Conservative MP (Nanaimo-Alberni) James Lunney Has Not Earned My Support!

I have been meaning to write this entry for quite some time but you get busy and time has a way of slipping away but, since we are facing a Federal election in less than a week, I think it important that I share my impressions of my MP, James Lunney, 'New' Conservative (Nanaimo-Alberni). I don't ask all that much of those that we elect to represent us, whether it be in Victoria or Ottawa but I do expect them to listen to my concerns and then do their best to help me, whether or not we share the same political ideology. Conservative James Lunney is my Member of Parliament (Nanaimo-Alberni) and I often receive pamphlets from him asking for my opinion/input on issues that HE feels are important but the questions always seem to be phrased to elicit the answer he is looking for, i.e., the questions are 'loaded'. He invariably asks me who I think would make the best leader/Prime Minister when, given how low the art of politics has sunk, my truthful answer would be 'None of the Above'. So, he sends me partisan materials on a regular basis, some of which are even past their 'action date'. Although I have sometimes offered my comments and included my name, address and telephone number, so far, the communication has all been pretty much one way, i.e., he has never replied to or acknowledged the comments I have taken the time to share with him.
I have been trying for over two years to obtain straight answers to the question of why my community of Lantzville received two infrastructure grants for a sewer collection system totalling $5.6 million from the provincial and federal governments when the programs were heavily over-subscribed and Lantzville didn't meet the eligibility requirements or submit the required documentation with their application. To that end, I have submitted Freedom of Information (Provincial) and Access to Information (Federal) requests in an effort to obtain the documents that should show exactly what happened in this instance. While the federal government was quicker than the provincial in providing access to some documents, they were very reluctant to answer my direct questions about the process they used to select the 'winners' and by extension, the 'losers'. As a result, I found it necessary to attend the Nanaimo offices of my Conservative MP, Mr. James Lunney, and request their assistance in obtaining a reply from Western Economic Diversification Canada (WEDC), the agency responsible for shepherding the Federal part of the CBC-MRIF applications through the vetting process. While I was told that Mr. Lunney supported Lantzville's application, I was also told that his Executive Assistant (Dave McEachern) understood my concerns about accountability and would do what he could to help. Within two weeks, I received a reply (although unfortunately not answers) from WEDC. As the process evolved, questions remained unanswered and new questions emerged yet WEDC sent me a very brief letter stating that 'the deal was done' and thanking me for my interest in their program. So, I again found occasion (mid-July 2009) to request Mr. Lunney's office to help me obtain a 'real' response from WEDC. His new Executive Assistant, Curtis Hansen, basically told me that it would not be a high priority with them and, since they were just gearing up to 'throw even more taxpayer's money off the back of a truck (my paraphrasing of his response - Economic Action Plan)', it would take them awhile to get to it - to date, I have still not received any manner of results from them. I told him at the time that, if they didn't take the time to learn what could be improved with the previous program (millions), they were bound to repeat the same mistakes with the newer, and even more expensive (billions), one ('the canary in the coal mine' analogy).
So, fast-forward to today and Mr. James Lunney would now like me to help re-elect him as my Conservative MP. Well, in addition to what I have just written above, I have a number of other issues that would prevent me from doing so and I will share them with you, my readers, in the form of a letter I was planning to send him even before Parliament was dissolved due to an Opposition vote of 'no confidence' in the Stephen Harper government on a matter of two counts of contempt of Parliament:

