Guide to the Candidates
Recent Additions
December 5: Vote totals and percentages from 2004 election corrected. (Thanks to Neil Carey)
Website and e-mail added for Rahim Jaffer.
December 6: Newly-nominated Liberal candidate Andy Hladyshevsky added.
December 7: Phone number for Linda Duncan updated. (Thanks to Jennie Dailey-O'Cain)
December 10: Answers (of a sort) for Dave Dowling posted.
December 20: Newly-nominated Progressive Canadian candidate Mike Fedeyko added. (Thanks to Sean Tisdall)
January 2: E-mail and website for Mike Fedeyko added.
January 3: Answers for Mike Fedeyko posted.
January 11: Answers for Andy Hladyshevsky and Linda Duncan posted.
January 12: Rahim Jaffer's voting record posted.
Below is a summary of all candidates seeking election as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona. While we strive to be as complete as possible, please direct reports of errors or ommissions to sarcasticidealist@gmail.com.
Dave Dowling (Marijuana Party)
Linda Duncan (New Democratic Party)
Mike Fedeyko (Progressive Canadian Party)
Andy Hladyshevsky (Liberal Party of Canada)
Kevan Hunter (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada)
Rahim Jaffer (Conservative Party of Canada)
Cameron Wakefield (Green Party of Canada)
Dave Dowling
Party: Marijuana Party
E-mail Address: votedavedowling@hotmail.com
Phone Number: 710-6823
Candidate Website: http://www.votedave.net
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Marijuana Party). Finished fifth of six candidates with 519 votes (1.07%).
Ran for Mayor of Edmonton in the 2004 municipal election. Finished sixth out of eight candidates with 858 votes (0.41%).
Ran for Member of the Legislative Assembly for Edmonton-Goldbar in the 2004 provincial election. Finished fifth out of five candidates with 167 votes (0.01%).
Linda Duncan
Party: New Democratic Party
E-mail Address: mail@electlindaduncan.ca
Phone Number: 430-0165
Candidate Website: http://www.electlindaduncan.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Mike Fedeyko
Party: Progressive Canadian Party
E-mail Address: michael.fedeyko@pcparty.org
Candidate Website: http://www.yesfedeyko.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Andy Hladyshevsky
Party: Liberal Party of Canada
Phone Number: 221-7939
Candidate Website: http://www.andystrathcona.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Kevan Hunter
Party: Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2000 federal election (Marxist-Leninist Part of Canada). Finished seventh of seven candidates with 164 votes (0.00%).
Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada). Finished sixth of six candidates with 103 votes (0.21%).
Rahim Jaffer
Party: Conservative Party of Canada
E-mail Address: info@voterahimjaffer.com
Phone Number: 433-0691
Candidate Website: http://www.voterahimjaffer.com
Past Electoral Record:Elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 1997 federal election (Reform Party of Canada). Finished first of eight candidates with 20 605 votes (40.62%).
Re-elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2000 federal election (Canadian Alliance). Finished first of seven candidates with 23 463 votes (42.00%)
Re-elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Conservative Party of Canada). Finished first of six candidates with 19 089 votes (39.40%).
Cameron Wakefield
Party: Green Party of Canada
E-mail Address: cwakefield@greenparty.ca
Phone Number: 484-5211
Candidate Website: http://ridings.greenparty.ca/article259.html
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Green Party of Canada). Finished fourth of six candidates with 3 146 votes (6.49%).
Responses to Questions
PART I – General Principles/Respective Roles of MPs and Parties
In your view, what is the role of a Member of Parliament? How should an MP balance loyalties to his/her party, public opinion in her/his riding, and his/her personal beliefs, if and when these beliefs conflict?
What value do you place on sitting as a member of a caucus? Under what circumstances, if any, would you elect to sit as an independent or to cross the floor to a different caucus?
If your party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote against it on a confidence motion such as a budget? If another party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote for it on a confidence motion such as a budget?
PART II – Policies
Given that there is never enough money to meet everybody's expectations of government, what should be the government's major financial priorities? When push comes to shove, what initiatives (i.e. tax cuts of various sorts, social spending of various sorts, debt repayment, etc.) should be subordinated to others?
What, if any, reforms need to be made to the structure of government (e.g. parliamentary reform, electoral reform, etc.)? What, if any, action should be taken on the Senate and on Canada's first-past-the post electoral system?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made to protect Canada's environment?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada deals with its aboriginal and first nations populations?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada attempts to end poverty in the developing world?
What legislative remedies, if any, should be employed to address fluctuating (and, generally, escalating) energy prices?
The early portion of the campaign has seen considerable discussion on tax breaks, and the relative merits of lowering the GST and income taxes. Do you believe that tax breaks are advisable at this time? If so, on which taxes should priority be placed?
If you are elected (and are not in cabinet), are there any specific private member's bills that you would submit?
PART III – Specific Bills
How would you have voted on. . .
. . . Bill C-2, which brought in stricter sentencing for child pornographers and child sex criminals, and which created the new crime of Voyeurism, but which left open the "artistic merit" defense for child pornography arising from R v. Sharpe?
. . . Bill C-17, which would have decriminalized possession of small quantities of Marijuana?
. . . Bill C-38, which amended the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages?
. . . Bill C-67, which would have dictated that unanticipated surpluses for the next several fiscal years be divided thusly: one third going to income tax breaks, one third going to program spending, and one third going to debt repayment?
. . . Bill C-70, which would have narrowed the circumstances under which offenders were given conditional sentences?
. . . Bill C-215, which would have added a set number of years on to the sentence of any offender who used a firearm in the commission of the offence?
. . . Bill C-220, which would have banned trans fats from products intended for human consumption?
. . . Bill C-221, which would have banned the bulk export of fresh water from Canada.?
. . . Bill C-236, which would have reduced the amount of time between when students graduate and when a declaration of bankruptcy would apply to their student loan debts from ten years to two?
. . . Bill C-251, which would have required Members of Parliament who intend to cross the floor to contest their seat in a by-election before doing so?
. . . Bill C-261, which would have reduced the voting age from 18 to 16?
. . . Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16?
. . . Bill C-317, which would have required mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods?
. . . Bill C-383, which would have allowed voters to recall their MPs, provided one year had elapsed since their election?
PART I – General Principles/Respective Roles of MPs and Parties
1. In your view, what is the role of a Member of Parliament? How should an MP balance loyalties to his/her party, public opinion in her/his riding, and his/her personal beliefs, if and when these beliefs conflict?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The role of any MP is to represent his or her constituents, as well as the broader public interest at the federal level. Clearly an MP must respond to the concerns and requests for assistance of constituents and to provide a conduit to federal departments and agencies, often a frustrating process for anyone residing far from Ottawa. It is the clear responsibility of any elected official to consider the views and concerns and assist all constituents regardless of their particular political persuasion. An MP must have a presence in the constituency and be readily accessible to meet with and confer with constituents.
But an MP has an equally important role represent the broader public interests of all Canadians on policy matters. In this regard, an MP will have an additional responsibility to observe party policy. Ongoing communications with constituents can ensure that all Canadians are directly engaged in government decision-making. I have worked for many years to open up decision-making processes at the federal and provincial levels. It is the position of the NDP - as outlined in the Broadbent seven-point Ethics Package tabled in Parliament - that once elected no MP should cross the floor. If MPs choose to switch parties, they must stand down and participate in a by-election.
Mike Fedeyko: As Canadian citizens we pay a large portion of our earnings to a big body called government. Are we expected to simply hand this money over and have no say in how it is spent? We are lucky enough to live in a democracy where we’re given a voice in parliament, and that is the primary role of an MP; to voice what is in the best interests of their constituents to government. Proposing policy initiatives, advocating in the House of Commons, and participating in the legislative process are some of the ways an MP is able to indirectly involve their constituents in the policies that will affect life in their community.
The Party an MP is affiliated with reflects a framework of their values and beliefs, and is a way to bring like minded individuals together to form a body that runs the country guided by that framework. In this framework I see the public opinion of their riding to be the guiding force of their voice in Parliament.
As an elected official the public should be aware of the individual’s personal beliefs and these should play a strong role in who they elect to represent them. In the circumstance where an MP and constituents conflict, I believe MPs have a duty to represent the wishes of the majority which elected them as best they can.
Andy Hladyshevsky: There are two aspects: the personal aspect and the party aspect. If a Member of Parliament is truly independent, then there’s no party affiliation and a Member’s values will trump any other factors in a decision, because the community has vested in that Member of Parliament the right to make that sort of decision. But the issue of being a Member of Parliament who ran for a political party is a much more nuanced position; it’s the equivalent of being named a Roman Catholic priest, but being asked why you seem to be following another faith. Yet a priest probably has a high degree of discretion on how to be a representative and work with the people that he represents. The same thing happens with a Member of Parliament. I can only be the type of person I represent myself to be, which is the sum total of my lifetime experiences, and in my particular case my community experiences. That’s who Andy Hladyshevsky is, and Andy Hladyshevsky can’t change his spots. He is what he is.
The issue is that I go as an advocate on behalf of the people who I represent. An advocate, if he’s truly good at what he does, reflects the overall views of his constituents. The only problem with that is that the overall views of his constituents aren’t necessarily homogeneous. When they’re not homogeneous, when the people who elected him have widely disparate views on a particular subject, then that person has to play the role of either a mediator, to see where the consensus solution might be, or arbitrator, who listens to all sides and comes to a decision, saying “I believe in the best interests of my constituents, from what I’ve heard, that this is a decision I must take.” But he’s also doing this within the context of his own political beliefs, and thinking “You didn’t elect me as a Marxist-Leninist Member of Parliament, you elected me as your Member of Parliament knowing that I am from a particular party that has a certain group of values, a certain group of platform points and views on issues, that are likely to be the flavour you elect.” If I’m elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament, I don’t think it will be a surprise if, if a majority of my constituents say “We’d like you to privatize the health care system,” I’m going to have trouble saying yes to that, because I didn’t run as somebody who would privatize the health care system. That majority may want that, but I’m afraid that, as a principled person who told you what I stood on, I’m going to stick to my guns and at the next opportunity you’ll have to replace me.
The biggest problem you have is when you have issues that don’t directly relate to a party, but that relate to fundamental moral issues. Let’s take something like capital punishment: if the MP’s constituents say “We’d like you to vote in favour of capital punishment,” the MP may say “Well, I actually have a personal opinion on that, and I cannot vote in favour of capital punishment.” Those sorts of strict moral values often come up on the fly, and I think the Member of Parliament has to vote his/her conscience and allow that to be their record when they go back to the electorate in the next election.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
2. What value do you place on sitting as a member of a caucus? Under what circumstances, if any, would you elect to sit as an independent or to cross the floor to a different caucus?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: Under no circumstance would I cross the floor. The Broadbent ethics package tabled in Parliament October 2005 states that Parliament should adopt a policy requiring that any MP wishing to switch parties first step down and run in a by- election.
Mike Fedeyko: Being the voice for thousands of constituents is certainly not something to be taken lightly, and should be entered upon with as little personal ambition as is possible. I chose to get involved with my party as I feel they represent my beliefs and would provide the best option as a voice for the Canadian people. I did not seek to become an MP candidate in order to fashion a career in politics, and could not see myself crossing the floor to join another party to serve my own personal agenda or to ensure my political survival. At a point when my views and the views of my constituents were in direct conflict with the goals of the party and there was no other option, I would then choose to sit as an independent.
Andy Hladyshevsky:First of all, there is a value in sitting in caucus. You are sharing a certain group of values. If someone in the Liberal caucus wants to privatize health care, you’re going to have to convince a whole group of people that there is some error in judgment by a lot of Canadians. The value of sitting in a caucus is being able to openly exchange opinions, to thrash that out in a room of colleagues who come from across the country. New policy comes out of caucus, when someone says “You know, we’ve never tried this, and some people think that this is a better idea than what we’ve tried before.” It’s the use of caucus to be able to thrash some of these things out.
The problem occurs when the caucus or the party starts to shift in a direction that you’ve previously said just isn’t you. The time that you leave caucus is a time when the party you joined is no longer the party you belong to. At that point, on a question of principle, you’d have to say that you have to leave. Within that, a person has to realize that his view will not always hold sway on every issue, and that it is an opinion. At times, you will be able to influence policy in a way that you like, and at times it will go in a direction that you’d prefer it not, whereupon your role in caucus is to make sure that that doesn’t change the character of your caucus. If it does, then your party has changed underneath you, and at that point you have to resign and either sit as an independent or seek some other alternative.
There’s an issue of whether or not you can cross the floor, and how soon you can cross the floor, how long of a timeframe must there be after your values are no longer reflected by your own party before you can cross the floor. There are those who would like to see that be a three month or a four month hiatus where you have to sit as an independent and after that time you could associate yourself with another party if you so choose. At that point, you’re in a lot of trouble with your electorate, because they’ll say “Well, quite frankly, we did elect you as our Roman Catholic priest, and we’re not sure why you’ve taken up Islam.” You’ve got a lot of explaining to do at that point, because other people who have those values may be upset that you’ve done this while you’re in office and not resigned towards the end of your term and running as an independent. It does occur, however.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
3. If your party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote against it on a confidence motion such as a budget? If another party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote for it on a confidence motion such as a budget?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: As stated above, it would be necessary to stand down. As a non-confidence vote could result in the fall of the government and most likely an election the MP would be called into account by the electorate at any rate.
Mike Fedeyko: In both circumstances, if it did not reflect the beliefs and views for the country that my constituents elected me to uphold. Does the budget build a strong Canada for the people? Does the budget support the programs and policies that I was elected to uphold? Those are the questions that would have to be answered in order for me to support a budget.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I think the issue here is whether your party has actually changed around you, or moved so far away from you, that you’re no longer there. I look at it as the gravitational pull of competing planets: if all of a sudden you’re just so far away from the core of your own planet that you’re likely to be in orbit around another one, then it’s time to say “I can’t do this.” But you should never do it in a pique, or to resolve some personal consideration. It has to be something where your own personal interests won’t be furthered by doing that. I suppose if you go back far enough, there were people who, back when the abortion issue was being made into law, were clergy and who elected to resign on the basis that they’d joined a party as members of the clergy that did not stand for abortion, and now it does. There would be a similar thing with me if, in a future government, there was a 50%+1 vote in Quebec, I’d have to resign from a party that was prepared to accept that as a sufficient vote to turn Quebec into a nation-state.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
PART II – Policies
4. Given that there is never enough money to meet everybody's expectations of government, what should be the government's major financial priorities? When push comes to shove, what initiatives (i.e. tax cuts of various sorts, social spending of various sorts, debt repayment, etc.) should be subordinated to others?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy that will focus on the measures that will help ordinary Canadians prosper. In the last federal budget, the NDP secured $1.6 billon for affordable housing and $900 million on environmental measures (including public transit and low income energy retrofits). The NDP has promised a $1 billion annual home-care transfer which could provide services for 100,000 Canadian households, and $1.8 billion to create 200,000 day-care spaces. All these infrastructure and social measures, along with the promise to eliminate the GST on family essentials, will add to the spending power of ordinary Canadians. The NDP has promised no new taxes, but social spending will come before tax cuts because in the end that is what gives the most opportunities for ordinary Canadians. This is consistent with recent OECD and World Economic Forum competitiveness indicators which place support to education, health care, childcare and environment before over preoccupation with tax cuts.
