation, has declared his opposition.

(http://www.ndp.ca/press/judge-nunn-contradicts-cons-says-c-10-goes-too-far)

As it stands, Bill C-10 could have child molesters getting lighter sentences than individuals who grow six or more pot plants. We do not think this makes any sense nor makes our communities any safer.

Without a doubt, C-10 will be expensive for taxpayers and the provinces. Despite our efforts, the government has refused to reveal the true cost of Bill C-10. We have gone so far as to ask Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page to look into how much these changes will cost taxpayers. Mr. Page estimates that over five years the federal government will spend $5-billion
while expenditures between $6-billion and $10-billion will fall to the provinces and territories.

Equally troubling is that the majority of the crime bill is not based on evidence. We know from studies and testimonies from victims and those who work in the area of criminal justice that increasing mandatory minimum sentences and building more expensive mega-prisons do not make our streets safer. Rather, greater preventative measures and more police on our streets are better choices to make our communities safer.

Canada's crime rate continues to fall while our unemployment rate is on the rise. The government should be focusing on jobs and not jeopardizing our economy by increasing the debt all in the pursuit of a failed ideology that says putting more people in prison and building more jails will make us safer.

Looking forward, New Democrats will act in the best interests of public safety. It's time for leadership that will move Canada forward.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Nycole Turmel, M.P.
Interim Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada

OCRCC Letter to Senators

The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres 
1515 Rebecca Street, Suite 227, Oakville ON, L6L 5G8  905-299-4428 
Website: www.sexualassaultsupport.ca 

December 13, 2011 
Re: Omnibus Crime Bill, Bill C-10 
Dear Senator, 
The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres (OCRCC) works toward the prevention and eradication of sexual assault. The Coalition recognizes that violence against women is one of the strongest indicators of prevailing societal attitudes towards women. Our membership includes sexual assault centres from across Ontario, offering counselling, information and support services to survivors of sexual violence, including childhood sexual abuse and incest. 


OCRCC is writing concerning the Omnibus Crime Bill, Bill C-10. We are deeply concerned about this bill, as we believe that it ignores extensive evidence about effective ways of making communities safer. 


We are also concerned about the ways in which the law and criminalization can affect different populations of people unequally. Women’s experience of crime and of being in conflict with the law is different than that of men’s: the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada notes that more than half of all charges for which federally sentenced women are convicted are non-violent, property and drug offences. Property offences account for around 32% of all court cases and 47% of all charges against women. One reason why women account for 5% of admissions to federal penitentiaries is because they are far less likely than men to commit or to be convicted of serious crimes of violence which result in sentences in excess of two years.


Despite the fact that women perpetrate less serious and less violent crime, the realities concerning who is incarcerated will undoubtedly change if the Omnibus Bill is passed.

As women’s advocates, we know that law and criminalization can affect different populations of women differently as well. Marginalized populations of women − such as Aboriginal women, young women, homeless or transient women, women with mental health issues, or women with a history of addictions − face more complex barriers simultaneously when accessing the criminal justice system, as well as when in conflict with the law, or proceeding through the criminal justice system2. Women marginalized by race, education and socioeconomic status are also over represented in prisons: while more than 80% of women in Canada have progressed beyond grade 9, for example, amongst women prisoners, the figure is closer to 50%.

As anti-violence advocates, we acknowledge that women and minorities “experience different crime patterns, prejudice and bigotry, hiring and salary inequities that lead to different life stresses and ways of coping”. Indeed, eighty percent of all federally sentenced women report having been physically and/or sexually abused. This percentage rises to 90% for Aboriginal women. 


Clearly, social location and social context is operant in issues concerning women in conflict in the law. Yet Bill C-10 aims to impose mandatory sentences and limit judicial discretion that may allow for acknowledgment of this context. Bill C-10 has been rushed through the House of Commons without proper attention to its costs, consequences, and the legitimate concerns of our provinces, First Nations, women, youth and countless other individuals, organizations and experts. If Bill C-10 proceeds unchanged, it would radically shift Canadian justice away from prevention and rehabilitation, and towards punishment and exclusion at a great social and financial cost.

OCRCC asks that the Senate review all of the Bill’s consequences, and consider alternatives that are proven to reduce crime. We ask that you pay particular attention to: 
The limiting of judicial discretion created by mandatory sentences, a change that will put too many people in jail.

