The Reform Act: Two Sides To Every Bill

There has been a lot of talk lately about The Reform Act. Last week, Conservative MP Michael Chong put forth a motion which would give more power to your local MP. It sounds like a good idea on the surface but as with most things in life, there are two sides to every story.

There are things about this bill that are good, like allowing a party's local riding association to pick their own candidate. Too many times these days, your local election candidate could be a parachute candidate. The leader of the party will pick high profile candidates and put them in ridings they know they can win, even if that riding is 1000's of miles away from where that person lives. I personally believe that a candidate should live in the riding they are running in. This is an issue that people care about, the 'where do you live' question seems to come up in most debates I watch. The whole parachute thing is dishonest politics, this is exactly how Green Party leader Elizabeth May got elected in 2011.

So there is definitely some good stuff in this bill. But... has anybody seen they part where only 15% of caucus MP's can overthrow their leader?  This concerns me. Take the Liberals for example, the federal Liberals have 36 seats in the house of commons right now. So this would mean if 5 MP's don't like him, he can be kicked out? 81, 000 card carrying liberals voted for Justin Tredeau earlier this year at the leadership convention and if only 5 people don't like him, those vote will be null and void?

But wait there's more, party MP's will have the power to choose the replacement. And this vote occurs in secret and with only 50% + 1 of the vote, a new leader is voted in. And it's not mandatory that every MP attends the meeting either. So in theory, a new leader could be voted in by literally a hand full of people as well. And this is supposed to be more democratic? If you are a card carrying member of a political party, you should think twice about supporting this bill.

There are two sides to every story. Whenever you hear about a piece of legislation, especially something you think is going to benefit the voting public, ask yourself this question: What is in it for the person (or people) proposing the bill? Everything government does by its very nature is political. Politicians will rarely do anything that benefits the people, everything they do is ultimately for their own political gain. In this case, it's a few back bench MP's who don't see eye to eye with Stephen Harper and they want to overthrow him. Sure, Michael Chong says this won't come into effect until the next election in 2015 but he could very well get re-elected and then.. It's on.

Be very wary of this proposal, It's gives more power to government bureaucrats and less power to you, the voting public. Remember, ask yourself: What's in it for me? The answer... nothing.

Inside The Mind of a Liberal

I can't sleep tonight so here I am wondering aimlessly around the interwebs. I came across an interesting article speculating why the Occupy Wall Street movement never really took off. There are a number of reasons for this but this article suggests that the 'left' hasn't embraced the OWS movement the way the 'right' has taken to the tea party movement. The article reads in part:

"Liberals tend to think they’re each unique in their ideology, while conservatives and moderates have the perception that most other people think the way they do."

It's an intresting article... take a look:

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/02/study-suggests-occupy-wall-street-movement-undone-by-liberals-need-to-feel-unique 

"Yeild To The Bus" Has Become An Abuse Of Power

So picture this,

I'm driving to work this morning, I'm in the right hand lane getting ready to cross an intersection. Just after the intersection is a guy pulled over by police in the right hand lane. I signal and make my move to the left hand lane to avoid the blockage... so does a city bus right in front of me.

In the area I live in, city busses have a yield sign on the back of them. The purpose of this is to allow city busses to merge back into traffic after making a stop. I have never really agreed with this exemption but abide by the law and willingly let the bus in when in that situation. My beef is when this yield law is abused. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a bus bend the rules just like I saw this morning.

A city bus made a lane change in the middle of an intersection. This is another example of Government employees making rules for the general public but abiding by a different set of rules for themselves.  Politicians have their own private jets. In some cases, send their kids to a special school system provided by government. Government bureaucrats don't live in the real world. Do you think Air Force 1 has ever experienced a delay? Has the Prime Minister ever had to check his baggage or gone through a naked body scanner? Of course not.

In this case the bottom line is, you can't change lanes in an intersection. It's unfair that city transit vehicles can get away with something that I would get a ticket for. And I don't care that it's in the name of saving the planet... which is ultimately what this is all about.