Mike Fedeyko: Any government’s major financial priority should be to build a successful and safe sovereign nation for the people. We have a surplus right now as a result of our strong economy. This is the time to invest in our country to make it stronger. This is NOT the time for tax cuts, whether they be a paltry 2% off the GST or income tax cuts. I’ll admit I’m no economist, but don’t we cut taxes to stimulate an economy when it needs a kick in the pants? Why are leaders promoting tax cuts in a time of prosperity? The campaign promises of tax cuts are designed to get votes, and who will suffer? Canadians in years to come. I think Canadians are smarter than this. When you have a surplus, the responsible thing to do is pay down the debt. It’s not sexy, its impact will not be immediately felt, but it is the responsible thing to do. Too much of our tax dollar right now goes towards supporting the debt; by reducing it we will reduce our interest costs, and once we achieve a balanced budget with continued real debt reduction, then I would support looking at the lowering of income tax.
Other initiatives I would support would be Health Care, continued support of Research and Innovation in Canada, and Improved Military funding. The other parties have mentioned these as goals as well, but how are they planning to achieve this while reducing taxes? The money has to come from somewhere, and it will either come from these and other social programs, or we will go further into debt and those attractive tax cuts will come back to haunt us.
I think one of the biggest concerns for the Canadian people right now is Health Care. I believe our Health Care system can be fixed, other countries such as France and Australia have successful national health care programs, and there’s no reason why we can’t have one. I believe issues of health and safety are places where the government needs to step in to provide the best care and safety possible for its citizens. I would suggest the Federal government take a more direct role in repairing and building a successful national health care program, particularly when our province is threatening a two-tier/privatized system.
The third initiative I would support is increasing spending on the Canadian Military. Military spending is a necessary precondition for Canada to have an effective foreign policy. If we are to continue to improve our roles in Disaster Assistance and Peacekeeping efforts, we need to properly equip our troops for deployment. Investment in our military protects Canada’s sovereignty not only literally, but figuratively as well by engaging in international efforts that distinguish us from nations whose close proximity might negatively impact our global image.
As long as we can continue to work with UN supported initiatives and not follow our neighbour to the south into ethically questionable wars, we can mitigate potential threats from terrorism on our soil. Of course the added benefit of a better supplied military is also better protection at home from any international threat, or disaster recovery we might need in our own backyard. While I feel this is an important initiative, I also realize we have to take a serious look at how these military dollars are being spent. Waste and mismanagement of Defence dollars doesn’t win public support of increased military spending. We need to ensure defence dollars are being spent wisely.
Continued support of Technology and Innovation in Canada is something I view as important to build a strong economy and provide a high quality of life for all Canadians. Investing in and supporting research by funding bodies such as the CRC will allow Canada to continue as a world leader in medical research, and provide us with alternative energy sources for the future. These initiatives are important for improving the environment, and helping to mitigate future negative economic impacts when the energy industry is no longer providing the revenues it is today.
Andy Hladyshevsky: Why have government? It’s a rhetorical question, but an important one: government has to be there where we need government. In my value system, I take the position that the people who I most want to represent are the people who can’t actually vote for me. Those are the people who are either so young and vulnerable that they need assistance from government, or they’re infirm and need assistance from government, or they’re disabled and need assistance from government, or part of the aged and need assistance from government, or they’re financially unable to meet any level of subsistence, and therefore need assistance from government. For me, those issues that allow the human being to reach its full potential are the most important ones. You can say that that’s a very broad statement, but it goes back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: there are people who literally can’t get enough to eat in this country. There are people who cannot get a roof over their heads. There are people who don’t even have the ability to understand their own particular circumstance or why they’re being abused, or why they’re in a totally socially unacceptable situation. That, to me, is where the government priority is on the people side, what I consider to be the micro side of government.
The other place where government responsibility should lie is on the macro side. There is a need to have government speak for all in certain key areas. The area that I would say is probably closer to this side is with issues like health care, where there’s a macro application of certain principles that we require. There are also issues like a common currency, or common criminal law, or a common set of values, that government has to apply because individuals in their own locales are not in a position to do that. That’s at the core. After that you start fanning out. The question on the fanout is how you potentate, and how you maximize human capital. At some point, you encounter the “I want” things that aren’t as important as the “I need” things, and that’s probably where most governments and most parties start to differ, as to how far out from that core you go. For some parties, that core must be satisfied 100% in every Canadian, in other parties you only need to hit the point of 50%, and the rest should be on their own. Those sort of dynamics flow in there.
The issue for me is that I also need to know that those values are economically sustainable over a lengthy period of time, because governments, though they govern in the here and now, don’t last in the here and now, and therefore some forward looking is also required.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
5. What, if any, reforms need to be made to the structure of government (e.g. parliamentary reform, electoral reform, etc.)? What, if any, action should be taken on the Senate and on Canada's first-past-the post electoral system?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: According to Fair Vote Canada, the majority of Canadian voters are now represented by the opposition parties in Parliament. A proportional system of voting would make parliament reflect the will of the people in a more direct way that makes every vote equal, regardless of where the voter lives.
A proportional system of voting may also address the root causes of western alienation, by ensuring that there are always a significant number of voices from each region in each party caucus. A discussion with the NDP’s Democracy and Accountability Critic illustrates how the first-past-the-post system has contributed to western alienation:
But the democratic deficit will not be remedied solely by reforming our electoral system. We must also ensure that decision- making processes on federal law, policy and programs are made more transparent, participatory and reflective of the diversity of needs and interest in Canada.
The NDP favours Senate abolishment.
Mike Fedeyko: I have yet to see a perfect system out there for democratic representation. I would support investigation into a proportional representation system, or even a single transferable vote system, but specific ideas need to be tabled and then debated. Any new system would need to ensure the citizens of Canada still have a voice through their representative and that parliament can still function effectively.
I believe people want an elected senate and would support looking into an initiative where either the citizens elect a senate, or parliament takes on the responsibility.
I would also support looking at term limits for the Prime Minister in order to save us from recent instances where long-term prime ministers start to view their job as a right rather than a service.
I do think we have a parliamentary system that works well, and that does have inherent advantages and disadvantages, like any electoral system; but I’ve heard many Albertans express interest in looking at other options, and we should at least be open to debating these as a nation.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I believe in an elected Senate. I believe in a second house. There are parties who say “abolish it, stick with what you’ve got in the House of Commons,” but I believe that some sort of regionally-based second house that is elected on a slightly different basis is useful as a house of sober second thought. Some people will say “if you have proper electoral reform in the House of Commons, and mix our direct elections with a proportional representation system, you may not need a Senate.” There is some overall truth to that, except that I still like the idea of a second house whose members are elected on different terms than those on which members of the House of Commons are elected. In a minority situation, the House of Commons can come unglued at any point in time. I like the idea of an elected Senate, or whatever we call it, that has a little more permanence in the people who are there, giving it a better sense of continuity, while you still have a democratically vibrant and responsive House of Commons. That’s my vision of how the two houses should work. It may be a little too close to the American system where, with Senate terms of six years, changes in the Senate occur every two years, but they don’t occur all at once at the end of the four year term of the government. There is a balance at work that does change over time, but on its own clock.
I’m not a believer in what the Conservatives have suggested, just electing the whole Senate right now, taking the entire hundred and five member Senate and electing it all right now. The reason I can’t abide by that the West has twenty-four Senators. Ontario and Quebec each have twenty-four, the Maritimes have twenty-four, and there are a few more scattered throughout the territories. To me, that’s not what I want to see, and I think that the Conservatives are rather naïve to assume that once you elect Senators, then all of a sudden Ontario will give up twenty-four so that Alberta can have eight Senators instead of six. I think that we have to sit down, rip up the status quo, and draft it from the ground up, deciding as a nation how we want to move forward. I honestly think that we, as a nation, haven’t taken the time to address this issue. As more and more people come to realize that it’s an issue that we want to address, it becomes an issue that the government tackles.
On electoral reform, I’m not a big fan of first past the post. The idea of having runoffs is extremely attractive – if a person does not get fifty percent of the vote, then you have a runoff. Some people would say that you should lower that to forty-five percent and that, where there are three or four parties running, that should be sufficient, to reduce the cost of a runoff. It’s interesting that in Eastern Europe, when they were choosing a democratic system, they adopted runoffs because they had such a proliferation of political parties that the people elected would have been a bit of a joke; people would have been elected with eight or nine percent of the popular vote. I think there is some merit in forcing the electorate to make a choice, so you don’t have three quarters of the electorate saying “I didn’t vote for that person, so I don’t care.” Runoffs are more expensive, but they deliver more direct participation later.
Proportional representation is an interesting concept. It’s interesting that a Liberal government in B.C. tried, but failed, to implement it, because they said that the plebiscite needs to come back at least sixty percent in favour or they won’t go through with it. Even though they got more than fifty percent of British Columbians voting in favour, they didn’t get the sixty percent they required to go ahead and do it. You can’t just change everything based on what fifty percent of people say on any given day.
Proportional representation is successfully done all over Europe, but the problem I foresee here is that there is such a wide dispersal of population around Canada. In Germany, they elect regional lists, and the seat are distributed within a fairly tight geographical area, and, while they might be represented as being North German or South German, it’s not as bad as it is here, where people are identified by the region they come from. Proportional representation has to start with a rather modest approach to bring in some proportional representation, and then to phase it in as population increases.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
6. What legislative changes, if any, need to be made to protect Canada's environment?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: First, we need to elect a government with the political will to assert federal powers to enforce laws already passed by Parliament. We need a strong federal government that puts protection of Canadian health and environment before friendly federal-provincial relations. The best laws in the world (as past governments have been wont to describe our federal environmental laws) are of little value if the budgets and the political support are not there to apply them. Communities are tired of having to resort to the courts to force federal agencies to apply the laws enacted by our elected Parliament. Additional federal laws and enforcement are also needed to impose binding requirements on major Canadian pollution and green house gas sources, to ensure all Canadians have ready access to safe drinking water supplies, and to prohibit water exports.
Mike Fedeyko: We need a solid plan for environmental change in Canada. Of course we need to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, and we should be looking at long term solutions to this problem. Canada needs to be revolutionary, not reactionary. We need to come up with a solid plan that supports and invests in targeted research in alternate energy sources, and come up with a balanced approach that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while allowing us to move forward with a strong economy.
We need to protect our natural resources from becoming commodities and make sure they can’t be taken advantage of by NAFTA rules and regulations.
We also need to protect our national parks against encroaching urban sprawl, I think this will become a serious issue in the rocky mountains in upcoming years.
Andy Hladyshevsky: The issue here is whether Kyoto’s going to work or whether it isn’t. We have an international treaty obligation; we’ve committed to a United Nations accord. The issue is how much teeth you put in it using your legislative power. If you sign Kyoto, the government needs to bring in legislation to implement Kyoto, and that sets legal targets. You do it in the same way that California brought in its emissions standards: a legislative body says “These are the emissions standards, and this is what you have to do.” Government has to take a similar approach to implementing Kyoto.
That may also mean that some of the issues that relate to the implementation of environmental measures need to be worked out with the provinces - issues relating to building codes, for example, things like low volume flush toilets, the types of glazing and insulation required of windows. The question is how do you force low volume flush toilets on to people from the position of the federal government? The traditional route is less legislation and more incentive. We could use some of the money set aside for environmental reform to subsidize, or to reward people financially for doing that, to ensure that they reap a financial benefit for doing that. Those are some of the issues: how do we take a nation with twenty million homes and make them all energy efficient? Because that’s an environmental target that we want to hit, and that we’ve committed to internationally via Kyoto. There’s a problem: you can go so far with that before you run out of gas as the federal government, and require buy-in from the provincial government, which could take the form of the ability to provide tax credits or something.
At the same time, the federal government does control navigable waters and waterways; there you can bring in a zero tolerance policy, with a heavy arm-bending prosecution policy, on polluters who pollute navigable waterways such as the Great Lakes or Lake Winnipeg. There you do have some enforcement powers that go beyond what the province has. You need to spend more time on enforcement of some of those laws, and on inspection. Tracing the origin of pollutants becomes a little bit easier as time goes on; the problem with pollution in the Great Lakes largely happened because nobody could tell where the pollution was coming from, though they had a strong suspicion. Now with our advanced techniques in terms of analyzing substances, everything has a fingerprint, so it becomes a little bit easier from an enforcement point of view.
You need to dedicate the resources to enforcement; environmental compliance happens when you severely punish those who are abusing it, largely because you want to set an example, and then, secondarily, when you give people incentives to take advantage of voluntary compliance.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada deals with its aboriginal and first nations populations?
Dave Dowling:7. I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: Canada is not meeting the UN target goal of 0.7% GNI for foreign assistance. We currently contribute only 0.33% of GNI. The NDP managed to secure $500 million in foreign aid in the last budget, but more needs to be done. Enacting laws to make "ending poverty" the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid in a way that is consistent with our human rights obligations, along with increasing our foreign aid to 0.7% of GNI, will be a very positive step towards ending poverty.
(Source: Make Poverty History Campaign; http://www.makepovertyhistory.ca/)
But we also need to deliver on Parliament's decades-old commitment to end poverty in Canada, especially our child poverty.
Mike Fedeyko: This issue is so multi-faceted and involved that I won’t do it a disservice by summing in a paragraph or so. Aboriginal and first nations groups and issues are so diverse and varied that no blanket legislation will properly address every circumstance. I would have to do further investigation and look at legislation as it comes to decide on the best course of action to support Canada’s original settlers.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 7. In 1867, in the British North American Act, we had the appearance of Section 91, which gave to the federal government jurisdiction over “Indians”, so for the first time we had legislation towards a group of people identifiable on the basis of race. The legacy of that we all know: it resulted in the federal government treating them as wards of the state, as children with the inability to contract and all of the rest of it. Then there was the whole movement to try to integrate them using residential schools to weed out their culture, and now we’ve come full circle and we’re trying to allow aboriginal people to activate their own culture, activate their own school system, activate their own justice system, to bring them into our society rather than forcing them, against their original belief systems.