Dear Mr. Lunney,
Thank you for you most recent mailer. In the beginning, I used to read them faithfully but must admit that I haven't been keeping up. They all seem to have the same tone and are phrased in such a way as to try and obtain the answer(s) you are looking for. I have, in the past, offered my comments to you on some of the issues contained in them but I have yet to receive any kind of response from you. I have also taken the time to gather materials and information on issues important to myself and other Canadians and, once again, I have not received so much as a 'thank you' from you for my efforts. Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that you don't really care what my concerns are or what I think about the important issues that MP's like yourself are asked to decide on our behalf. So, just so you aren't surprised that I don't vote for you in the upcoming election, I am taking this time to commit my reasons to paper:
1. Mr. Lunney's cavalier approach to spending of our money (almost $565,000 annually) for travel and office expenses - it is not good enough to just say that the rules allow you to do what you have done, especially during a global recession. When Canadians were losing their jobs and their homes, you should have left your wife at home and worked long hours in Ottawa to help 'right the ship'
2. Mr. Lunney supported Stephen Harper's government's proroguing of Parliament, effectively silencing the people's voice for the sole convenience of his government on the issue of the Afghan detainee documents
3. Mr. Lunney's Conservative party, despite saying that they are for an elected senate and against patronage, have appointed 20 new Senators since 2005
4. Mr. Lunney blindly supports the state of Israel, even when it is clear that they have broken international law and been sanctioned by the U.N.. The situation in the Middle East is far more 'grey' than he would have us believe and the state of Israel won't gain any points from me by acting much like the regime that persecuted their peoples during the Second World War!
5. Mr. Lunney, as part of the Stephen Harper government, supported the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, which were 'sold' to the Canadian people based on wildly optimistic cost numbers., e.g., $175 milion for security, which ended up costing over $900 million. Governments have a long history of this type of deception in order to build edifices to themselves at public expense.
6. Mr. Lunney voted to support the implementation of the HST in BC, one of the biggest tax shifts from businesses to consumers in history ($521/yr. for the 'average' consumer). We are still waiting for the predicted savings by businesses to trickle down to us.
7. Mr. Lunney appears to support his government's contempt of Parliament on both the Bev Oda misleading/lying to Parliament and the government's refusal to hand over documents related to the costs of building more prisons/implementing their 'tough on crime' agenda. I happen to support some increase in our prison capacity since I don't believe it has kept pace with our criminal population growth but you will not 'win me over' with such anti-democratic methods
8. this is not the first time that the Conservatives have refused to hand over documents to the people's representatives in Parliament - the Afghan detainee documents have still not been given to Parliament, several years after they were requested
9. Mr. Lunney supported his government in killing the environmental bill of rights which would have at least started to acknowledge the impacts of global warming, a serious challenge which must be addressed along with economic growth, not sacrificed to it
10. Mr. Lunney supported the Stephen Harper government in extending the term of duty of our soldiers in Afghanistan, after they said that July 2011 would be the end of the mission. Resorting to 'weasel words' is not the way to build public support for a decision. Personally, I don't believe we have any business being in the corrupt, deadly quagmire that is Afghanistan.
11. Mr. Lunney supported his government in extending the deadline for implementing firearms marking regulations for a third time since 2006
12. Mr. Lunney supported his government spending $1,000,000,000 on security alone for the G8/G20 photo op in Ontario last summer - which, according to your last mailer, is also how much the Conservatives say they are committing over the next five years to develop green energy technologies. There cannot possibly be that kind of value realized from a bunch of 'heads of state' getting together for a few meetings and 'photo ops'.
13. Mr. Lunney supports his government in awarding a contract for new jet fighters without tendering the contract. Again, a government that prides itself on its fiscal responsibility would have us believe that the spending of $35 billion (purchase price) - $50 billion (life-cycle cost) without 'seeing what the market has t offer' is a fiscally prudent decision - it all looks like 'smoke and mirrors' to me!
14. Mr Lunney supported his government in their decision to make the long-form census voluntary, causing Canada's Chief Statistician to resign on a matter of principle. Prime Minister Stephen Harper goes on and on about how he is the one with the Economics degree who keeps close watch over our finances and yet he has eliminated one of the best ways that we can ensure that our scarce tax dollars are spent in the most effective manner and places
15. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their (11th hour) implementation/reversal of the cigarette package labelling fiasco
16. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their use of infrastructure grants as part of their Economic Stimulus Plan without ensuring that the requisite 'checks and balances' are in place. When I tried to bring this potentially serious problem to your attention, you chose to ignore me.
17. the Conservative government's decision to over-rule the Competition Bureau's ruling on foreign-ownership/control in the GlobalLive cellular telephone file, breaking the law in the process does not foster the kind of confidence that businesses need to flourish. The courts have since ruled that your Conservative government was wrong.
18. Mr. Lunney is part of the Stephen Harper government's repeated anti-democratic actions such as hiding from the media, muzzling Cabinet Ministers, pre-screening and possibly barring attendees at political events, severely restricting the number of questions which can be asked at media events and proroguing Parliament twice during the last five years when things got 'a little too hot in the kitchen' are just a few of the anti-democratic indicators which come to mind. Good government's tackle issues openly and straight on and never forget that they represent the people who elected them and they are duty-bound to involve them and listen to them.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

