Previous  1  2  3  Next

I thought of another one, but I'll just post the main point and think of the wording later:<br /> <br /> "Taxes collected will be used for their intended purposes, not redistributed to general funds. If a given tax collected is exceeding the needs of that program, the tax will be lowered."<br /> <br /> I'm tired of the EI and gas taxes always being in the surplus, yet one can't even subsist on EI and the roads are pathetic.<br />

   

Wow Sorry I missed this before now. Very very good work Dr.C! First I think you should post the updated version as we go along, saying edit one or two or wherever, and leave the first one as is. I also think that when we are satisfied it is complete, we should post to the main site, and perhaps format an email to send to mp's etc. <br /> <br /> Really good points from everyone so far. <br /> <br /> I like 'demand' also we have been asking nicely for years, that isn't working, also we are the employer here, and when the employer doesn't get satisfaction from the employee after asking nicely, they demand, then they warn, and then you get turfed out. <br /> <br /> I do agree with Rural on the expenses for the job, I do think that certain ministers should have appropriate expenses, I also think that an MP shouldn't have to live in Ottawa to serve their position, so they need travel expense. If they lived in Ottawa, they are totally out of touch with their constituents. I think that they should be able to buy lunch for a constituent, or if PR is necessary in their role, but the lunch should be tax deductible expense, documented, not paid out of public funds outright, and their should be guidelines as to what reasonable lunch is, like caviar for lunch to impress bla bla should not be considered, I don't care who they are. State dinners etc, are held for important dignitaries, and that would come from a separate expense, but again it should be reasonable. The problem I see is finding the balance between excess and reasonable, and these guys don't seem to get the difference.<br /> <br /> The other issue, the cutting public employees, I think we have to be careful not to cut the workers we need to run the government business. I think we should cut the excess, of which we seem to have plenty. <br /> <br /> I think we need to make pensions payable like everybody else, not that 5 years service gives a pension. Where do you get that on civy street? It should be a pension plan like other situations, where the employer matches the employee contribution to RRSP. <br /> <br /> I like this from Gaulois, 'Our natural resources must be protected not only from foreign ownership but from Corporate greed and mismanagement....'<br /> We need something that is clear on protecting the food supply and that factory farms are regulated like industry which they are, including compensation, overtime etc for employees. <br /> <br /> We need to also be clear, that regulations, drug approvals, food additives etc, be approved by independant scientist and doctors, totally separate from corporate influence.<br /> <br /> Which goes back to another point, somebody made, about golden sendoffs etc, there should be something in there about not accepting any freebies from anyone. So if a company wants to wine and dine the members of parliament, it would have to be open to the public. I know that small and medium size business does this, but they also write off these PR stunts, so in the end we pay for it. <br /> <br /> Those are some of my thoughts, so far. But I really like this, and appreciate the initiative to get this started. <br /> <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br /> If Gaulois would permit me to edit his post, or edit it himself, I'm Ok with that. [/QUOTE]<br /> Of course you can.

   

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] [QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] <br /> If Gaulois would permit me to edit his post, or edit it himself, I'm Ok with that. [/QUOTE]<br /> Of course you can. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Thanks. I've added an updated copy to the first post in this thread, incorporating changes so far. Let me know of any more that need to be edited.<br />

   

Dr C, did you want to change this bit or does it need more debate? I have removed some stuff here, do we need to repeat ourselves or explain our rationale in our "Demands"? I also think this reads better spilt into two sections, it’s a bit wordy as it stands.<br /> <br /> 2. The size of Government will be reduced. All public departments will have their administrative personnel cut by 1/2. The operational people who serve the public by implementing the policies of the department won't change, but their bosses will be reduced to levels that work for the public sector. All departments will have their budgets reduced by the amount spent in the final 2 months of the fiscal year (excluding wages not cut above). There will be no more year end spending on non-essentials so that budget figures will remain as bloated as last year. <br /> <br /> 2a. Government employees at all levels whether hired, appointed or elected should have to follow the same rules that govern small business as set out by Revenue Canada regarding expenses incurred including travel and car allowances. As a public servant no government employee, appointee, or anyone holding a position paid from the public purse including MPs shall receive any performance bonus, golden parachute or tax free income. (If you leave Parliament, it’s because the people don’t want you there anymore, and have said so at the ballot box. MP’s already make a wage considered by some to be extreme. If you don’t want to serve Canada, you shouldn’t be there. Welcome to the real world.) <br /> <br /> Im wondering if we should replace or modify this last bit(in brackets) with something more specific re pensions, I agree with what Catherine said "I think we need to make pensions payable like everybody else, not that 5 years service gives a pension. Where do you get that on civy street? It should be a pension plan like other situations, where the employer matches the employee contribution to RRSP."......... but don’t know quite how to phrase it. As Gaulois said we must try and keep it short & sweet!<br />