When you say “legislative changes”, you have to amend the Indian Act specifically so that they are no longer wards of the state. There are, however, treaties that have been signed with the first nations, and these treaties are viewed by them as being treaties between sovereign nations. In those sorts of things, your legislation shouldn’t affect that, because your legislation can’t unilaterally affect these treaties, so you need to renegotiate them. The aboriginal legislative question then becomes how do you get people to opt-out of the Indian Act, so that people on reserve land would then be given the option to no longer be treated as wards of the state, and therefore be given full autonomy over their lands, full autonomy over their ability to contract, and at the same time decouple themselves from the federal funding that follows that. It’s interesting that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report went into great detail on a lot of this. They recommended that you set up a fairly large territorial or real property commission, which would then deal with the negotiation of the entitlements that aboriginal people have from their land claims.
Some aboriginal communities do not want to be declassified as aboriginal peoples under the Indian Act, because they feel themselves benefited by that, and they don’t want it changed. It’s what they gave up with their original nomadic hunter’s rights and fishing rights, and that was part of the deal coming into Confederation and agreeing to that for a hundred and forty years. When you say “legislative changes” I say that you need to amend the Indian Act, which the RCAP report recommended, you need to put in legislation that will deal with land claims issues, especially land claims issues on federal crown land, which the federal crown has the ability to absolutely deal with. I would support the RCAP report on the type of meditative and arbitration panels that would be set up to deal with those issues.
When you deal with aboriginal people in what’s called the Urban Reserve situation, or the urbanization of the aboriginal population, which is a huge issue in places like Winnipeg, Regina, and to a lesser extent in Saskatoon, you have a whole group of things that you have to bring into play that no longer apply because these people are no longer occupying the reserves that they were meant to occupy under the Indian Act. Those basically fall within the fabric of your general social programs; I don’t think there’s anything you can do there.
When you deal with aboriginal people in what’s called the Urban Reserve situation, or the urbanization of the aboriginal population, which is a huge issue in places like Winnipeg, Regina, and to a lesser extent in Saskatoon, you have a whole group of things that you have to bring into play that no longer apply because these people are no longer occupying the reserves that they were meant to occupy under the Indian Act. Those basically fall within the fabric of your general social programs; I don’t think there’s anything you can do there.
The only thing that I can’t agree to is violations of the Charter of Rights in the governance of an aboriginal nation. The Charter of Rights is a universal application of rights; if in a given society women didn’t have the right to vote, I’m sorry, but I’d hope that that society would have evolved over time to a situation where women do have the right to vote, even though they may not have when they entered Confederation. People from outside of Canada view this as one of the more fascinating things about Canada because of the first nations status of a people within a sovereign country.
The Phil Fontaines of the world would say “at least meet your economic commitments to us first, then let’s talk about what we want to do under the Indian Act.” We still have too many reserves where the water is bad. We still have too many reserves where the housing is substandard. The Canadian electorate isn’t very kind to the aboriginals, because I don’t think they understand the plight that they find themselves in, without a land base and, in some cases, without the ability to even negotiate on their own behalf.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
8. What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada attempts to end poverty in the developing world?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: For too long, Canada has neglected our aboriginal population. NDP MP Charlie Angus was among the first to sound the alarm bell in Parliament about the Kashechewan water crisis in northern Ontario. This was just one in many reserves facing appalling conditions due to Liberal mismanagement and neglect. Social justice for aboriginals would be a top priority of an NDP government. The first priority would be to improve the disgraceful living conditions on Canada’s reserves, and to address the needs of the urban aboriginal population. Long-term changes, however, should flow from extensive consultation with First Nations and follow their lead, not the other way around. The NDP respects the right of First Nations, Inuit, Innu and Metis to pursue self-government and other mechanisms for development of their respective communities' potential. The NDP is committed to implementing the 2005 Kelona Agreement developed in consultations with all parties. We would support the timely passage of any laws necessary to finalize outstanding land claim and self government agreements.
Mike Fedeyko: Well first let’s deliver on our promise of meeting the Pearson aid target of 0.7% in a reasonable timeline. I think meeting that goal is a good start and then we can look at further ways to support global aid. On our way to meet this goal, we need to seriously look at where this money is going. In the wake of recent fraud allegations against the Red Cross and evidence of corrupt African governments, we need to ensure that our tax dollars are going to support the people they are intended for. I don’t want 0.7% of our GNI leaving this country in the hands of an agency or government where there is no accountability. I want to know where and how Canada’s money is being spent.
Andy Hladyshevsky: We want to be able to get to the goal of 0.7% of GDP, but we have to give ourselves four or five or six years to get there. At the same time, the major issue is the reduction of debt and the cancellation of debt repayments. As a nation I think it’s important for us, as we’re trying to move countries to 0.7%, to rationalize debt repayment and to rationalize where our aid actually goes. We need to make sure that we’re not propping up regimes at the same time as we’re trying to reach 0.7%, and to make sure that we’re able to hold third world regimes accountable for Canadian taxpayer dollars that are turned over to them.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
9. What legislative remedies, if any, should be employed to address fluctuating (and, generally, escalating) energy prices?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is an issue that requires both provincial and federal intervention. Any energy subsidies should be applied in a strategic way to drive change in the way we produce and consume energy in the long term. For example, the Liberals' blanket natural gas rebate provides no incentive or assistance to reduce homeowner or industry energy need or demand. If the same dollars were spent on an energy conservation, retrofit programs, and expanding public transit, it would not only provide the same benefit to consumers, but also serve to reduce energy use and costs over the long term.
It is for that reason that the 2005 NDP budget amendment allocates $900 million for homeowners' energy retrofits and one cent increase in gas-tax transfers to municipalities for public transit. The Alberta Tories’ failed deregulation experiment has resulted in escalating energy bills in many instances for Albertans. We now pay electrical bills calaculated on the price of gas- fired power, this despite the fact that the majority of electrical power in the province is provided by coal-fired power plants. In addition, an open national dialogue on our energy future is long overdue. The need for such a dialogue is supported by a wide variety of interests ranging from the Pembina Institute to the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA). The federal government can also reconsider the perverse subsidies and royalty holidays provided to the fossil fuel industry and instead redirect those regained tax dollars to renewable, cleaner and more efficient energy sources.(e.g.coal-fired power is 20% less efficient than gas-fired power and far more polluting). [Documented in petition to Auditor General of Canada, filed Oct 3, 2005 at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca]
Mike Fedeyko: Energy prices fluctuate based on the world market of supply and demand and distributing rebate cheques is not a long-term solution to the problem. What needs to be done is to ensure that the revenues from our fossil fuel exports are invested in capital that will ensure our future prosperity and energy security, and there should be a sense of urgency about this considering the eventual decline of these resources. Until this new future becomes a reality, we need to support people making energy conscious choices in their home with subsidies, and provide enough support for low income Canadians that they don’t have to worry about not being able to afford basic necessities such as heat and power.
Andy Hladyshevsky: There are times where peace, order, and good government are threatened by energy prices, and the federal government has an overriding duty to take control; I lived through one of those, with the imposition of wage and price controls. There is a role for the federal government to step in when it threatens the economic viability of your nation. I believe the government does have a role to play when that’s occurring, and I believe that there is a federal power that’s exercised to do that. It usually comes at a price: freezing energy prices at a certain level results in some people not investing the money required to sustain industry development and exploration, but then, later on, you end up having to restimulate with other sorts of tax benefits and subsidies, so you pay for it somewhere else later in order to get industry back interested in those areas. You’re likely to see a disincentive for internal supply come into play whenever you exercise those controls, but I believe there’s a role for government, that at some point prices cannot be sustained and the federal government has to intervene to stop it from interfering with the daily lives of Canadians.
In the current environment, obviously we’re not there yet, but I look at the events between Russia and Ukraine, where oil and gas prices were used as a weapon. They worked that deal out, but I suppose that if a supplier from outside of a country quadruples the price, well, a government has to take care of its people. If that means that you have to mortgage something off in the future, there is a role for government, though it isn’t one that the provinces like the federal government to get into. It is something that for the peace, order, and good government of the nation, the government must exercise that right.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
10. The early portion of the campaign has seen considerable discussion on tax breaks, and the relative merits of lowering the GST and income taxes. Do you believe that tax breaks are advisable at this time? If so, on which taxes should priority be placed?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: After so many years of Liberal cuts, the priority should be on rebuilding the social and economic infrastructure that has been neglected: education and research, health care and the environment. While we’ve seen “surprise” Liberal surpluses, Canadians have been picking up more and more of the social costs in the form of user fees and environmental damage. As Paul Sommerville (an investment banking economist and NDP candidate) has pointed out, the 26th annual report on Global Competitiveness issued by the World Economic Forum reports that tax levels have less to do with competiveness than efficient and transparent public institutions, quality education, a conprehensive safety net and a highly motivated and skilled labour force. Taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. The NDP supported the 1% cut to the lowest tax level and has proposed no new taxes. Bill-239, tabled in the last Parliament by NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis, would have eliminated the GST on everyday, family essentials.
The NDP supports a more honest style of budgeting that meets Canadians’ needs. We would focus any future tax cuts on the individuals who most need them.
Mike Fedeyko: I’ve already spoken about my views on this matter, I don’t believe tax breaks are what Canadians want right now, they want better support of programs and a real balanced budget that will lead to true income tax relief in the future.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 10. I believe that tax cuts are advisable. I believe that especially with lower income Canadians, along with other Canadians, used their own money to assist in removing the deficit of the federal government, and then allowing the federal government to start paying down our structured debt, so that we could basically have viability in government. To me, it’s time to reduce the pressure on lower income Canadians at a time when your economy is doing very well, with your lowest unemployment in thirty years, and when as a G8 nation you’re performing at the top of your game. When you’re a resource-based nation and resources are doing well in the world, it’s a good time to pay down your debt but it’s also a good time to reduce the burden on lower-income Canadians.
Where you do that – and most economists agree – is increasing the personal deduction of the taxpayer, which is exactly what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to raise that deduction in excess of ten thousand dollars that has the net effect of taking eight hundred and twenty thousand people off the tax-rolls, and two hundred and fifty thousand of those are seniors. Not only that, but we’re also trying to take the 16.25% rate that you pay as soon as you get above that ten thousand and lower that to 15%. I believe that that allows people who are starting out and trying to get on their feet the ability to get some money back in their jeans. Why I don’t believe in a reduction of the GST – why I don’t believe in a reduction in the consumption tax – is that would basically reward high consumers and rich consumers to the detriment of the poor.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
11. If you are elected (and are not in cabinet), are there any specific private member's bills that you would submit?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: I fully support the initiatives and policy positions brought forward by the NDP and have no personal axes to grind.
Mike Fedeyko: I want Canada to be a leader in technology and education. We have world class research Universities and institutes, and we need to support and invest in this research to implement a world class economy.
I would like to put forward a bill that would see equality and forward movement in technology access in our schools, and advocating a federal level implementation of Alberta’s “supernet” providing all Canadians access to an internet connection at a reasonable cost. A wired country would bring us closer together and increase our ability to innovate and distribute information.
As well I’d look into introducing bills providing subsidies for Canadians making energy conscious decisions in the home and in transportation.
Andy Hladyshevsky: What I would like to do is take a little bit of time to listen to what my constituents would like in a private member’s bill. I am personally very much committed to issues of redress. I fought hard for the Ukrainian Restitution Act, which deals with the internment of Ukrainians between 1916 and 1920. I’d be similarly very much interested in private member’s bills that address issues like the Chinese head tax, and other such private member’s bills that deal with human rights excesses in the past, and recognize them as such. For me, those are the early things I would probably get to. I would probably deal with some other acts that are commemorative acts of people other than the traditional French and English peoples, both dealing with commemoration of certain aboriginal heroes and with aboriginal dates that are very important in the calendar.
Do I have a particular statute that I would like to bring in? Not right now; I don’t have a side agenda accompanying me as a Member of Parliament. I can see that as a Member of Parliament, I’d like to see some people bring some of these issues forward so that I could be an advocate for them, and so I could use my position as a Member of Parliament to advocate for something that for Edmonton-Strathcona becomes extremely important. I don’t want to make that sound wishy-washy, but I honestly believe that that’s where an advocate can play a role, and listen to what is an important amendment to an existing statute, or what could address an existing wrong that clearly needs some attention.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
PART III – Specific Bills
How would you have voted on. . .
12. . . Bill C-2, which brought in stricter sentencing for child pornographers and child sex criminals, and which created the new crime of Voyeurism, but which left open the "artistic merit" defense for child pornography arising from R v. Sharpe?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously for this Liberal-initiated bill in the second reading. It was felt that it struck the right balance by closing the loopholes around child pornography to protect children from exploitation while still allowing for the “artistic merit” defence that may protect fictional writing or art work that does not directly affect children. This is a difficult issue, which makes it all the more important tha tboth the security of our children and civil liberties are considered and protected.
Mike Fedeyko: I certainly support stricter sentencing for any offence involving the abuse of children, and agree with the codes laid out in Bill C-2, as well as the establishment of the crime of Voyeurism.
The defense R v Sharpe brought forward an issue which needed to be addressed, that being defining the scope of child pornography laws, particularly the possession of material garnered without harming a child, and without intention to disseminate, publish or sell. If I take a picture of my child unclothed in the privacy of my own home and that picture somehow comes to be in the possession of a person who then distributes it for the purposes of child pornography, should I as a parent be held accountable? This narrowing of the law holds an individual accountable for intent and not ipso facto possession.
The real issue with regards to these laws is any behaviour seen as exploitive, particularly regarding a child and a transgressor who is either in a position of trust or authority with the child, or where the child is a dependant of the transgressor. In these situations I believe prosecution should be to the fullest extent of the law.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I have no problem with voting favour of that. I think that child pornography is socially not only unacceptable but I differ from the Americans in that I believe in the Canadian standards regarding pornography, and that there are limits to your freedom of expression. I believe it goes to the point where your expression is creating an abuse of another group that needs protection.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against sending this Bill to committee.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
13. . . Bill C-17, which would have decriminalized possession of small quantities of Marijuana?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously for this Liberal-initiated bill in the second reading. The NDP understands that policing is only part of the solution to the problems around drug use. Therefore, decriminalization is part of a broad strategy that focuses on a health-based strategy, as recommended by the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. There should, however, be rules about age, rules about impaired driving and rules to tackle commercial grow-ops.
