Even when you directly question the candidates running in the current federal election
it is hard to get a clear idea of which way to cast your vote to serve the best
interest of the Canadian people.
Do you let who a party's leader is, to be the determining factor in how you cast
your vote? That in itself can be a problem. Every Prime Minister in Canada who has
served three or more terms in office has, by their third term, developed delusions
of omnipotence that the country simply cannot run without them. Stephen Harper is
Then there is the behaviour of underlings to also consider because, after all, the
leader of a party is ultimately responsible for those behaviours. The criminal behaviour
we have seen in recent years from Senators, MP's, and their staffers is of serious
concern to the Canadian electorate, yet when interviewing the Elgin-Middlesex-London
candidates for the three major parties - NDP, Liberal and Conservative - no one
seemed to have a concrete plan to eliminate this criminal element from their own
party or from Parliament Hill.
The best any of the three candidates (Karen Vecchio - Conservative; Lori Baldwin-Sands
- Liberal; Fred Sinclair - NDP) could come up with was some sort of accountability,
but that is not a solution with any teeth. Curbing this type of criminal behaviour
requires some real legislative teeth, such as the removal of parliamentary privilege
when someone in this kind of position is being investigated for criminal conduct
in relation to their office - so that the person is held accountable in exactly
the same way as anyone else would be.
It also requires a change to the Breach of Trust by a Public Official section of
the Criminal Code of Canada, such that conviction of the misuse of public funds
is to be automatically considered a breach of trust by a public official and is
automatically an indictable criminal offence punishable by a mandatory jail sentence
of at least 14 years in a federal penitentiary.
What kind of respect do the party leaders and their parties have for the Canadian
electorate. In my opinion, when Stephen Harper dropped the writ for the election
back in August, to allow his party to spend more money on the campaign, he was literally
slapping the faces of the Canadian electorate, saying we were all so stupid that
all his party required was enough time and enough money spent to get us to vote
for the Conservatives again, regardless of the Conservative past performance, including
criminal wrongdoings. The secrecy surrounding the details of the Trans Pacific Trade
agreement and its potential negative impacts on certain segments of the Canadian
economy, and the attempt to push it through as a done trade deal prior to the outcome
of this current election, again brings Mr. Harper's respect for the Canadian electorate
into serious question.
When Lori Baldwin-Sands said the Liberals voted to support Bill C-51 because it
was going to pass anyway, I was appalled that it could be considered a reason for
supporting a bill which does allow police to arrest a person without a warrant
of the basis that they may commit an act of terrorism or are likely
to commit an act of terrorism - theoretical constructs which completely negate the
presumption of innocence guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
(a document brought into law by Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Elliott). To support
such a bill shows a complete lack of respect for one of the most important pieces
of legislation on the books of Canadian Law.
Sadly, on the economic front, the national debt seems to have been lost in the focus
when it comes to deficit financing. None of the candidates knew the current level
of our net national debt, which in August 2015 sat at
$616,402,590,588.25 CDN or $17,242.22 per person for every man, woman and
child of Canada's 37.75 million population.
Greece has been a classic example of how imprudent deficit financing by governments
can bankrupt even a county. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau plans 3 more years of
deficit financing to "invest" in Canadian infrastructure. While such deficit financing
has proven in the past to stimulate the economy, would it not be far more prudent
to make that investment within a balanced budget structure - as proposed by the
Tom Mulcair NDP party - than to do it by going further into debt? In my opinion,
Mulcair's promise of a balanced budget which includes necessary infrastructure spending,
and his opposition to Bill C-51, show more respect for the Canadian electorate than
either Harper or Trudeau.
Opposition parties have run commercials that the Harper government is cutting $36
billion from health care. In her interview, Conservative candidate Karen Vecchio
is correct that it is really just a smaller increase year over year than has been
given in recent years.
$36 Billion in Health Care Cuts. However, what remains questionable is Stephen
Harper's commitment to the preservation of universal public health care [A
Party of One by Michael Harris].
So which way do I vote, which way do you vote? I'd say it requires a lot more personal
research on the part of each of us and asking a lot more hard questions of the
candidates competing for our votes. How we vote will very much affect everyone in
our riding, and in our country, so vote wisely.