| |
|
|
||
| |
|
|||
| |
|
|||
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|||
We would like to thank Elections Canada, especially Mr. Grant, Arbitrator of disputes between broadcasters and administrators. We thank you for the opportunity to have a view on the establishment
of a system that needs arbitration, while it is called ‘an
establishment’. I was surprised that after a majority vote (of which I will not give numbers) the margin of perhaps 70% requesting changes to the Election Act, concerning air time through any form of media at the time of election. I was pleased to see the small parties present at the meeting where unanimously, we demonstrated an injustice against what you call ‘minorities’ that became a majority of 70% against the present system. I would not like Mr. Grant’s position, as Arbitrator in this matter, where an arbitrator has been named by Act of Parliament. According to Mr. Grant, having the power to overrule courts and votes. Is it to the satisfaction of the Electorate of Canada or to those who have created this arbitration environment to protect their own interests? The arbitrator must render a decision in thirty days, though the votes were clearly against the present system by a majority. So if the majority governs, be it so and let it become public knowledge. If a majority is overruled by arbitration under the disguise that suddenly the ruling must be accepted by an Act of Parliament, therefore, I challenge every Party present at this meeting to establish credibility for themselves now, by accepting the vote that was unanimously against the present system. So since the possibility of an election at anytime, this unsettled matter must be brought to the House of Commons with the facts established at the meeting, before the true leaders of the nation, the People of Canada, and not their managers. This is why in politics, politicians are on term positions. This is why we call an election the ‘term’ of a mandate. How could any politician refer to themselves as the establishment when they are on term positions? An establishment is something that cannot be challenged because of its credibility, but the lack of credibility in having passed, by an Act of Parliament, an unfair and unjust proceeding at times of election, recognized by all parties present, including the arbitrator who said that before the last election, he had to make amendments to the unjust treatment of the small parties. So therefore, if before the last election you saw fit to intervene because of the injustice towards the small parties, we now ask you to intervene – if only by the respect of the vote of a majority of those present at the meeting in favour of equal time on the air for all parties. Furthermore, the reason and excuse for giving a larger percentage
to the powerful machines in Ottawa of airtime was referred to as
the ‘opinion of the popular vote’. And we reminded
Elections Canada that at the last election every form of media reported
that people “had no choice”. Therefore,
I would retrieve the word ‘popular vote’. When I asked the question: “Is there a ceiling as to how much money a party is allowed to spend at election time?” The reply was such: “You must follow the guidelines of Elections Canada. However, if you have money to throw out the window, you could buy all the time you want. There’s nothing I can do about it.” This in itself nullifies the Election Act in favour of the rich over the poor. Secondly, an Act of Parliament has been established and publicized on television in the last few months. That census was an obligation under the Criminal Code of Canada and also it is established that every employer on the day of Election has to allow every employee two hours with pay to go vote. And now, there must be an Act of Parliament that includes the media as employers to permit, with the taxpayers money that the rich parties are using (which they don’t need) plus their own funding to make sure that those without funding could never compete with them.
In the name of integrity and accountability, where we could add on right now proof of lack of accountability from this meeting, including misuse of taxpayers’ money; if it is by ignorance, let us all be instructed by this letter – educated if you like. It is not mudslinging. The airtime should be to bring our heads together as different parts of this nation have believed in us and let it be by credibility and not superficial power. We thank you for the opportunity to help this nation. And the voting process that took place was obviously more just than the actual voting system established by norms of inequality in favour of those who had more time and money than the little parties and ended up being called ‘the no choice people’. And there, no more calling ‘no choice’ the public opinion. Since you made it an obligation to vote, it’s like voting between two things that you don’t want but you have a moral obligation to take one of the two. That leaves me to understand more why democracy is so challenged the world over – because it is an unfair system that by ignorance or willfulness, we must change because it is undemocratic. And let us let the people decide from all the choices they have. To end this letter, I would like to remind Mr. Grant, the arbitrator for whom I have respect in his credibility that I believe he will use by the majority vote that was taken. If not, if arbitration is not credible, then the same applies to the government and Elections Canada. I would like to remind Mr. Grant of the very words that I shared with all the Parties: we are not a small party because your kind of partying is mudslinging. But I reminded everyone that Canada is no longer to me a nation. It is a family. That includes everyone present. And when credibility will be established, we will all work together serving the nation that would have believed in us. So we invite all parties to voice their credibility on our own website, but not in mudslinging, but simply to show what good they have to offer to Canada. I’m willing to learn. But they must be willing to learn too. So we will share our space and in the interest of this nation. Then it will be a party to work together for the people. Yours truly, 107 Marion Street |