Mike Fedeyko: This bill was a step in the right direction in the way Canada views Marijuana laws. I would also support the investigation of ramifications of legalization and regulation and believe this to be a fundamental step towards lessening criminal activity and protecting public safety. By working towards regulation of Cannibis as a controlled substance, we can focus our efforts on issues that directly affect public health and safety, and deal with any secondary issues with regards to addiction in a more open manner.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m in favour of decriminalization, but only for the purpose of possession. I’m very much after the folks that try to make money off of it.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against sending this bill to committee.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
14. . . Bill C-38, which amended the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP considers equal marriage to be a human right. Courts in British Columbia and Ontario have ruled that the old definition of marriage is contrary to the Charter of Rights. Contrary to Stephen Harper’s recent announcement, any attempt to reverse this legislation would require invoking the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution. There is no justifiable reason to have two separate classes of Canadians. Therefore, I would have most certainly voted for Bill C-38.
Mike Fedeyko: I fully support this Bill and its passing by the House of Commons. This is a step forward in protecting the individual rights and freedoms which every Canadian is entitled to.
Andy Hladyshevsky: It’s the law. I wouldn’t vote to repeal it.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against this Bill on both second and third readings, and also did so at the committee report stage.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
15. . . Bill C-67, which would have dictated that unanticipated surpluses for the next several fiscal years be divided thusly: one third going to income tax breaks, one third going to program spending, and one third going to debt repayment?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal bill died on the order paper. The NDP views the bill as a gimmick put forward by the Liberals in place of any meaningful debate about about how best to put money in the hands of Canadians who need it the most. Instead of these announcements on spending “surprise” surpluses, government budgeting should be accurate, open and accountable so that the priorities of Canadians are met. In the long term we will draw far greater long-term benefit from allocation of our tax dollars to public programs such as health, environmental protection, energy retrofit programs, public transit, affordable housing, education and training, not from further tax cuts. See my previous comments above. The NDP fully supports reduction of the debt.
Mike Fedeyko: Any law advocating restrictions with which surpluses should be spent is not something I would support. It seems short-sighted to commit ones self to such regulation when we are dealing with something so fluid as economics and trying to spend the Canadian peoples dollars the best way we can. The government needs to be able to decide what is best way to serve the people and that would include having flexibility on surplus spending down the road and not being hemmed in by previous legislation. As well, this type of legislation would serve to reduce accountability of government spending and provides a ready-made excuse for implications of misspent tax dollars.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m fine with that. It ties the hand of government, but when you have the kind of debt that we have, it’s a good breakdown of what to do with unanticipated surpluses, which sounds like such a well-defined term that it deals with something very extraordinary that requires you to do something with it, rather than the government in power using it as a windfall opportunity.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
16. . . Bill C-70, which would have narrowed the circumstances under which offenders were given conditional sentences?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal-initiated bill has had neither votes nor debate. Currently conditional sentencs are imposed in approximately 6% of all cases. Very few offenders serving conditional sentences re-offend.
Mike Fedeyko: I support the initiative outlined in this bill. I believe we need to work to have a justice system with real consequences for violent crimes and this is a good step towards providing real deterrents.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m probably in favour of it, but I would need to know the details a little bit more. I think that the restriction of conditional sentences is probably a good idea overall, but I wouldn’t necessarily eliminate them. You have to still allow the judicial system to weigh the circumstances for certain offenses to take into account various components that went into the events. I’m less like that an issues related to a criminal offense that had guns involved.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
17. . . Bill C-215, which would have added a set number of years on to the sentence of any offender who used a firearm in the commission of the offence?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously in favour of sending this Conservative bill to committee, to enable detailed consideration of effective measures to not only punish but also deter gun-related offences. The bill never went to third reading.
The NDP have strongly condemned the recent senseless shootings, particularly shootings involving youth and handguns. Empirical evidence shows that in those jurisdictions where there are tougher penalties for this type of offence, there has been no corresponding reduction in the number of offences. Nonetheless, we agree that stopping these senseless crimes requires tougher border controls to stop the import of illegal guns, consideration to tougher sentencing for weapons-related offences and a tougher anti-gang policy, support to prosecutions and sentencing. But it is equally important to be tough the causes of crime. An effective crime strategy will address social and economic causes of crime like broken homes, firearm access and lack of opportunities for youth. We need better witness protection programs and more compassionate victim assistance. We need to get tough on the root causes of poverty, unemployment and social exclusion. We need to look beyond limited draconian policy initiatives and ensure we are adopting measures that will actually reduce violent crime.
Mike Fedeyko: I would support this bill and find this a far better way to try and lessen the use of handguns in violent crimes rather than the attempted gun registry.
Andy Hladyshevsky: In principle, I’m in favour. I don’t know if I would agree with the specific sentencing periods in that private member’s bill. In principle, I’m in favour, but in some cases you could be overly-punitive for no apparent reason.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
18. . . Bill C-220, which would have banned trans fats from products intended for human consumption?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is NDP MP Pat Martin’s private member’s bill. Persuasive research has indicated that these industrial fats are more hazardous to human health than the natural, saturated fats they were introduced to replace. Canadians ingest an average of 10 grams of trans fats every day. When substances contained in our food supply are proven to harm health and potentially impact health costs, it is incumbent upon our governments to regulate their use and sale, as is the case with chemical additives.
Mike Fedeyko: There is already a strong push for what is outlined in this bill globally, and I would strongly support this bill being passed. Companies are already well on their way to reducing the amount of trans-fats in foods, and regulations should be in place to protect the health of the Canadian public and promote import and development of foods that reflect this.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I have a B. Sc., but I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer that without knowing more. I’d have to understand how critical an issue to public safety that really is, vs. it being a dietary issue that should not be the subject matter of legislation. I’m thinking of the whole saccharine thing, where it was banned for promoting certain types of cancers, and I remember people smuggling saccharine from the United States in certain circumstances. There are times when scientific research says you should no longer have this. On the issue of trans fats, I’d actually like to see some of the background on that private member’s bill. I understand the concept of trans fats, but I’m wondering whether the answer is simply to promote a healthier lifestyle, maybe starting with the parliamentary cafeteria. I do know that doctors recommend that this not be a part of your diet, but asking government to ban it. . . I’d have to understand the science behind it a little better.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
19. . . Bill C-221, which would have banned the bulk export of fresh water from Canada.?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is another private member’s bill from NDP MP Pat Martin. The environmental and societal implications of bulk water export are huge. The commodification of Canada’s water supply coupled with trade laws puts at risk Canada’s sovereign right to manage our water resources for Canadians' use and benefit. For the last three decades Liberal and Conservative governments have sponsored endless national studies and dialogues on protecting Canadian water supplies but have failed to enact the necessary law to prohibit bulk water exports. A federal law must be enacted now.
Mike Fedeyko: I agree with Peter Lougheed’s sense of urgency on this; bills need to be put forward to protect our natural resources from becoming commodities and being taken advantage of by Free Trade.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m very much in support of that.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
20. . . Bill C-236, which would have reduced the amount of time between when students graduate and when a declaration of bankruptcy would apply to their student loan debts from ten years to two?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This private member’s bill tabled by NDP MP Alexa McDonough was regrettably defeated. The law was proposed to extend to students who default on student loans, the same bankruptcy protection measures available to any other persons who are eligible to apply for bankruptcy protection after two years. As stated by Alexa McDonough, "The government has removed that protection from the student population who have indebted themselves because of the inadequacy of the student aid programs in the country and particularly because of the withdrawal of any meaningful support from the federal government. They are in the position where they are not eligible for such bankruptcy protection for 10 years. This is out and out discrimination against a category of Canadians.” To address the escalating student debt the NDP 2005 budget amendment allocates $1.5 billion to reducing university tuition and worker training costs.
Mike Fedeyko: I don’t agree with students being able to use bankruptcy as a tool to rid themselves of manageable debt. Besides being unfair to the lending institutions and the tax payer, too many students would use this for temporary relief and perhaps not realize the negative implications it can cause down the road. Money spent on University education is an investment in your future and should be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other investment.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m probably in favour of that. I don’t think that students should be penalized to that extent. Bankruptcy is still serious and it’s not something that people would take trivially.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
21. . . Bill C-251, which would have required Members of Parliament who intend to cross the floor to contest their seat in a by-election before doing so?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This private member’s bill tabled by NDP MP Peter Stoffer and supported by all NDP MPs was defeated by one half of the Conservatives, all of the Bloc and all but one of the Liberals. The rationale behind this bill is that members of Parliament have to act in a more responsible and accountable manner to the constituents who send them there. The requirement to seek by-election was included in the seven-point Ethics Package tabled in Parliament by NDP MP Ed Broadbent this past fall.
Mike Fedeyko: Parliament needs to be able to run as effectively and efficiently as possible, I would support the candidate having to sit as an independent until the next election, at which time the voting public will have a chance to make their voice heard. This would cause less disruption than having to launch a byelection, and reduce the financial burden for the taxpayer.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 21. I don’t know if I would do that; I’d go for a cooling off period where a Member of Parliament would have to sit mandatorily as an independent before joining another caucus. One effect that that would have is that it would reduce the perception of power grabbing to give people cabinet positions or other positions of responsibility in exchange for crossing the floor, which I think Canadians look at as sort of a personal reward versus a principled decision. People might argue that we need X person to be our Minister of Finance, and unless they cross the floor we’ll lose that person. Well, government can appoint whoever it wants to the cabinet. I think there have been times in the past when Senators have been in cabinet. A person could sit as an independent and could be appointed to the cabinet. There may be some merit to requiring a person to do that in the event that the party reconsiders its position, and there might be some hope of reconciliation.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
22. . . Bill C-261, which would have reduced the voting age from 18 to 16?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal-tabled (but multi-partisan) bill was defeated on June 8, following its second reading debate. No votes were recorded. NDP MP Nathan Cullen spoke in favour.
At 14, party members can choose a potential Prime Minister at their party’s convention, yet they cannot vote in a regular election until the age of 18. Young people have opinions of their own; they are intelligent and have the same capacity to cast their vote thoughtfully as anyone other 18. As it stands right now, most people’s first election takes place when they are in the midst of great transition--leaving high school to go on to post-secondary education or full-time employment. They are often moving ridings and need to take extra steps to vote. If they were to start voting at 16, the habit of voting could begin at a relatively stable time in their lives, when they have a lot of time to learn about the issues and form opinions. This habit, once started, is more likely to create the life-long voters that are needed to keep democracies vital
Mike Fedeyko: Anything to get more voters out there and involved. Some 16 year olds are more politically aware than people twice their age, and I don’t feel there could be any abuse of the system by lowering the voting age 2 years.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would for the moment stick with eighteen. I’m worried about other things that come with that – service in the military, and other things where people might say “I have the right to vote so I have the right to do this, this, and this.” I’m concerned with people being allowed to join the military when they’re underage. I’m worried about issues related to the “right” to drink at sixteen. These things don’t come strictly from lowering the voting age, but there are arguments that are made all the time.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
23. . . Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP votes on this controversial Conservative bill were as follows: 9 in favour, 7 against and 3 abstained. The Bill was defeated. Those in favour are concerned about the security of children who may be exploited by older persons. They want a tool that parents could use to end the relationships their children have that they feel are dangerous. Those against feel that there is a difference between stating that sexual relations at 14 are undesirable and stating that they should be made criminal. The bill was worded in such a way that young people could be charged for having sexual relations.
Mike Fedeyko: I don’t think you can set an arbitrary age at which every person, or even the majority of people are mature enough to be fully cognisant of their actions. That being said, obviously laws need to be in place to protect children who may be taken advantage of. I feel that Bill C-2 does an adequate job of protecting the rights of the individual as well as protecting the exploitation of children.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 23. That’s a tough one. I’d probably oppose it unless somebody convinced me otherwise. There are plenty of cultures where fourteen is an acceptable age, and they’re not the worse for it. But it’s a difficult issue.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill a second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
24. . . Bill C-317, which would have required mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis introduced this bill, which only made it to first reading. It has been introduced (and defeated) before by Liberal Charles Caccia. Reportedly about 60 per cent of our processed foods contain some genetic modifications, but consumers in Canada would be hard pressed to find out what is and isn't altered. According to a 1999 Environics poll, 80 per cent of Canadians want GM foods to be labelled. Greenpeace Canada has suggested that number is closer to 95 per cent. (Source: www.cbc.ca May 11, 2004). I fully support the enactment of federal laws requiring the full disclosure of all substances introduced into in food and food products during growth, production and processing.
Mike Fedeyko: I wouldn’t support this Bill as it would be unduly expensive and complicated for food manufacturers. Genetic modification covers a wide range of conditions and indicates nothing about the safety or health of food. It would also impede trade of these products and the enforcing such a system would be expensive and difficult to implement. A voluntary labelling system and our current organic food certification standards are a more feasible method and allow people to make a choice for organically grown goods.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would support that.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
25. . . Bill C-383, which would have allowed voters to recall their MPs, provided one year had elapsed since their election?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Conservative private member’s bill died on the order paper absent any debate. From my experience, more constructive measures to hold elected offcilas accountable and ensure government decision-making is more open, transparent and participatory include public consultations in advance of significant policy decisions, on matters such as energy, trade, health and tax policies. As well, we need stronger controls on paid lobbyists and greater transparency and scrutiny of appointments to federal agencies and tribunals who play a significant role in federal decision making. These measures are outlined in Ed Broadbent's seven-point ethics package.
Mike Fedeyko: In cases of extreme neglect of the constituents, I think this should be available to the public as an option. However, the requirements necessary to put forward a recall should be strict and onerous. This would limit any abuse of the system and protect any negative effects such recalls would have on Parliament running smoothly.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would not vote in favour of that in isolation, though I might support it if there were other reforms that went along with it. I view it in the same way as I view an elected Senate: I support an elected Senate, but that doesn’t mean that I want to just take the Senate we have now and start electing people to it. These things need to be done in packages.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
December 5: Vote totals and percentages from 2004 election corrected. (Thanks to Neil Carey)
Website and e-mail added for Rahim Jaffer.
December 6: Newly-nominated Liberal candidate Andy Hladyshevsky added.
December 7: Phone number for Linda Duncan updated. (Thanks to Jennie Dailey-O'Cain)
December 10: Answers (of a sort) for Dave Dowling posted.
December 20: Newly-nominated Progressive Canadian candidate Mike Fedeyko added. (Thanks to Sean Tisdall)
January 2: E-mail and website for Mike Fedeyko added.
January 3: Answers for Mike Fedeyko posted.
January 11: Answers for Andy Hladyshevsky and Linda Duncan posted.
January 12: Rahim Jaffer's voting record posted.
Below is a summary of all candidates seeking election as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona. While we strive to be as complete as possible, please direct reports of errors or ommissions to sarcasticidealist@gmail.com.