The limiting of judicial discretion created by mandatory sentences that will further limit the rights of Aboriginal peoples to manage their own justice systems 
The amendments proposed by Quebec and others that would make sure that as many young offenders as possible are rehabilitated into society, instead of being criminalized in prison.

The many measures in Bill C-10 that will put people in prison who do not belong there, including women experiencing addictions and mental illness.

The many measures in Bill C-10 that will put people in prison who do not belong there, including marginalized populations of women 


OCRCC believes that education and information goes a long way toward the prevention of violence. Together, we will make a difference.

Sincerely,

Nicole Pietsch 
OCRCC Coordinator 

Policy Not Polls Video

Part 1: Welcome, The Concept, Candidates' Opening Statements


Part 2: Questions from the audience, Candidates' Responses


Part 3: More Questions from the audience, Candidates' Responses


Part 4: Last Question, Candidates' Concluding Remarks, Thank you


CANDIDATES Left to right

Nik SPOHR - NDP (Halton)
Gina van den BURG – Freedom Party of Ontario (Halton)
Mike HARRIS – Independent (Oakville)
Kevin FLYNN - Liberal (Oakville) 
Lesley SPRAGUE - NDP (Oakville)



CREDITS
MC:  Bronwen Bruch of Fair Vote Halton


The Policy Not Polls Concept:  Susan Berry of Recalim Our Democratic Canada


Thank You: Lynn Rochon of CAPP Oakville


Timer (off camera): Carole Holmes


Videographer  (behind the cameras): John S. Kay


Sound: Tony Bruch

Gathering and Day of Action

RODC   Reclaim our Democratic Canada

invites you to join with us

in a GATHERING and DAY OF ACTION

in collaboration with Leadnow. 

You can find full information at www.leadnow.ca

Turning Point is a week of cross-Canada Gatherings that will bring generations of

Canadians together to organize for change, and send a message to Ottawa that more

and more Canadians are stepping up to shape our shared future.

 *****************************************************************

There are two components to this week:

You may participate in either or in both

SUNDAY  Oct 2    2pm   A Gathering to collate ideas and prepare material

MONDAY Oct 3    1:30 pm   A Day of Action when the material is delivered to your MP

*************************

     OUR GATHERING

Sunday  October 2  2pm

We will meet in Elka Enola’s home, discuss the issues, record our ideas and prepare material with our suggestions and ideas to share with our federal government.

2124 Towne Blvd, L6H 5G7, Oakville (North of Upper Middle, East of Neyagawa)

905-257-7075

********************************

      OUR DAY OF ACTION

Monday   October 3  1:30 pm

We will meet in the parking lot outside the building housing Terrance Young’s Constituency Office.  We will deliver our materials, concerns and suggestions.

165 Cross Avenue, Suite 104  Oakville, L6J 0A9  (Opposite Go Station)

905-338-2008

*******************************************************

Please Join Us

rsvp   to Elka at ere@bell.net

Open, accountable, transparent government

We want open, accountable, transparent government that is civil, compassionate, and cooperative. 

We want the government to welcome dissenting voices and to encourage and support advocacy.
  
We want our politicians to respect and abide by international agreements made by our parliamentary democracy.

DID YOU KNOW?
That the omnibus Crime Bill C-10 was pushed through parliament by a majority Conservative government in December 2011 in spite of opposition by several national groups that demonstrated publicly and thousands of citizens who wrote letters to their MPs.  At least one Conservative Senator opposes the bill.

That several officials have resigned or been sacked. Here are a few:

Pat Stogran – Veteran’s Ombudsman – sacked for his criticism of poor treatment for veterans
Chief Marty Cheliak – Director General of the Canada Firearms Program – sacked after defending the gun registry
Munir Sheikh – head of Stats Can – resigned after the feds ignored his battle to keep the long-form census
Steve Sullivan – Ombudsman for Victims of Crime – tenure not renewed by government in 2010
Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (which together receive 70% of all signed complaints) closed
Peter Tinsley – chair of Military Police Complaints Commission – had his tenure ended over Afghan detainee controversy 

That our government has ignored requests to rectify the violations of Omar Khadr’s rights as a Canadian citizen.  Not only has our government shown disrespect for the Supreme Court of Canada, by ignoring the directives of Federal Court Justice Zinn, but even more astoundingly, it has ignored the requirements of our hard fought for Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That the prorogation of Parliament to avoid defeat in the Commons and the government’s refusal to allow access to documents on the "handing over of prisoners to Afghanistan for torture", are examples of the undermining of the primacy of Parliament, the rule of law and the erosion of democracy as we know it in Canada. It is the secret and arbitrary nature of this government’s actions that makes us uneasy.