In closing, I have recently received a campaign brochure from Mr. Lunney in which he highlights all of the places that his government has spent taxpayers' money resulting in many photo ops for them. I also strongly lament the tone that recent election campaigns have taken with attack ad after attack ad - I can tell you right now, you will NEVER get my vote using those tactics! Tell me what you are proposing to do and then do your darndest to actually do it!
You can read what I think about the efficiency, wisdom and pitfalls of using taxpayer's money to 'buy' votes at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2008/11/politics-of-infrastructure-grants.html. Although he has been my MP for over 10 years, I have never actually met him (he seems to make himself scarce) and I only know what he looks like from his 'photo ops' where he is invariably handing over our money to someone and from his website. It is past time to elect someone who will listen to their constituents and bring their concerns to the government in Ottawa (and, for that matter, Victoria too).

Initial Thoughts On B.C. Local Elections Task Force Report

The 'Report of the Local Government Elections Task Force' does not place much emphasis on the many comments/suggestions received from local governments, organizations or individuals. Instead, they appear to have relied mainly on what they would prefer to have happen and/or what is being done in other provinces (which offers no tangible benefit for us voters). It is already well known that the opportunity to provide input was not widely advertised and it is a stated goal of the Task Force to improve voter participation. I can tell you that ignoring the 'stakeholder' comments and concerns will do nothing to help in this regard. Let's look at the issue of election cycle (term of office) to demonstrate my concern: first off, common sense would suggest that strong/overwhelming support for change needs to be present before a change is made: - only 4 (3%) of the 155 local governments in B. C. took up the suggestion by the UBCM to hold referendums in 2008 on the issue of extending the term of office from 3 years to 4, resulting in a 53% overall majority for change - the Task Force input from local governments is 48.6% in favour of extending - 21.4% of organizations are in favour of extending - 38.8% of individuals are in favour of extending.
This change has been implemented in other provinces in anticipation of achieving certain/similar goals but, for unknown reasons, we have no data as to whether or not things like increased voter participation or reduced costs were actually achieved. If such claims cannot be substantiated, they should not be considered. Even with this distinctly underwhelming support and a dearth of data to quantify the benefits, the Task Force still decided to recommend the extension. The best justification they can come up with is that a longer term gives Councils more time to "implement their vision" and it improves accessibility because it may reduce "the potential of voter fatigue over time"; give me a break - people facing a vote once every three years is too much effort in support of democracy! The real reason appears to be that the UBCM membership had endorsed this action at their last annual meeting and four of the seven Task Force members are UBCM executives [note added 10 09 30 - this is exactly what happened, as confirmed in the text of the 'News Release' announcing the publication of the Elections Task Force Report - "your UBCM representatives relied upon and advocated for established UBCM policies (i.e., no corporate vote; a move to four year terms)". In areas outside of existing policy, they state they were "guided' by feedback at various meetings of UBCM members and from local governments but not one mention of considering the thousands of comments from the public!]. [UPDATE: At their annual meeting held in Whistler in September, the UBCM held a re-vote on the issue of 'term of office' and, this time, they voted to recommend to the government that they leave the term at where it is, 3 years - we will have to wait for the legislation to see what the government does with their 'conflicted' input. Just goes to show what a 'sham' the whole thing really was]. [FURTHER UPDATE: At their annual meeting held at Vancouver in September 2013, the UBCM once again took up the issue of 'term of office' and decided, reportedly with a narrow majority, to ask the government to extend to 4 years. Going even further back, in 2006, they did not endorse, while in 2007, they did. So we have 3 years, 4 years, 3 years and back to 4 years, which clearly demonstrates lack of significant support for a change to the term of office.]
The very real concern of having to wait an extra year to "express opinions on the performance of their local elected officials" seems not to have carried any weight, even though the courts have said that, in the absence of recall legislation, the ballot box is the only place to hold politicians accountable. The input from individuals for March was not posted on the LocalElectionsTaskForce website until April 21st and only after I raised the issue with them via email. My own input, which was submitted on April 15th was not posted until the same day the report was posted, May 31st, despite repeated requests to do so much earlier. This 'whenever' approach has done serious harm to the transparency of the entire process. Anyone wishing to read what I had to say in my submitted comments on this issue can go to http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2010/05/local-government-election-rules-in.html.