Dave Dowling (Marijuana Party)
Linda Duncan (New Democratic Party)
Mike Fedeyko (Progressive Canadian Party)
Andy Hladyshevsky (Liberal Party of Canada)
Kevan Hunter (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada)
Rahim Jaffer (Conservative Party of Canada)
Cameron Wakefield (Green Party of Canada)
Dave Dowling
Party: Marijuana Party
E-mail Address: votedavedowling@hotmail.com
Phone Number: 710-6823
Candidate Website: http://www.votedave.net
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Marijuana Party). Finished fifth of six candidates with 519 votes (1.07%).
Ran for Mayor of Edmonton in the 2004 municipal election. Finished sixth out of eight candidates with 858 votes (0.41%).
Ran for Member of the Legislative Assembly for Edmonton-Goldbar in the 2004 provincial election. Finished fifth out of five candidates with 167 votes (0.01%).
Linda Duncan
Party: New Democratic Party
E-mail Address: mail@electlindaduncan.ca
Phone Number: 430-0165
Candidate Website: http://www.electlindaduncan.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Mike Fedeyko
Party: Progressive Canadian Party
E-mail Address: michael.fedeyko@pcparty.org
Candidate Website: http://www.yesfedeyko.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Andy Hladyshevsky
Party: Liberal Party of Canada
Phone Number: 221-7939
Candidate Website: http://www.andystrathcona.ca
Past Electoral Record: None.
Kevan Hunter
Party: Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2000 federal election (Marxist-Leninist Part of Canada). Finished seventh of seven candidates with 164 votes (0.00%).
Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada). Finished sixth of six candidates with 103 votes (0.21%).
Rahim Jaffer
Party: Conservative Party of Canada
E-mail Address: info@voterahimjaffer.com
Phone Number: 433-0691
Candidate Website: http://www.voterahimjaffer.com
Past Electoral Record:Elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 1997 federal election (Reform Party of Canada). Finished first of eight candidates with 20 605 votes (40.62%).
Re-elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2000 federal election (Canadian Alliance). Finished first of seven candidates with 23 463 votes (42.00%)
Re-elected as Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Conservative Party of Canada). Finished first of six candidates with 19 089 votes (39.40%).
Cameron Wakefield
Party: Green Party of Canada
E-mail Address: cwakefield@greenparty.ca
Phone Number: 484-5211
Candidate Website: http://ridings.greenparty.ca/article259.html
Past Electoral Record: Ran for Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona in the 2004 federal election (Green Party of Canada). Finished fourth of six candidates with 3 146 votes (6.49%).
Responses to Questions
PART I – General Principles/Respective Roles of MPs and Parties
In your view, what is the role of a Member of Parliament? How should an MP balance loyalties to his/her party, public opinion in her/his riding, and his/her personal beliefs, if and when these beliefs conflict?
What value do you place on sitting as a member of a caucus? Under what circumstances, if any, would you elect to sit as an independent or to cross the floor to a different caucus?
If your party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote against it on a confidence motion such as a budget? If another party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote for it on a confidence motion such as a budget?
PART II – Policies
Given that there is never enough money to meet everybody's expectations of government, what should be the government's major financial priorities? When push comes to shove, what initiatives (i.e. tax cuts of various sorts, social spending of various sorts, debt repayment, etc.) should be subordinated to others?
What, if any, reforms need to be made to the structure of government (e.g. parliamentary reform, electoral reform, etc.)? What, if any, action should be taken on the Senate and on Canada's first-past-the post electoral system?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made to protect Canada's environment?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada deals with its aboriginal and first nations populations?
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada attempts to end poverty in the developing world?
What legislative remedies, if any, should be employed to address fluctuating (and, generally, escalating) energy prices?
The early portion of the campaign has seen considerable discussion on tax breaks, and the relative merits of lowering the GST and income taxes. Do you believe that tax breaks are advisable at this time? If so, on which taxes should priority be placed?
If you are elected (and are not in cabinet), are there any specific private member's bills that you would submit?
PART III – Specific Bills
How would you have voted on. . .
. . . Bill C-2, which brought in stricter sentencing for child pornographers and child sex criminals, and which created the new crime of Voyeurism, but which left open the "artistic merit" defense for child pornography arising from R v. Sharpe?
. . . Bill C-17, which would have decriminalized possession of small quantities of Marijuana?
. . . Bill C-38, which amended the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages?
. . . Bill C-67, which would have dictated that unanticipated surpluses for the next several fiscal years be divided thusly: one third going to income tax breaks, one third going to program spending, and one third going to debt repayment?
. . . Bill C-70, which would have narrowed the circumstances under which offenders were given conditional sentences?
. . . Bill C-215, which would have added a set number of years on to the sentence of any offender who used a firearm in the commission of the offence?
. . . Bill C-220, which would have banned trans fats from products intended for human consumption?
. . . Bill C-221, which would have banned the bulk export of fresh water from Canada.?
. . . Bill C-236, which would have reduced the amount of time between when students graduate and when a declaration of bankruptcy would apply to their student loan debts from ten years to two?
. . . Bill C-251, which would have required Members of Parliament who intend to cross the floor to contest their seat in a by-election before doing so?
. . . Bill C-261, which would have reduced the voting age from 18 to 16?
. . . Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16?
. . . Bill C-317, which would have required mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods?
. . . Bill C-383, which would have allowed voters to recall their MPs, provided one year had elapsed since their election?
PART I – General Principles/Respective Roles of MPs and Parties
1. In your view, what is the role of a Member of Parliament? How should an MP balance loyalties to his/her party, public opinion in her/his riding, and his/her personal beliefs, if and when these beliefs conflict?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The role of any MP is to represent his or her constituents, as well as the broader public interest at the federal level. Clearly an MP must respond to the concerns and requests for assistance of constituents and to provide a conduit to federal departments and agencies, often a frustrating process for anyone residing far from Ottawa. It is the clear responsibility of any elected official to consider the views and concerns and assist all constituents regardless of their particular political persuasion. An MP must have a presence in the constituency and be readily accessible to meet with and confer with constituents.
But an MP has an equally important role represent the broader public interests of all Canadians on policy matters. In this regard, an MP will have an additional responsibility to observe party policy. Ongoing communications with constituents can ensure that all Canadians are directly engaged in government decision-making. I have worked for many years to open up decision-making processes at the federal and provincial levels. It is the position of the NDP - as outlined in the Broadbent seven-point Ethics Package tabled in Parliament - that once elected no MP should cross the floor. If MPs choose to switch parties, they must stand down and participate in a by-election.
Mike Fedeyko: As Canadian citizens we pay a large portion of our earnings to a big body called government. Are we expected to simply hand this money over and have no say in how it is spent? We are lucky enough to live in a democracy where we’re given a voice in parliament, and that is the primary role of an MP; to voice what is in the best interests of their constituents to government. Proposing policy initiatives, advocating in the House of Commons, and participating in the legislative process are some of the ways an MP is able to indirectly involve their constituents in the policies that will affect life in their community.
The Party an MP is affiliated with reflects a framework of their values and beliefs, and is a way to bring like minded individuals together to form a body that runs the country guided by that framework. In this framework I see the public opinion of their riding to be the guiding force of their voice in Parliament.
As an elected official the public should be aware of the individual’s personal beliefs and these should play a strong role in who they elect to represent them. In the circumstance where an MP and constituents conflict, I believe MPs have a duty to represent the wishes of the majority which elected them as best they can.
Andy Hladyshevsky: There are two aspects: the personal aspect and the party aspect. If a Member of Parliament is truly independent, then there’s no party affiliation and a Member’s values will trump any other factors in a decision, because the community has vested in that Member of Parliament the right to make that sort of decision. But the issue of being a Member of Parliament who ran for a political party is a much more nuanced position; it’s the equivalent of being named a Roman Catholic priest, but being asked why you seem to be following another faith. Yet a priest probably has a high degree of discretion on how to be a representative and work with the people that he represents. The same thing happens with a Member of Parliament. I can only be the type of person I represent myself to be, which is the sum total of my lifetime experiences, and in my particular case my community experiences. That’s who Andy Hladyshevsky is, and Andy Hladyshevsky can’t change his spots. He is what he is.
The issue is that I go as an advocate on behalf of the people who I represent. An advocate, if he’s truly good at what he does, reflects the overall views of his constituents. The only problem with that is that the overall views of his constituents aren’t necessarily homogeneous. When they’re not homogeneous, when the people who elected him have widely disparate views on a particular subject, then that person has to play the role of either a mediator, to see where the consensus solution might be, or arbitrator, who listens to all sides and comes to a decision, saying “I believe in the best interests of my constituents, from what I’ve heard, that this is a decision I must take.” But he’s also doing this within the context of his own political beliefs, and thinking “You didn’t elect me as a Marxist-Leninist Member of Parliament, you elected me as your Member of Parliament knowing that I am from a particular party that has a certain group of values, a certain group of platform points and views on issues, that are likely to be the flavour you elect.” If I’m elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament, I don’t think it will be a surprise if, if a majority of my constituents say “We’d like you to privatize the health care system,” I’m going to have trouble saying yes to that, because I didn’t run as somebody who would privatize the health care system. That majority may want that, but I’m afraid that, as a principled person who told you what I stood on, I’m going to stick to my guns and at the next opportunity you’ll have to replace me.
The biggest problem you have is when you have issues that don’t directly relate to a party, but that relate to fundamental moral issues. Let’s take something like capital punishment: if the MP’s constituents say “We’d like you to vote in favour of capital punishment,” the MP may say “Well, I actually have a personal opinion on that, and I cannot vote in favour of capital punishment.” Those sorts of strict moral values often come up on the fly, and I think the Member of Parliament has to vote his/her conscience and allow that to be their record when they go back to the electorate in the next election.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
2. What value do you place on sitting as a member of a caucus? Under what circumstances, if any, would you elect to sit as an independent or to cross the floor to a different caucus?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: Under no circumstance would I cross the floor. The Broadbent ethics package tabled in Parliament October 2005 states that Parliament should adopt a policy requiring that any MP wishing to switch parties first step down and run in a by- election.
Mike Fedeyko: Being the voice for thousands of constituents is certainly not something to be taken lightly, and should be entered upon with as little personal ambition as is possible. I chose to get involved with my party as I feel they represent my beliefs and would provide the best option as a voice for the Canadian people. I did not seek to become an MP candidate in order to fashion a career in politics, and could not see myself crossing the floor to join another party to serve my own personal agenda or to ensure my political survival. At a point when my views and the views of my constituents were in direct conflict with the goals of the party and there was no other option, I would then choose to sit as an independent.
Andy Hladyshevsky:First of all, there is a value in sitting in caucus. You are sharing a certain group of values. If someone in the Liberal caucus wants to privatize health care, you’re going to have to convince a whole group of people that there is some error in judgment by a lot of Canadians. The value of sitting in a caucus is being able to openly exchange opinions, to thrash that out in a room of colleagues who come from across the country. New policy comes out of caucus, when someone says “You know, we’ve never tried this, and some people think that this is a better idea than what we’ve tried before.” It’s the use of caucus to be able to thrash some of these things out.
The problem occurs when the caucus or the party starts to shift in a direction that you’ve previously said just isn’t you. The time that you leave caucus is a time when the party you joined is no longer the party you belong to. At that point, on a question of principle, you’d have to say that you have to leave. Within that, a person has to realize that his view will not always hold sway on every issue, and that it is an opinion. At times, you will be able to influence policy in a way that you like, and at times it will go in a direction that you’d prefer it not, whereupon your role in caucus is to make sure that that doesn’t change the character of your caucus. If it does, then your party has changed underneath you, and at that point you have to resign and either sit as an independent or seek some other alternative.
There’s an issue of whether or not you can cross the floor, and how soon you can cross the floor, how long of a timeframe must there be after your values are no longer reflected by your own party before you can cross the floor. There are those who would like to see that be a three month or a four month hiatus where you have to sit as an independent and after that time you could associate yourself with another party if you so choose. At that point, you’re in a lot of trouble with your electorate, because they’ll say “Well, quite frankly, we did elect you as our Roman Catholic priest, and we’re not sure why you’ve taken up Islam.” You’ve got a lot of explaining to do at that point, because other people who have those values may be upset that you’ve done this while you’re in office and not resigned towards the end of your term and running as an independent. It does occur, however.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
3. If your party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote against it on a confidence motion such as a budget? If another party were to form government, under what circumstances would you vote for it on a confidence motion such as a budget?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: As stated above, it would be necessary to stand down. As a non-confidence vote could result in the fall of the government and most likely an election the MP would be called into account by the electorate at any rate.
Mike Fedeyko: In both circumstances, if it did not reflect the beliefs and views for the country that my constituents elected me to uphold. Does the budget build a strong Canada for the people? Does the budget support the programs and policies that I was elected to uphold? Those are the questions that would have to be answered in order for me to support a budget.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I think the issue here is whether your party has actually changed around you, or moved so far away from you, that you’re no longer there. I look at it as the gravitational pull of competing planets: if all of a sudden you’re just so far away from the core of your own planet that you’re likely to be in orbit around another one, then it’s time to say “I can’t do this.” But you should never do it in a pique, or to resolve some personal consideration. It has to be something where your own personal interests won’t be furthered by doing that. I suppose if you go back far enough, there were people who, back when the abortion issue was being made into law, were clergy and who elected to resign on the basis that they’d joined a party as members of the clergy that did not stand for abortion, and now it does. There would be a similar thing with me if, in a future government, there was a 50%+1 vote in Quebec, I’d have to resign from a party that was prepared to accept that as a sufficient vote to turn Quebec into a nation-state.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
PART II – Policies
4. Given that there is never enough money to meet everybody's expectations of government, what should be the government's major financial priorities? When push comes to shove, what initiatives (i.e. tax cuts of various sorts, social spending of various sorts, debt repayment, etc.) should be subordinated to others?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy that will focus on the measures that will help ordinary Canadians prosper. In the last federal budget, the NDP secured $1.6 billon for affordable housing and $900 million on environmental measures (including public transit and low income energy retrofits). The NDP has promised a $1 billion annual home-care transfer which could provide services for 100,000 Canadian households, and $1.8 billion to create 200,000 day-care spaces. All these infrastructure and social measures, along with the promise to eliminate the GST on family essentials, will add to the spending power of ordinary Canadians. The NDP has promised no new taxes, but social spending will come before tax cuts because in the end that is what gives the most opportunities for ordinary Canadians. This is consistent with recent OECD and World Economic Forum competitiveness indicators which place support to education, health care, childcare and environment before over preoccupation with tax cuts.