That the selection of downtown Toronto by our government for the G20 meeting in 2010 in spite of Toronto's Mayor Miller's request to change the location and the subsequent attempt to criminalize dissent was a most serious attack on the basic tenets of a free and democratic society.

That  the final Omnibus Bill (C-9 Canada’s Economic Action Plan) passed by Parliament on 12.07.2010, was 880 pages long! This has been a legal way for governments in power to include initiatives that are not debated or related to the subject of the Bill. Passage of the bill can be forced under the threat of making it a confidence vote. 

That accountability is a fundamental protection of our society. Incidents of "sidestepping civil rights and the rule of law for the sake of political expediency" seem to be developing into a pattern with this government. (Stephen Bede Scharper, University of Toronto Professor of Environmental Ethics. “The Price of Political Expediency” Toronto Star 19.07. 2010.)

Back

RODC Core Values Regarding a Democratic Government for Canada

We believe that a democratic government makes decisions based on needs identified and supported by scientific and statistical evidence. We believe that our government’s decisions should never be driven by ideology, by partisanship, nor by attempts to appease certain groups for political reasons. 


We believe that our government should welcome dissenting voices and encourage and support advocacy.


We believe in the principle of the separation of religion and state.


We believe in an open, accountable, transparent government that is civil, compassionate, and cooperative.


We believe that our government should respect and abide by international agreements made by our parliamentary democracy.


We believe that our government should facilitate access to justice for all Canadian citizens.


Back

Open Mike Comments

April 6 Open Microphone comments

A Speaker at Open Mike

Speaker # 1

• Redistribution of seats
• BC, Alberta and Ontario should have more seats
• Normal procedure to redistribute seats not followed

Speaker # 2

• Bill C 393
• 70 000 citizens urged passage of the bill
• Bill passed 172 to 111 in the House
• Should be providing Canadian drugs for AIDS, Malaria, Polio
• Bill C 393 stalled deliberately in the Senate….this is a perfect example of Harper’s contempt for democracy

Speaker # 3

• Please post Carol Brayman’s opening comments
• Cannot understand the autocratic cancelling of the census….it defies all expert advice
• Disappointed that the current Conservative member of parliament has left this meeting
• 
  
• (Please note at this time the moderator apologized for not having mentioned that Terence Young had told her before the meeting began that he would have to leave early).

Speaker # 4

• Democracy needs a free media
• Ken Thompson, Ted Rogers, Conrad Black have used their media ownership to control what we think
• Corporate elites should not control information to citizens
• Citizens….the government……. should not permit major media outlets to be controlled by a single shareholder

Speaker # 5

• Stanley Knowles, historic member of CCF and NDP was an independent and respected member of parliament from Winnipeg….his participation was valued by all for his contributions to all major social legislation…..do we have any independent opposition thinkers contributing to Harper’s legislation?

• 1940 Chamberlain quoted Cromwell to English parliament” You have sat in your chairs long enough GO”.  Churchill replaced Chamberlain

Speaker # 6

• Yes in other countries, people are prepared to die to secure the right to vote
•  We can not say that we have a functioning democracy when 40% plus do not vote
• Proportional representation should be seriously considered

Speaker # 7

• Contempt of parliament
• Omnibus bills should not be tied to a budget…..very dangerous to democracy and leads to undermining of fair society values

Speaker # 8

• Researched constitutional issues at Osgoode hall library
• Contempt of parliament is a slippery slope
• How can the Conservative Party run in an election when the whole party has been called in contempt? Who can answer this question?