   

Edited, and updated.<br /> <br /> I left the bracketed stuff in, as no one suggested alternatives.<br /> <br /> Anyone else want to chime in here, or are the ideas of only 4 people good enough for everyone?<br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] Edited, and updated.<br /> <br /> I left the bracketed stuff in, as no one suggested alternatives.<br /> <br /> Anyone else want to chime in here, or are the ideas of only 4 people good enough for everyone?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> I see a hole in the area of our medias drifting into US style of dumbing down (aka ratings), feeding apathy and our alternative press (NGO) being oppressed by the public broadcaster at our own expenses. Would someone else care to craft some fine words to the Manifesto in this area?<br /> <br /> The Manifeste should be very timely therapy after this Gomery release soap (&the Ottawa press party last week that was supposed to be funny). I have had enough of the fool of the king (ou la folle de la reine) and the inner court.

   

Well, it seems that only three or four of us have anything to say on this, should we carry on anyway? As I said at the beginning I would change little (as far as content) but would like to move some rationale from the "demands" to the preamble and try and make eveything as concise as possible. There may be additional points to be added by myself or others, I hate to spend to much time on this if we have little input and it eventualy goes knowhere. What do you think guys.<br /> For those that have just read the last few pages and wonder what it is all about go to the initial posting on to see the current proposed "manifeste".

   

I'd say go for it Rural. Even if it goes nowhere due to apathy, at least it's a little therapy.<br />

   

Allright I will carry on the group therapy session with K) preambule and 9) demand sections<br /> <br /> K) We the people of Canada no longer want to be "entertained" by our public broadcaster and neither subjected to state propaganda. We do not want to be dumb down and reduced to our lowest common denominators for the sake of increasing ratings. We do not want privately funded special interest groups whether political or commercial to push their agenda on our public communication infrastructures. We do not want to see a "star" system within our own public broadcaster. We do not want a system that fosters apathy and reduce us to Spectators and Consumers.<br /> <br /> 9) We demand that our public broadcaster inform us from various citizen perspectives, make us understand our issues, support discussion and engagement to our democracy. We demand that our public broadcaster opens up its communication channels to its citizens.<br /> <br /> In addition, we should add the following at the end of the Manifeste:<br /> <br /> "We consequently sign this Manifeste in order to express our political will:<br /> <br /> ..."<br /> <br /> <br />

   

Bravo! The group contributing to this may be small but it sure is mighty! I am just waiting for a finished version and will send it out to everyone I know.<br /> <br /> I agree with Whelan Costan on this one:<br /> <br /> "We need something that is clear on protecting the food supply and that factory farms are regulated like industry which they are, including compensation, overtime etc for employees. <br /> <br /> We need to also be clear, that regulations, drug approvals, food additives etc, be approved by independant scientist and doctors, totally separate from corporate influence."<br /> <br /> Stop messing with our food supply! <br /> <br /> I am torn about our military spending. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan. I do not agree with the spending of tax dollars fighting in wars that are not our own. <br /> <br /> Anyway, this IS a great idea. And thanks!<br />

   

Perfect first draft Caleb. Sorry I couldn't say so earlier. And without adding the U.S. too I might, even better.

   

Gee I wonder if Canadian Sovereignty will become a more popular topic again with the latest 3 amigos encounter.

   

Thanks Armageddon. It has been edited a couple times though.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= gaulois] Gee I wonder if Canadian Sovereignty will become a more popular topic again with the latest 3 amigos encounter.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I sure hope so. Looks like Susan's come out of hibernation really hungry <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br />

   

I was glad to see this on the recent postings list, once it slides off the bottom these things get forgotten.<br /> "Gee I wonder if Canadian Sovereignty will become a more popular topic again with the latest 3 amigos encounter."<br /> I hope so too, I wonder what can be said about limiting the PMO and the PMs power to sign agrements with forien countries without first bringing it before parliment?<br /> <br /> My input will be diminished now that Trail and Garden upkeep calls but I will check on this one once in a while! (is anyone else having problems returning to page one, where the main document is, with the page# links)

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next