Mike Fedeyko: Any government’s major financial priority should be to build a successful and safe sovereign nation for the people. We have a surplus right now as a result of our strong economy. This is the time to invest in our country to make it stronger. This is NOT the time for tax cuts, whether they be a paltry 2% off the GST or income tax cuts. I’ll admit I’m no economist, but don’t we cut taxes to stimulate an economy when it needs a kick in the pants? Why are leaders promoting tax cuts in a time of prosperity? The campaign promises of tax cuts are designed to get votes, and who will suffer? Canadians in years to come. I think Canadians are smarter than this. When you have a surplus, the responsible thing to do is pay down the debt. It’s not sexy, its impact will not be immediately felt, but it is the responsible thing to do. Too much of our tax dollar right now goes towards supporting the debt; by reducing it we will reduce our interest costs, and once we achieve a balanced budget with continued real debt reduction, then I would support looking at the lowering of income tax.
Other initiatives I would support would be Health Care, continued support of Research and Innovation in Canada, and Improved Military funding. The other parties have mentioned these as goals as well, but how are they planning to achieve this while reducing taxes? The money has to come from somewhere, and it will either come from these and other social programs, or we will go further into debt and those attractive tax cuts will come back to haunt us.
I think one of the biggest concerns for the Canadian people right now is Health Care. I believe our Health Care system can be fixed, other countries such as France and Australia have successful national health care programs, and there’s no reason why we can’t have one. I believe issues of health and safety are places where the government needs to step in to provide the best care and safety possible for its citizens. I would suggest the Federal government take a more direct role in repairing and building a successful national health care program, particularly when our province is threatening a two-tier/privatized system.
The third initiative I would support is increasing spending on the Canadian Military. Military spending is a necessary precondition for Canada to have an effective foreign policy. If we are to continue to improve our roles in Disaster Assistance and Peacekeeping efforts, we need to properly equip our troops for deployment. Investment in our military protects Canada’s sovereignty not only literally, but figuratively as well by engaging in international efforts that distinguish us from nations whose close proximity might negatively impact our global image.
As long as we can continue to work with UN supported initiatives and not follow our neighbour to the south into ethically questionable wars, we can mitigate potential threats from terrorism on our soil. Of course the added benefit of a better supplied military is also better protection at home from any international threat, or disaster recovery we might need in our own backyard. While I feel this is an important initiative, I also realize we have to take a serious look at how these military dollars are being spent. Waste and mismanagement of Defence dollars doesn’t win public support of increased military spending. We need to ensure defence dollars are being spent wisely.
Continued support of Technology and Innovation in Canada is something I view as important to build a strong economy and provide a high quality of life for all Canadians. Investing in and supporting research by funding bodies such as the CRC will allow Canada to continue as a world leader in medical research, and provide us with alternative energy sources for the future. These initiatives are important for improving the environment, and helping to mitigate future negative economic impacts when the energy industry is no longer providing the revenues it is today.
Andy Hladyshevsky: Why have government? It’s a rhetorical question, but an important one: government has to be there where we need government. In my value system, I take the position that the people who I most want to represent are the people who can’t actually vote for me. Those are the people who are either so young and vulnerable that they need assistance from government, or they’re infirm and need assistance from government, or they’re disabled and need assistance from government, or part of the aged and need assistance from government, or they’re financially unable to meet any level of subsistence, and therefore need assistance from government. For me, those issues that allow the human being to reach its full potential are the most important ones. You can say that that’s a very broad statement, but it goes back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: there are people who literally can’t get enough to eat in this country. There are people who cannot get a roof over their heads. There are people who don’t even have the ability to understand their own particular circumstance or why they’re being abused, or why they’re in a totally socially unacceptable situation. That, to me, is where the government priority is on the people side, what I consider to be the micro side of government.
The other place where government responsibility should lie is on the macro side. There is a need to have government speak for all in certain key areas. The area that I would say is probably closer to this side is with issues like health care, where there’s a macro application of certain principles that we require. There are also issues like a common currency, or common criminal law, or a common set of values, that government has to apply because individuals in their own locales are not in a position to do that. That’s at the core. After that you start fanning out. The question on the fanout is how you potentate, and how you maximize human capital. At some point, you encounter the “I want” things that aren’t as important as the “I need” things, and that’s probably where most governments and most parties start to differ, as to how far out from that core you go. For some parties, that core must be satisfied 100% in every Canadian, in other parties you only need to hit the point of 50%, and the rest should be on their own. Those sort of dynamics flow in there.
The issue for me is that I also need to know that those values are economically sustainable over a lengthy period of time, because governments, though they govern in the here and now, don’t last in the here and now, and therefore some forward looking is also required.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
5. What, if any, reforms need to be made to the structure of government (e.g. parliamentary reform, electoral reform, etc.)? What, if any, action should be taken on the Senate and on Canada's first-past-the post electoral system?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: According to Fair Vote Canada, the majority of Canadian voters are now represented by the opposition parties in Parliament. A proportional system of voting would make parliament reflect the will of the people in a more direct way that makes every vote equal, regardless of where the voter lives.
A proportional system of voting may also address the root causes of western alienation, by ensuring that there are always a significant number of voices from each region in each party caucus. A discussion with the NDP’s Democracy and Accountability Critic illustrates how the first-past-the-post system has contributed to western alienation:
The traditional electoral system is a major cause of western alienation that dates back to the Trudeau government's 1980 National Energy Program. The NEP sought to increase federal control over provincial energy resources — particularly Alberta oil — following the oil crisis of the 1970s.
"At that time, the Liberals had around 25 per cent of the popular vote in the West, but only two seats, in Manitoba," Broadbent says. "My view is if they had representatives anywhere proportional to their voting strength, then the negative aspects of the National Energy Program may not have been introduced, and the resulting western alienation that came out of that may not have occurred."
Source: “Time Has Come For Electoral Reform”; Capital News Online; November 5, 2004
But the democratic deficit will not be remedied solely by reforming our electoral system. We must also ensure that decision- making processes on federal law, policy and programs are made more transparent, participatory and reflective of the diversity of needs and interest in Canada.
The NDP favours Senate abolishment.
Mike Fedeyko: I have yet to see a perfect system out there for democratic representation. I would support investigation into a proportional representation system, or even a single transferable vote system, but specific ideas need to be tabled and then debated. Any new system would need to ensure the citizens of Canada still have a voice through their representative and that parliament can still function effectively.
I believe people want an elected senate and would support looking into an initiative where either the citizens elect a senate, or parliament takes on the responsibility.
I would also support looking at term limits for the Prime Minister in order to save us from recent instances where long-term prime ministers start to view their job as a right rather than a service.
I do think we have a parliamentary system that works well, and that does have inherent advantages and disadvantages, like any electoral system; but I’ve heard many Albertans express interest in looking at other options, and we should at least be open to debating these as a nation.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I believe in an elected Senate. I believe in a second house. There are parties who say “abolish it, stick with what you’ve got in the House of Commons,” but I believe that some sort of regionally-based second house that is elected on a slightly different basis is useful as a house of sober second thought. Some people will say “if you have proper electoral reform in the House of Commons, and mix our direct elections with a proportional representation system, you may not need a Senate.” There is some overall truth to that, except that I still like the idea of a second house whose members are elected on different terms than those on which members of the House of Commons are elected. In a minority situation, the House of Commons can come unglued at any point in time. I like the idea of an elected Senate, or whatever we call it, that has a little more permanence in the people who are there, giving it a better sense of continuity, while you still have a democratically vibrant and responsive House of Commons. That’s my vision of how the two houses should work. It may be a little too close to the American system where, with Senate terms of six years, changes in the Senate occur every two years, but they don’t occur all at once at the end of the four year term of the government. There is a balance at work that does change over time, but on its own clock.
I’m not a believer in what the Conservatives have suggested, just electing the whole Senate right now, taking the entire hundred and five member Senate and electing it all right now. The reason I can’t abide by that the West has twenty-four Senators. Ontario and Quebec each have twenty-four, the Maritimes have twenty-four, and there are a few more scattered throughout the territories. To me, that’s not what I want to see, and I think that the Conservatives are rather naïve to assume that once you elect Senators, then all of a sudden Ontario will give up twenty-four so that Alberta can have eight Senators instead of six. I think that we have to sit down, rip up the status quo, and draft it from the ground up, deciding as a nation how we want to move forward. I honestly think that we, as a nation, haven’t taken the time to address this issue. As more and more people come to realize that it’s an issue that we want to address, it becomes an issue that the government tackles.
On electoral reform, I’m not a big fan of first past the post. The idea of having runoffs is extremely attractive – if a person does not get fifty percent of the vote, then you have a runoff. Some people would say that you should lower that to forty-five percent and that, where there are three or four parties running, that should be sufficient, to reduce the cost of a runoff. It’s interesting that in Eastern Europe, when they were choosing a democratic system, they adopted runoffs because they had such a proliferation of political parties that the people elected would have been a bit of a joke; people would have been elected with eight or nine percent of the popular vote. I think there is some merit in forcing the electorate to make a choice, so you don’t have three quarters of the electorate saying “I didn’t vote for that person, so I don’t care.” Runoffs are more expensive, but they deliver more direct participation later.
Proportional representation is an interesting concept. It’s interesting that a Liberal government in B.C. tried, but failed, to implement it, because they said that the plebiscite needs to come back at least sixty percent in favour or they won’t go through with it. Even though they got more than fifty percent of British Columbians voting in favour, they didn’t get the sixty percent they required to go ahead and do it. You can’t just change everything based on what fifty percent of people say on any given day.
Proportional representation is successfully done all over Europe, but the problem I foresee here is that there is such a wide dispersal of population around Canada. In Germany, they elect regional lists, and the seat are distributed within a fairly tight geographical area, and, while they might be represented as being North German or South German, it’s not as bad as it is here, where people are identified by the region they come from. Proportional representation has to start with a rather modest approach to bring in some proportional representation, and then to phase it in as population increases.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
6. What legislative changes, if any, need to be made to protect Canada's environment?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: First, we need to elect a government with the political will to assert federal powers to enforce laws already passed by Parliament. We need a strong federal government that puts protection of Canadian health and environment before friendly federal-provincial relations. The best laws in the world (as past governments have been wont to describe our federal environmental laws) are of little value if the budgets and the political support are not there to apply them. Communities are tired of having to resort to the courts to force federal agencies to apply the laws enacted by our elected Parliament. Additional federal laws and enforcement are also needed to impose binding requirements on major Canadian pollution and green house gas sources, to ensure all Canadians have ready access to safe drinking water supplies, and to prohibit water exports.
Mike Fedeyko: We need a solid plan for environmental change in Canada. Of course we need to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, and we should be looking at long term solutions to this problem. Canada needs to be revolutionary, not reactionary. We need to come up with a solid plan that supports and invests in targeted research in alternate energy sources, and come up with a balanced approach that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while allowing us to move forward with a strong economy.
We need to protect our natural resources from becoming commodities and make sure they can’t be taken advantage of by NAFTA rules and regulations.
We also need to protect our national parks against encroaching urban sprawl, I think this will become a serious issue in the rocky mountains in upcoming years.
Andy Hladyshevsky: The issue here is whether Kyoto’s going to work or whether it isn’t. We have an international treaty obligation; we’ve committed to a United Nations accord. The issue is how much teeth you put in it using your legislative power. If you sign Kyoto, the government needs to bring in legislation to implement Kyoto, and that sets legal targets. You do it in the same way that California brought in its emissions standards: a legislative body says “These are the emissions standards, and this is what you have to do.” Government has to take a similar approach to implementing Kyoto.
That may also mean that some of the issues that relate to the implementation of environmental measures need to be worked out with the provinces - issues relating to building codes, for example, things like low volume flush toilets, the types of glazing and insulation required of windows. The question is how do you force low volume flush toilets on to people from the position of the federal government? The traditional route is less legislation and more incentive. We could use some of the money set aside for environmental reform to subsidize, or to reward people financially for doing that, to ensure that they reap a financial benefit for doing that. Those are some of the issues: how do we take a nation with twenty million homes and make them all energy efficient? Because that’s an environmental target that we want to hit, and that we’ve committed to internationally via Kyoto. There’s a problem: you can go so far with that before you run out of gas as the federal government, and require buy-in from the provincial government, which could take the form of the ability to provide tax credits or something.
At the same time, the federal government does control navigable waters and waterways; there you can bring in a zero tolerance policy, with a heavy arm-bending prosecution policy, on polluters who pollute navigable waterways such as the Great Lakes or Lake Winnipeg. There you do have some enforcement powers that go beyond what the province has. You need to spend more time on enforcement of some of those laws, and on inspection. Tracing the origin of pollutants becomes a little bit easier as time goes on; the problem with pollution in the Great Lakes largely happened because nobody could tell where the pollution was coming from, though they had a strong suspicion. Now with our advanced techniques in terms of analyzing substances, everything has a fingerprint, so it becomes a little bit easier from an enforcement point of view.
You need to dedicate the resources to enforcement; environmental compliance happens when you severely punish those who are abusing it, largely because you want to set an example, and then, secondarily, when you give people incentives to take advantage of voluntary compliance.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada deals with its aboriginal and first nations populations?
Dave Dowling:7. I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: Canada is not meeting the UN target goal of 0.7% GNI for foreign assistance. We currently contribute only 0.33% of GNI. The NDP managed to secure $500 million in foreign aid in the last budget, but more needs to be done. Enacting laws to make "ending poverty" the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid in a way that is consistent with our human rights obligations, along with increasing our foreign aid to 0.7% of GNI, will be a very positive step towards ending poverty.
(Source: Make Poverty History Campaign; http://www.makepovertyhistory.ca/)
But we also need to deliver on Parliament's decades-old commitment to end poverty in Canada, especially our child poverty.
Mike Fedeyko: This issue is so multi-faceted and involved that I won’t do it a disservice by summing in a paragraph or so. Aboriginal and first nations groups and issues are so diverse and varied that no blanket legislation will properly address every circumstance. I would have to do further investigation and look at legislation as it comes to decide on the best course of action to support Canada’s original settlers.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 7. In 1867, in the British North American Act, we had the appearance of Section 91, which gave to the federal government jurisdiction over “Indians”, so for the first time we had legislation towards a group of people identifiable on the basis of race. The legacy of that we all know: it resulted in the federal government treating them as wards of the state, as children with the inability to contract and all of the rest of it. Then there was the whole movement to try to integrate them using residential schools to weed out their culture, and now we’ve come full circle and we’re trying to allow aboriginal people to activate their own culture, activate their own school system, activate their own justice system, to bring them into our society rather than forcing them, against their original belief systems.