Speaker # 9

• Members of parliament must respond to their constituents
• MPs forget their responsibility to constituents once they are elected
• Certain aspects of present democracy have given us MPs dedicated to the end of Canada

Speaker # 10

• CAW member
• Concerned about proportional representation in spite of Eliz. May dilemma
• April 21 All Candidates Debate at CAW Union Hall….everyone is welcome

Speaker # 11

• First: re Eliz. May exclusion from debate- where have all the other leaders been in this decision? Have they really tried to change decisions about her exclusion from the debates?
• Second: where do the Liberals and the Conservatives stand on proportional representation?
• Third : removal of the $2.00 per vote to parties….this is very dangerous…gives

Corporations too much influence

Speaker # 12

• Fair Vote advocates for proportional representation
• Fair Vote advocates for this to ultimately promote/create wider access to social justice
• Conservatives not the only party to exhibit  undemocratic actions in the past

Speaker # 13

• Democracy equals the right to vote and right to do what most other citizens do
• To many citizens such as myself have to use food banks
• Canadian politicians need to know what the real needs/real issues are for people who are struggling

Speaker # 14

• Ideology of the Conservatives is scary.  Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal had the same ideology and look at current economic state/mess of these countries
• Harper’s neo liberal views show up in issues such as recent trade agreement negotiations with Europe

Speaker # 15

• “Price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
• If things continue to devolve ( emphasis on devolve), this point in time will be seen as a time when we could have done something ( to preserve democracy?) and did not
• Frog analogy….frogs jump out of hot vs. frogs do not react to slowly rising temperature of water in the same way that we have become somewhat numb to the gradual removal of our democratic rights.  This is dangerous
• Read Harperland to understand the importance of citizen action today
• Most important thing to do is to get out and vote
• Note that Harper has sent a chill through his own party members  as well as through the civil service etc

Speaker # 16

• Social conservativism guides my principles
• Present voting system does not work….must change it
• Proportional representation not the best answer
• Preferential voting  system is better…would have allowed my mother to vote for more than Rob Ford

Elka's Speech

                     DAY FOR DEMOCRACY     by   ELKA RUTH ENOLA


In a fully   functioning   democracy everyone can influence government policy decisions, if not directly, then certainly indirectly.


Canada is a mature democracy, but today, it is far from being a fully functioning democracy since, for example, most acts of the current government that affect women are biased against them.  Sometimes this is hard to see. 


A law or policy is put in place.  It is not directed specifically at women... it just happens that it mostly affects women.  I call that disguised gender bias.Over 50 % of Canadians are female, yet they hold nowhere near 50% of the economic or political power.  


In fact, 60% of minimum wage earners are women.  And the minimum wage for experienced   adult    workers in most provinces is less than $10 an hour. 


40% of working women are employed in precarious jobs with no benefits, no pension and little or no job security.  Often these are part time jobs. Part time jobs are a problem because company owners do not have to pay part time workers fringe benefits; so full time jobs are frequently divided into part time jobs.


Many women are forced into holding multiple part time jobs in different locations.  Not only do they lose time travelling by public transportation between jobs, but they also incur increased costs. 


At the end of the day they have very little time, money or energy for their families.


What should a fully functioning democratic government do when faced with this scenario?


Women require on going education in order to pull themselves out of minimum wage poverty so the government would make sure that every woman who wanted to advance her status through education would be able to do so. 


It would enact legislation for high quality, universal, affordable   day care.


It would ensure a liveable minimum wage, not the current legal pittance.


It would enact and enforce legislation so that, any company that offers fringe benefits to any worker, would pro-rate those fringe benefits for all workers. 


That would discourage companies from dividing full time jobs into multiple part time jobs.  That would enable women to hold one job instead of 2or 3.


But how would women know what rights were available to them?  How could they deal with large companies that deny their rights?
  
The answer is advocacy,  the cornerstone of a fully functioning democracy.


Such a democracy would ensure that every woman had access to well funded appropriate advocacy.  


It would  not   cut   funds   to   well   functioning  advocacy   groups.  


How do we know what actions are needed?  DATA. 


Not only would a fully functioning democracy collect data such as in the long- form census, but all that data would be made freely and easily available to all women’s advocacy groups.  In fact, such a democracy would go further and would consult with women’s advocacy groups when formulating instruments  for data collecting.  


So what should our government be doing?  


At the very least, it should




1 Provide  high quality, universal, affordable day care.  


2 Provide  accessible affordable education to working women


3 Increase the minimum wage


4 Pro rate fringe benefits for full and part time workers


5 Support advocacy to ensure that those who lack information, time and money are fully represented


and
6 Collect and freely share data needed by advocacy groups 


Canada should be a fully functioning mature democracy.


And it will be!