Local Government Election Rules In Need Of Change?!?

In response to having come across (in a Lantzville council Agenda package), a request for Council to solicit input from "local groups and individuals interested in local government election issues" - did anybody come and ask you for your thoughts?, I submitted the following input to the Local Elections Task Force on April 15, 2010 (the 'soft' deadline). In order to maintain maximum transparency, the Task Force was going to publish all of the submissions from the various local governments, groups and individuals. Unfortunately, in spite of several unanswered prompts from individuals like myself, my submission was not actually put up on the website http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/ until the day their final report was posted, May 31, 2010 (45 days after my submission!). If I didn't know any better, I would have to say that they were not overly keen on having yours and my opinion posted for all to see!
Once I have the chance to digest the actual contents of the report, I will post another article sharing my thoughts with you.

PREAMBLE: Let me begin by saying that I am greatly disappointed that a Task Force that says they are seeking public input into a process that has the potential to significantly impact the public has done such a poor job of informing the public of that opportunity. I only found out about it when I was going through an Agenda of my local Council Meeting and saw the notice the Task Force had sent out to local governments seeking their input. Putting the onus on them to solicit input from "local groups and individuals" makes for the likelihood of a wide range of effort expended across the province, the natural reaction likely being that, since they 'work in the system', they may feel qualified to speak on behalf of the public. Also, I understand that the Premier announced this Task Force back in early October of last year, only appointed the members in early December and now the Task Force is expecting input to be closed as of April 15th. This is a very short time frame for the generally busy public to research and then consider something as important as the conduct of our democratic elections. It would also have helped demonstrated non-partisanship if one of the members was from the Official Opposition. The make-up of the Task Force, including a new Minister and two rookie government MLA's, hopefully will be long on enthusiasm and critical thinking, if not on experience with the Acts under consideration.
GENERAL COMMENT: although there have been a number of changes similar to the ones being contemplated in B. C. made in other provinces, there appears to be a dearth of actual data on whether or not these changes have resulted in the benefits expected (e.g., cost savings, increase in voter participation). One would have thought that this type of research would have been a natural outgrowth of the implementation of the changes. Why this is not the case, is beyond me but I think it would be wise to quantify the actual benefits before we seek to do anything more.
 
Campaign Finance
In order to avoid conflicts of interest, which seem to be occurring much more often nowadays, I believe that all campaign contributions should be reported BEFORE the actual election (there should be a cut-off on donations, say 7-10 days, before election day). The information, organized by candidate, should be available for inspection at the local government office in written form and on the local government's website. There should also be reasonable limits on the total amount that an individual or corporation can donate to a single candidate, say, $300 for an individual and $500 for a corporation.
 