When you say “legislative changes”, you have to amend the Indian Act specifically so that they are no longer wards of the state. There are, however, treaties that have been signed with the first nations, and these treaties are viewed by them as being treaties between sovereign nations. In those sorts of things, your legislation shouldn’t affect that, because your legislation can’t unilaterally affect these treaties, so you need to renegotiate them. The aboriginal legislative question then becomes how do you get people to opt-out of the Indian Act, so that people on reserve land would then be given the option to no longer be treated as wards of the state, and therefore be given full autonomy over their lands, full autonomy over their ability to contract, and at the same time decouple themselves from the federal funding that follows that. It’s interesting that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report went into great detail on a lot of this. They recommended that you set up a fairly large territorial or real property commission, which would then deal with the negotiation of the entitlements that aboriginal people have from their land claims.
Some aboriginal communities do not want to be declassified as aboriginal peoples under the Indian Act, because they feel themselves benefited by that, and they don’t want it changed. It’s what they gave up with their original nomadic hunter’s rights and fishing rights, and that was part of the deal coming into Confederation and agreeing to that for a hundred and forty years. When you say “legislative changes” I say that you need to amend the Indian Act, which the RCAP report recommended, you need to put in legislation that will deal with land claims issues, especially land claims issues on federal crown land, which the federal crown has the ability to absolutely deal with. I would support the RCAP report on the type of meditative and arbitration panels that would be set up to deal with those issues.
When you deal with aboriginal people in what’s called the Urban Reserve situation, or the urbanization of the aboriginal population, which is a huge issue in places like Winnipeg, Regina, and to a lesser extent in Saskatoon, you have a whole group of things that you have to bring into play that no longer apply because these people are no longer occupying the reserves that they were meant to occupy under the Indian Act. Those basically fall within the fabric of your general social programs; I don’t think there’s anything you can do there.
When you deal with aboriginal people in what’s called the Urban Reserve situation, or the urbanization of the aboriginal population, which is a huge issue in places like Winnipeg, Regina, and to a lesser extent in Saskatoon, you have a whole group of things that you have to bring into play that no longer apply because these people are no longer occupying the reserves that they were meant to occupy under the Indian Act. Those basically fall within the fabric of your general social programs; I don’t think there’s anything you can do there.
The only thing that I can’t agree to is violations of the Charter of Rights in the governance of an aboriginal nation. The Charter of Rights is a universal application of rights; if in a given society women didn’t have the right to vote, I’m sorry, but I’d hope that that society would have evolved over time to a situation where women do have the right to vote, even though they may not have when they entered Confederation. People from outside of Canada view this as one of the more fascinating things about Canada because of the first nations status of a people within a sovereign country.
The Phil Fontaines of the world would say “at least meet your economic commitments to us first, then let’s talk about what we want to do under the Indian Act.” We still have too many reserves where the water is bad. We still have too many reserves where the housing is substandard. The Canadian electorate isn’t very kind to the aboriginals, because I don’t think they understand the plight that they find themselves in, without a land base and, in some cases, without the ability to even negotiate on their own behalf.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
8. What legislative changes, if any, need to be made in the way that Canada attempts to end poverty in the developing world?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: For too long, Canada has neglected our aboriginal population. NDP MP Charlie Angus was among the first to sound the alarm bell in Parliament about the Kashechewan water crisis in northern Ontario. This was just one in many reserves facing appalling conditions due to Liberal mismanagement and neglect. Social justice for aboriginals would be a top priority of an NDP government. The first priority would be to improve the disgraceful living conditions on Canada’s reserves, and to address the needs of the urban aboriginal population. Long-term changes, however, should flow from extensive consultation with First Nations and follow their lead, not the other way around. The NDP respects the right of First Nations, Inuit, Innu and Metis to pursue self-government and other mechanisms for development of their respective communities' potential. The NDP is committed to implementing the 2005 Kelona Agreement developed in consultations with all parties. We would support the timely passage of any laws necessary to finalize outstanding land claim and self government agreements.
Mike Fedeyko: Well first let’s deliver on our promise of meeting the Pearson aid target of 0.7% in a reasonable timeline. I think meeting that goal is a good start and then we can look at further ways to support global aid. On our way to meet this goal, we need to seriously look at where this money is going. In the wake of recent fraud allegations against the Red Cross and evidence of corrupt African governments, we need to ensure that our tax dollars are going to support the people they are intended for. I don’t want 0.7% of our GNI leaving this country in the hands of an agency or government where there is no accountability. I want to know where and how Canada’s money is being spent.
Andy Hladyshevsky: We want to be able to get to the goal of 0.7% of GDP, but we have to give ourselves four or five or six years to get there. At the same time, the major issue is the reduction of debt and the cancellation of debt repayments. As a nation I think it’s important for us, as we’re trying to move countries to 0.7%, to rationalize debt repayment and to rationalize where our aid actually goes. We need to make sure that we’re not propping up regimes at the same time as we’re trying to reach 0.7%, and to make sure that we’re able to hold third world regimes accountable for Canadian taxpayer dollars that are turned over to them.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
9. What legislative remedies, if any, should be employed to address fluctuating (and, generally, escalating) energy prices?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is an issue that requires both provincial and federal intervention. Any energy subsidies should be applied in a strategic way to drive change in the way we produce and consume energy in the long term. For example, the Liberals' blanket natural gas rebate provides no incentive or assistance to reduce homeowner or industry energy need or demand. If the same dollars were spent on an energy conservation, retrofit programs, and expanding public transit, it would not only provide the same benefit to consumers, but also serve to reduce energy use and costs over the long term.
It is for that reason that the 2005 NDP budget amendment allocates $900 million for homeowners' energy retrofits and one cent increase in gas-tax transfers to municipalities for public transit. The Alberta Tories’ failed deregulation experiment has resulted in escalating energy bills in many instances for Albertans. We now pay electrical bills calaculated on the price of gas- fired power, this despite the fact that the majority of electrical power in the province is provided by coal-fired power plants. In addition, an open national dialogue on our energy future is long overdue. The need for such a dialogue is supported by a wide variety of interests ranging from the Pembina Institute to the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA). The federal government can also reconsider the perverse subsidies and royalty holidays provided to the fossil fuel industry and instead redirect those regained tax dollars to renewable, cleaner and more efficient energy sources.(e.g.coal-fired power is 20% less efficient than gas-fired power and far more polluting). [Documented in petition to Auditor General of Canada, filed Oct 3, 2005 at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca]
Mike Fedeyko: Energy prices fluctuate based on the world market of supply and demand and distributing rebate cheques is not a long-term solution to the problem. What needs to be done is to ensure that the revenues from our fossil fuel exports are invested in capital that will ensure our future prosperity and energy security, and there should be a sense of urgency about this considering the eventual decline of these resources. Until this new future becomes a reality, we need to support people making energy conscious choices in their home with subsidies, and provide enough support for low income Canadians that they don’t have to worry about not being able to afford basic necessities such as heat and power.
Andy Hladyshevsky: There are times where peace, order, and good government are threatened by energy prices, and the federal government has an overriding duty to take control; I lived through one of those, with the imposition of wage and price controls. There is a role for the federal government to step in when it threatens the economic viability of your nation. I believe the government does have a role to play when that’s occurring, and I believe that there is a federal power that’s exercised to do that. It usually comes at a price: freezing energy prices at a certain level results in some people not investing the money required to sustain industry development and exploration, but then, later on, you end up having to restimulate with other sorts of tax benefits and subsidies, so you pay for it somewhere else later in order to get industry back interested in those areas. You’re likely to see a disincentive for internal supply come into play whenever you exercise those controls, but I believe there’s a role for government, that at some point prices cannot be sustained and the federal government has to intervene to stop it from interfering with the daily lives of Canadians.
In the current environment, obviously we’re not there yet, but I look at the events between Russia and Ukraine, where oil and gas prices were used as a weapon. They worked that deal out, but I suppose that if a supplier from outside of a country quadruples the price, well, a government has to take care of its people. If that means that you have to mortgage something off in the future, there is a role for government, though it isn’t one that the provinces like the federal government to get into. It is something that for the peace, order, and good government of the nation, the government must exercise that right.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
10. The early portion of the campaign has seen considerable discussion on tax breaks, and the relative merits of lowering the GST and income taxes. Do you believe that tax breaks are advisable at this time? If so, on which taxes should priority be placed?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: After so many years of Liberal cuts, the priority should be on rebuilding the social and economic infrastructure that has been neglected: education and research, health care and the environment. While we’ve seen “surprise” Liberal surpluses, Canadians have been picking up more and more of the social costs in the form of user fees and environmental damage. As Paul Sommerville (an investment banking economist and NDP candidate) has pointed out, the 26th annual report on Global Competitiveness issued by the World Economic Forum reports that tax levels have less to do with competiveness than efficient and transparent public institutions, quality education, a conprehensive safety net and a highly motivated and skilled labour force. Taxes are just one piece of the puzzle. The NDP supported the 1% cut to the lowest tax level and has proposed no new taxes. Bill-239, tabled in the last Parliament by NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis, would have eliminated the GST on everyday, family essentials.
The NDP supports a more honest style of budgeting that meets Canadians’ needs. We would focus any future tax cuts on the individuals who most need them.
Mike Fedeyko: I’ve already spoken about my views on this matter, I don’t believe tax breaks are what Canadians want right now, they want better support of programs and a real balanced budget that will lead to true income tax relief in the future.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 10. I believe that tax cuts are advisable. I believe that especially with lower income Canadians, along with other Canadians, used their own money to assist in removing the deficit of the federal government, and then allowing the federal government to start paying down our structured debt, so that we could basically have viability in government. To me, it’s time to reduce the pressure on lower income Canadians at a time when your economy is doing very well, with your lowest unemployment in thirty years, and when as a G8 nation you’re performing at the top of your game. When you’re a resource-based nation and resources are doing well in the world, it’s a good time to pay down your debt but it’s also a good time to reduce the burden on lower-income Canadians.
Where you do that – and most economists agree – is increasing the personal deduction of the taxpayer, which is exactly what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to raise that deduction in excess of ten thousand dollars that has the net effect of taking eight hundred and twenty thousand people off the tax-rolls, and two hundred and fifty thousand of those are seniors. Not only that, but we’re also trying to take the 16.25% rate that you pay as soon as you get above that ten thousand and lower that to 15%. I believe that that allows people who are starting out and trying to get on their feet the ability to get some money back in their jeans. Why I don’t believe in a reduction of the GST – why I don’t believe in a reduction in the consumption tax – is that would basically reward high consumers and rich consumers to the detriment of the poor.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
11. If you are elected (and are not in cabinet), are there any specific private member's bills that you would submit?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: I fully support the initiatives and policy positions brought forward by the NDP and have no personal axes to grind.
Mike Fedeyko: I want Canada to be a leader in technology and education. We have world class research Universities and institutes, and we need to support and invest in this research to implement a world class economy.
I would like to put forward a bill that would see equality and forward movement in technology access in our schools, and advocating a federal level implementation of Alberta’s “supernet” providing all Canadians access to an internet connection at a reasonable cost. A wired country would bring us closer together and increase our ability to innovate and distribute information.
As well I’d look into introducing bills providing subsidies for Canadians making energy conscious decisions in the home and in transportation.
Andy Hladyshevsky: What I would like to do is take a little bit of time to listen to what my constituents would like in a private member’s bill. I am personally very much committed to issues of redress. I fought hard for the Ukrainian Restitution Act, which deals with the internment of Ukrainians between 1916 and 1920. I’d be similarly very much interested in private member’s bills that address issues like the Chinese head tax, and other such private member’s bills that deal with human rights excesses in the past, and recognize them as such. For me, those are the early things I would probably get to. I would probably deal with some other acts that are commemorative acts of people other than the traditional French and English peoples, both dealing with commemoration of certain aboriginal heroes and with aboriginal dates that are very important in the calendar.
Do I have a particular statute that I would like to bring in? Not right now; I don’t have a side agenda accompanying me as a Member of Parliament. I can see that as a Member of Parliament, I’d like to see some people bring some of these issues forward so that I could be an advocate for them, and so I could use my position as a Member of Parliament to advocate for something that for Edmonton-Strathcona becomes extremely important. I don’t want to make that sound wishy-washy, but I honestly believe that that’s where an advocate can play a role, and listen to what is an important amendment to an existing statute, or what could address an existing wrong that clearly needs some attention.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
PART III – Specific Bills
How would you have voted on. . .
12. . . Bill C-2, which brought in stricter sentencing for child pornographers and child sex criminals, and which created the new crime of Voyeurism, but which left open the "artistic merit" defense for child pornography arising from R v. Sharpe?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously for this Liberal-initiated bill in the second reading. It was felt that it struck the right balance by closing the loopholes around child pornography to protect children from exploitation while still allowing for the “artistic merit” defence that may protect fictional writing or art work that does not directly affect children. This is a difficult issue, which makes it all the more important tha tboth the security of our children and civil liberties are considered and protected.
Mike Fedeyko: I certainly support stricter sentencing for any offence involving the abuse of children, and agree with the codes laid out in Bill C-2, as well as the establishment of the crime of Voyeurism.
The defense R v Sharpe brought forward an issue which needed to be addressed, that being defining the scope of child pornography laws, particularly the possession of material garnered without harming a child, and without intention to disseminate, publish or sell. If I take a picture of my child unclothed in the privacy of my own home and that picture somehow comes to be in the possession of a person who then distributes it for the purposes of child pornography, should I as a parent be held accountable? This narrowing of the law holds an individual accountable for intent and not ipso facto possession.
The real issue with regards to these laws is any behaviour seen as exploitive, particularly regarding a child and a transgressor who is either in a position of trust or authority with the child, or where the child is a dependant of the transgressor. In these situations I believe prosecution should be to the fullest extent of the law.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I have no problem with voting favour of that. I think that child pornography is socially not only unacceptable but I differ from the Americans in that I believe in the Canadian standards regarding pornography, and that there are limits to your freedom of expression. I believe it goes to the point where your expression is creating an abuse of another group that needs protection.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against sending this Bill to committee.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
13. . . Bill C-17, which would have decriminalized possession of small quantities of Marijuana?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously for this Liberal-initiated bill in the second reading. The NDP understands that policing is only part of the solution to the problems around drug use. Therefore, decriminalization is part of a broad strategy that focuses on a health-based strategy, as recommended by the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. There should, however, be rules about age, rules about impaired driving and rules to tackle commercial grow-ops.