Enforcement processes and outcomes
We have no way to hold election officials accountable for the proper conduct of elections since Part 153 (7) of the Local government Act requires the ability to measure the "intent" of an official's actions - "a person who is an election official must not contravene this part with the intent of affecting the result or the validity of an election" (maximum penalty - up to a $5,000 fine, a year in jail, prohibition from being a candidate or voting for up to 6 years). As a result, nobody in the system seems to take any of this very seriously (the Ministry of Community and Rural Services would probably classify them as "inadvertent contraventions", which they deem not in themselves to be contraventions of the Local Government Act. The City of Nanaimo conduct of their elections is a good example of this 'rule creep', to the great detriment of our democracy. I don't know what cave they have been living in/planet they are from but not requiring voters to identify themselves is just asking for trouble. Nanaimo has a computerized system which is supposed to prevent the same person from voting more than once but, in actuality, what it does is prevent someone claiming to be that person from voting more than once (e.g., if I knew that several of my neighbours were away on extended holidays, there is really nothing but my own personal standards/integrity preventing me from going from polling station to polling station and representing myself as one of more of them). This has got to change! If you doubt what I say, tell us how many people have been charged and convicted of an offence under this section of the Local Government Act since it was enacted and what the penalties imposed were. Then tell me what percentage of people admit to cheating on their income tax, even after they have certified ("taken a solemn oath"?) that the information is correct. If there is money in it or a benefit from it and surveillance/enforcement is poor, 'ordinary' people will do it in droves.
 
Role of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer in local government elections
Given that the individuals who are appointed Chief Election Officer and Deputy Election Officer in local government elections are usually senior employees of said local government and that, especially in smaller communities, the same individuals run in election after election, this sets up the very real possibility that these election officials may be influenced in a number of ways. In my opinion, hiring family members of municipal employees to aid in the conduct of local elections is also a potential problem of conflict of interest. I believe that local elections should be run by independent, impartial and well-trained individuals whose sole responsibility is the conduct of elections. As demonstrated by the investigative work of Rosalie McAllister in Nanaimo (shared with the Ombudsman and the B. C. Civil Liberties Society), local election workers can be poorly qualified for a job they only do at most once very 3 years and often in a potential conflict of interest and, as a result, not follow the requirements as set out. This type of inconsistent application of the rules does little to satisfy the public that a transparent election process has occurred. I don't know if this means that the B. C. Chief Electoral Officer should be involved but that may well be the best way to ensure election integrity, consistency and professionalism.
 
Election cycle (term of office)
Ever since Justice J. Paul Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court, in 2006, ruled that the only place to hold politicians accountable for lying to the voters was at the ballot box, the people have needed this opportunity more, rather than less, frequently. If we are to be lied to during the campaign in order to have us vote FOR a particular person or AGAINST a particular person, we need to be able to have the chance to correct our 'error' before we forget the issue/specifics in the daily hustle and bustle of life. If we find out after the fact that a candidate has received a large amount of funding from a single source, we would have reason to view their decisions very critically and may want to have the ability to 'change our mind' in the near future.
In my opinion, consistency in the frequency of local elections with other provinces is a non-issue. There is no need for co-ordination or consultation with municipalities in other provinces that would require that the election cycles be 'harmonized'. With every increase in the term of our elected REPRESENTATIVES, we move further and further away from the ideal of direct democracy.
Six months to a year is more that adequate time for those relatively few members who are new to local governments to 'learn the ropes' (they should have been well-versed on the issues when they were running for office). The suggestion that lengthening the election cycle (and thereby likely the planning framework) would provide more certainty for things such as capital projects belies the fact that governments trying to plan anything more than 3 to 5 years out are pretty tenuous as best. The concept of building reserves, rather than "potentially reducing the amount needed for borrowing and thereby reducing the burden on the local taxpayer", is simply a mechanism whereby the taxpayers are relieved of their tax dollars early. While I can appreciate that there are some considerations in terms of how any particular term of office would affect those things called 'Other voting' (referendum), I fail to see how 'consistency' with other provinces and the federal government election cycle have any bearing on what we should choose. If these 'Other voting' events were to be separated from the local government elections, an increase in cost would certainly be expected, even if they did achieve the predicted 'benefit' of more referendums. I can see nothing in these proposals that would tend to increase the accountability of our local politicians, the claim that becoming more like the provincial government in terms of the election cycle (and some unspecified 'accountability measures') notwithstanding.
As the acclamation data demonstrates, political 'dynasties' tend to become entrenched, especially in small municipalities, which is something that extending the election cycle will exacerbate.
Interesting that, of the roughly 155 municipalities in B. C., to whom the Ministry of Community Services suggested to those interested in furthering the issue of extending the election cycle that they hold a referendum during the 2008 local elections, only 4 chose to do so - not exactly an overwhelming response!
So no one gets to feeling too comfortable and loses sight of the objective of representing their constituents, there should also be term limits on local politicians, say no more than 6 - 8 years in succession.
The AAP mentioned in conjunction with the discussion of election cycles is a 'negative billing option', i.e., consent is assumed if one DOESN'T submit a form, when there can actually be a number of reasons why this has happened, e.g, they weren't made aware of the issue.

Government Propaganda/Have I Finally Made The 'Big Time'?!?

Parksville-Qualicum MLA, Ron Cantelon, caused to be published a very political sounding advertisement in the Parksville-Qualicum News last November. It was 'short and sweet', basically saying: increase in B.C. K-12 education budget since 2001 - 23%; decrease in student enrolment since 2001 - 13%. Feeling that such a use of statistics without any elaboration was not being very forthright, I wrote the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Parksville-Qualicum newspaper, as well as the three Nanaimo newspapers - none of them chose to publish my letter:

Dear Editor,
Following the format of a recent pre-election advertisement surrounding student enrolment and government funding for public education in B.C. placed by Nanaimo-Parksville MLA Ron Cantelon in local newspapers: Increase in MLA's salaries since 2001 - 38%; Decrease in number of sitting days since 2001 - 26%.

Then, in the middle of December, Shirley Bond, B. C.'s Education Minister, caused to have published a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Nanaimo Daily News and Harbour City Star newspapers in response to two submitted by readers, parts of which she took issue with. Part of the message in that letter was virtually identical to what Mr. Cantelon had written in his advertisement (who says the government doesn't make good use of their large media and communications team?!). Therefore, just after Christmas, I submitted the following letter to those same two newspapers:

Dear Editor,
Having become somewhat of a cynic when it comes to matters political, I have to admit that I never would have expected that someone like B.C. Education Minister, Shirley Bond, would have the time to peruse local papers like the Nanaimo Daily News/Harbour City Star for items to respond to (B.C. government funding schools at historic levels/B.C. government funding of schools is at historic levels, Dec. 18/26/08). Given the myriad challenges in public education, I would have thought that she would have many, far more weighty matters to deal with in order to earn her $150,000/yr. salary. As it is, she has taken a large, complex issue and tried to placate us with a few, simplistic statistics.
She writes that "this government fundamentally believes that local boards of education are in the very best position to make decisions for the students in their communities". I think it has become obvious to anyone paying attention over the past number of years that, since the government controls the funding, there are only 'painful' decisions to be made. Another way to look at this is that it leaves the 'dirty work' for the local school boards. The government also reserves the right to fire the entire duly elected school board if they don't like their community-minded decisions (I see this as the main reason why school boards timidly accept unacceptable learning conditions in many of their classrooms).
In closing, and in the same spirit as the Minister's letter (where she basically says: increase in B.C. K-12 education budget since 2001 - 23%; decrease in Nanaimo-Ladysmith student enrolment since 2001 - 13%; ), let me offer my own set of 'coupled' statistics: increase in MLA's salaries since 2001 - 38%; decrease in number of legislature sitting days since 2001 - 26%.

What is especially interesting is how these two papers chose to use my letter. The Daily News ran it (Education Minister's letter far too simplistic, Jan 10/09, the bolded text indicates that part of my letter which was not published) and then Walter Cordery wrote an editorial piece using my letter as 'the hook'. The Harbour City Star only ran the editorial piece (Thin skins fill letters pages, Jan. 13/09), making reference to my letter printed in the Daily News.