Mike Fedeyko: This bill was a step in the right direction in the way Canada views Marijuana laws. I would also support the investigation of ramifications of legalization and regulation and believe this to be a fundamental step towards lessening criminal activity and protecting public safety. By working towards regulation of Cannibis as a controlled substance, we can focus our efforts on issues that directly affect public health and safety, and deal with any secondary issues with regards to addiction in a more open manner.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m in favour of decriminalization, but only for the purpose of possession. I’m very much after the folks that try to make money off of it.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against sending this bill to committee.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
14. . . Bill C-38, which amended the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP considers equal marriage to be a human right. Courts in British Columbia and Ontario have ruled that the old definition of marriage is contrary to the Charter of Rights. Contrary to Stephen Harper’s recent announcement, any attempt to reverse this legislation would require invoking the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution. There is no justifiable reason to have two separate classes of Canadians. Therefore, I would have most certainly voted for Bill C-38.
Mike Fedeyko: I fully support this Bill and its passing by the House of Commons. This is a step forward in protecting the individual rights and freedoms which every Canadian is entitled to.
Andy Hladyshevsky: It’s the law. I wouldn’t vote to repeal it.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against this Bill on both second and third readings, and also did so at the committee report stage.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
15. . . Bill C-67, which would have dictated that unanticipated surpluses for the next several fiscal years be divided thusly: one third going to income tax breaks, one third going to program spending, and one third going to debt repayment?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal bill died on the order paper. The NDP views the bill as a gimmick put forward by the Liberals in place of any meaningful debate about about how best to put money in the hands of Canadians who need it the most. Instead of these announcements on spending “surprise” surpluses, government budgeting should be accurate, open and accountable so that the priorities of Canadians are met. In the long term we will draw far greater long-term benefit from allocation of our tax dollars to public programs such as health, environmental protection, energy retrofit programs, public transit, affordable housing, education and training, not from further tax cuts. See my previous comments above. The NDP fully supports reduction of the debt.
Mike Fedeyko: Any law advocating restrictions with which surpluses should be spent is not something I would support. It seems short-sighted to commit ones self to such regulation when we are dealing with something so fluid as economics and trying to spend the Canadian peoples dollars the best way we can. The government needs to be able to decide what is best way to serve the people and that would include having flexibility on surplus spending down the road and not being hemmed in by previous legislation. As well, this type of legislation would serve to reduce accountability of government spending and provides a ready-made excuse for implications of misspent tax dollars.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m fine with that. It ties the hand of government, but when you have the kind of debt that we have, it’s a good breakdown of what to do with unanticipated surpluses, which sounds like such a well-defined term that it deals with something very extraordinary that requires you to do something with it, rather than the government in power using it as a windfall opportunity.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
16. . . Bill C-70, which would have narrowed the circumstances under which offenders were given conditional sentences?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal-initiated bill has had neither votes nor debate. Currently conditional sentencs are imposed in approximately 6% of all cases. Very few offenders serving conditional sentences re-offend.
Mike Fedeyko: I support the initiative outlined in this bill. I believe we need to work to have a justice system with real consequences for violent crimes and this is a good step towards providing real deterrents.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m probably in favour of it, but I would need to know the details a little bit more. I think that the restriction of conditional sentences is probably a good idea overall, but I wouldn’t necessarily eliminate them. You have to still allow the judicial system to weigh the circumstances for certain offenses to take into account various components that went into the events. I’m less like that an issues related to a criminal offense that had guns involved.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
17. . . Bill C-215, which would have added a set number of years on to the sentence of any offender who used a firearm in the commission of the offence?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP voted unanimously in favour of sending this Conservative bill to committee, to enable detailed consideration of effective measures to not only punish but also deter gun-related offences. The bill never went to third reading.
The NDP have strongly condemned the recent senseless shootings, particularly shootings involving youth and handguns. Empirical evidence shows that in those jurisdictions where there are tougher penalties for this type of offence, there has been no corresponding reduction in the number of offences. Nonetheless, we agree that stopping these senseless crimes requires tougher border controls to stop the import of illegal guns, consideration to tougher sentencing for weapons-related offences and a tougher anti-gang policy, support to prosecutions and sentencing. But it is equally important to be tough the causes of crime. An effective crime strategy will address social and economic causes of crime like broken homes, firearm access and lack of opportunities for youth. We need better witness protection programs and more compassionate victim assistance. We need to get tough on the root causes of poverty, unemployment and social exclusion. We need to look beyond limited draconian policy initiatives and ensure we are adopting measures that will actually reduce violent crime.
Mike Fedeyko: I would support this bill and find this a far better way to try and lessen the use of handguns in violent crimes rather than the attempted gun registry.
Andy Hladyshevsky: In principle, I’m in favour. I don’t know if I would agree with the specific sentencing periods in that private member’s bill. In principle, I’m in favour, but in some cases you could be overly-punitive for no apparent reason.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
18. . . Bill C-220, which would have banned trans fats from products intended for human consumption?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is NDP MP Pat Martin’s private member’s bill. Persuasive research has indicated that these industrial fats are more hazardous to human health than the natural, saturated fats they were introduced to replace. Canadians ingest an average of 10 grams of trans fats every day. When substances contained in our food supply are proven to harm health and potentially impact health costs, it is incumbent upon our governments to regulate their use and sale, as is the case with chemical additives.
Mike Fedeyko: There is already a strong push for what is outlined in this bill globally, and I would strongly support this bill being passed. Companies are already well on their way to reducing the amount of trans-fats in foods, and regulations should be in place to protect the health of the Canadian public and promote import and development of foods that reflect this.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I have a B. Sc., but I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer that without knowing more. I’d have to understand how critical an issue to public safety that really is, vs. it being a dietary issue that should not be the subject matter of legislation. I’m thinking of the whole saccharine thing, where it was banned for promoting certain types of cancers, and I remember people smuggling saccharine from the United States in certain circumstances. There are times when scientific research says you should no longer have this. On the issue of trans fats, I’d actually like to see some of the background on that private member’s bill. I understand the concept of trans fats, but I’m wondering whether the answer is simply to promote a healthier lifestyle, maybe starting with the parliamentary cafeteria. I do know that doctors recommend that this not be a part of your diet, but asking government to ban it. . . I’d have to understand the science behind it a little better.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
19. . . Bill C-221, which would have banned the bulk export of fresh water from Canada.?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This is another private member’s bill from NDP MP Pat Martin. The environmental and societal implications of bulk water export are huge. The commodification of Canada’s water supply coupled with trade laws puts at risk Canada’s sovereign right to manage our water resources for Canadians' use and benefit. For the last three decades Liberal and Conservative governments have sponsored endless national studies and dialogues on protecting Canadian water supplies but have failed to enact the necessary law to prohibit bulk water exports. A federal law must be enacted now.
Mike Fedeyko: I agree with Peter Lougheed’s sense of urgency on this; bills need to be put forward to protect our natural resources from becoming commodities and being taken advantage of by Free Trade.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m very much in support of that.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
20. . . Bill C-236, which would have reduced the amount of time between when students graduate and when a declaration of bankruptcy would apply to their student loan debts from ten years to two?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This private member’s bill tabled by NDP MP Alexa McDonough was regrettably defeated. The law was proposed to extend to students who default on student loans, the same bankruptcy protection measures available to any other persons who are eligible to apply for bankruptcy protection after two years. As stated by Alexa McDonough, "The government has removed that protection from the student population who have indebted themselves because of the inadequacy of the student aid programs in the country and particularly because of the withdrawal of any meaningful support from the federal government. They are in the position where they are not eligible for such bankruptcy protection for 10 years. This is out and out discrimination against a category of Canadians.” To address the escalating student debt the NDP 2005 budget amendment allocates $1.5 billion to reducing university tuition and worker training costs.
Mike Fedeyko: I don’t agree with students being able to use bankruptcy as a tool to rid themselves of manageable debt. Besides being unfair to the lending institutions and the tax payer, too many students would use this for temporary relief and perhaps not realize the negative implications it can cause down the road. Money spent on University education is an investment in your future and should be subject to the same laws and regulations as any other investment.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I’m probably in favour of that. I don’t think that students should be penalized to that extent. Bankruptcy is still serious and it’s not something that people would take trivially.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
21. . . Bill C-251, which would have required Members of Parliament who intend to cross the floor to contest their seat in a by-election before doing so?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This private member’s bill tabled by NDP MP Peter Stoffer and supported by all NDP MPs was defeated by one half of the Conservatives, all of the Bloc and all but one of the Liberals. The rationale behind this bill is that members of Parliament have to act in a more responsible and accountable manner to the constituents who send them there. The requirement to seek by-election was included in the seven-point Ethics Package tabled in Parliament by NDP MP Ed Broadbent this past fall.
Mike Fedeyko: Parliament needs to be able to run as effectively and efficiently as possible, I would support the candidate having to sit as an independent until the next election, at which time the voting public will have a chance to make their voice heard. This would cause less disruption than having to launch a byelection, and reduce the financial burden for the taxpayer.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 21. I don’t know if I would do that; I’d go for a cooling off period where a Member of Parliament would have to sit mandatorily as an independent before joining another caucus. One effect that that would have is that it would reduce the perception of power grabbing to give people cabinet positions or other positions of responsibility in exchange for crossing the floor, which I think Canadians look at as sort of a personal reward versus a principled decision. People might argue that we need X person to be our Minister of Finance, and unless they cross the floor we’ll lose that person. Well, government can appoint whoever it wants to the cabinet. I think there have been times in the past when Senators have been in cabinet. A person could sit as an independent and could be appointed to the cabinet. There may be some merit to requiring a person to do that in the event that the party reconsiders its position, and there might be some hope of reconciliation.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted against this bill on second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
22. . . Bill C-261, which would have reduced the voting age from 18 to 16?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Liberal-tabled (but multi-partisan) bill was defeated on June 8, following its second reading debate. No votes were recorded. NDP MP Nathan Cullen spoke in favour.
At 14, party members can choose a potential Prime Minister at their party’s convention, yet they cannot vote in a regular election until the age of 18. Young people have opinions of their own; they are intelligent and have the same capacity to cast their vote thoughtfully as anyone other 18. As it stands right now, most people’s first election takes place when they are in the midst of great transition--leaving high school to go on to post-secondary education or full-time employment. They are often moving ridings and need to take extra steps to vote. If they were to start voting at 16, the habit of voting could begin at a relatively stable time in their lives, when they have a lot of time to learn about the issues and form opinions. This habit, once started, is more likely to create the life-long voters that are needed to keep democracies vital
Mike Fedeyko: Anything to get more voters out there and involved. Some 16 year olds are more politically aware than people twice their age, and I don’t feel there could be any abuse of the system by lowering the voting age 2 years.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would for the moment stick with eighteen. I’m worried about other things that come with that – service in the military, and other things where people might say “I have the right to vote so I have the right to do this, this, and this.” I’m concerned with people being allowed to join the military when they’re underage. I’m worried about issues related to the “right” to drink at sixteen. These things don’t come strictly from lowering the voting age, but there are arguments that are made all the time.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
23. . . Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: The NDP votes on this controversial Conservative bill were as follows: 9 in favour, 7 against and 3 abstained. The Bill was defeated. Those in favour are concerned about the security of children who may be exploited by older persons. They want a tool that parents could use to end the relationships their children have that they feel are dangerous. Those against feel that there is a difference between stating that sexual relations at 14 are undesirable and stating that they should be made criminal. The bill was worded in such a way that young people could be charged for having sexual relations.
Mike Fedeyko: I don’t think you can set an arbitrary age at which every person, or even the majority of people are mature enough to be fully cognisant of their actions. That being said, obviously laws need to be in place to protect children who may be taken advantage of. I feel that Bill C-2 does an adequate job of protecting the rights of the individual as well as protecting the exploitation of children.
Andy Hladyshevsky: 23. That’s a tough one. I’d probably oppose it unless somebody convinced me otherwise. There are plenty of cultures where fourteen is an acceptable age, and they’re not the worse for it. But it’s a difficult issue.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet. (Jaffer voted in favour of this bill a second reading.)
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
24. . . Bill C-317, which would have required mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis introduced this bill, which only made it to first reading. It has been introduced (and defeated) before by Liberal Charles Caccia. Reportedly about 60 per cent of our processed foods contain some genetic modifications, but consumers in Canada would be hard pressed to find out what is and isn't altered. According to a 1999 Environics poll, 80 per cent of Canadians want GM foods to be labelled. Greenpeace Canada has suggested that number is closer to 95 per cent. (Source: www.cbc.ca May 11, 2004). I fully support the enactment of federal laws requiring the full disclosure of all substances introduced into in food and food products during growth, production and processing.
Mike Fedeyko: I wouldn’t support this Bill as it would be unduly expensive and complicated for food manufacturers. Genetic modification covers a wide range of conditions and indicates nothing about the safety or health of food. It would also impede trade of these products and the enforcing such a system would be expensive and difficult to implement. A voluntary labelling system and our current organic food certification standards are a more feasible method and allow people to make a choice for organically grown goods.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would support that.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
25. . . Bill C-383, which would have allowed voters to recall their MPs, provided one year had elapsed since their election?
Dave Dowling: I would have to refer you to the Marijuana Party of Canada Platform. It s the only political party platform that is easy to understand, simple to implement and most beneficial to all in Canada. This platform can be found at the following web link: http://marijuanaparty.org/article.php3?id_article=198 If you have any questions on the Marijuana Party of Canada platform feel free to contact me.
All else is up to the individual Candidate. I myself would put aside my personal beliefs and consult the constituents before I cast any vote in the house of commens on the questions you put forth, and would make sure the vote I cast for the constituants represented everyone and all sides on the issue. . .
Linda Duncan: This Conservative private member’s bill died on the order paper absent any debate. From my experience, more constructive measures to hold elected offcilas accountable and ensure government decision-making is more open, transparent and participatory include public consultations in advance of significant policy decisions, on matters such as energy, trade, health and tax policies. As well, we need stronger controls on paid lobbyists and greater transparency and scrutiny of appointments to federal agencies and tribunals who play a significant role in federal decision making. These measures are outlined in Ed Broadbent's seven-point ethics package.
Mike Fedeyko: In cases of extreme neglect of the constituents, I think this should be available to the public as an option. However, the requirements necessary to put forward a recall should be strict and onerous. This would limit any abuse of the system and protect any negative effects such recalls would have on Parliament running smoothly.
Andy Hladyshevsky: I would not vote in favour of that in isolation, though I might support it if there were other reforms that went along with it. I view it in the same way as I view an elected Senate: I support an elected Senate, but that doesn’t mean that I want to just take the Senate we have now and start electing people to it. These things need to be done in packages.
Kevan Hunter: No answer received yet.
Rahim Jaffer: No answer received yet.
Cameron Wakefield: No answer received yet.
