Buying Political Leadership

In only moments of extreme boredom and near delusion have I ever consider running for a legislative or parliamentary seat. I lack the intelligence for double-speak, the patience to listen to endless to self-serving speeches or the willingness to compromise my values for the greater good (as defined by someone else). I have never in my darkest moments even thought about being a party leader. I cannot imagine, other than a boundless quest for power, why anyone would want to lead a political party in Canada or anywhere else. However, clearly people do aspire to such positions and in the case of those who have or are about to declare their candidacy for head of the Conservative Party of Canada, it can be an expensive process.

The press has reported that within two months, all individuals who have decided to run must submit a   registration fee of $200,000 (non- refundable), plus another $100,000 (refundable). They must also have had 3000 signatures of endorsement from party members. It might be worthwhile to note that according to Statistics Canada the median income for Canadian families in 2017 was  $84,950 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/465739/median-annual-family-income-in-canada-since-1990/). In other words - to run for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the candidates must raise three and half times the median income for a year of a Canadian family just to "toss their hat into the ring". To be fair, the candidates are not allowed to use their own money - this registration must come from donations. It suggests that all of the candidates must have a lot of friends and contacts who have pretty deep pockets. Clearly, a condition of being a candidate is that the individual has the capacity to be an effective fundraiser.

I find it deeply disturbing that any political party can raise the entrance bar so high, that no matter how committed, bright, caring and competent an individual may be, no matter how extraordinary their life experiences may be, there would be no way for that individual to ever become the leader of that political party. Given the requirements for candidacy, it is almost inconceivable that an outsider will enter the race. All who run will be well known, at least to the party elite, and all will have significant and deep connections to specific communities. The Conservative Party may argue that it speaks for the common man/woman, but clearly, the leadership is drawn from a very limited group of people who have nothing in common with most Canadians. On the plus side, by limiting who can run, the Conservative Party has clearly indicated who and what they stand for. I suppose it is sometimes useful to have a party that believes in enhancing some people's lives while ignoring others, that believes that we should trust big business to know what is good for all of us. It is useful because it is so much easier to fight against the enemy when you know who they are.

I believe that being a member in either a provincial legislature or the federal parliament is an honourable profession, one that if it is done with conscience and complete dedication to the community and the country can do much to ensure everyone's life is enhanced and improved.  I suspect that many, if not most people who run do so with the best of intentions. It is unfortunate that so many seem to get waylaid by the constant demands to respond to the politically influential or rich or at least to those with the loudest voices and the deepest pockets.

Medical Assistance in Dying - Participatory Democracy in Canada

I have, I think,  discussed within this blog my complete agreement with the thesis that people have the right, when they decide it is time - to die and that it is appropriate that they receive assistance from trained professionals to do so.  Canada has such a law, but it may be inconsistent in some areas and a Quebec court has instructed the government to fill in some of the blank spots. Specifically, the court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for such service to be provided only to people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable while not allowing individuals who have degenerative medical conditions that will result in death but not quite just yet to ask to die. Amongst other issues, up to now individuals with Alzheimer disease but who are still competent have not been able to request assistance to die in spite of the fact that the disease's prognosis is clear and by the time the individual can "naturally expect to die" they are no longer competent to make the request.

Because of the court ruling, Canada must make changes to the law. They have taken a rather unusual step to collect as many opinions as possible. There will be, of course, long discussions with medical professions, some involved community members and probable a few lawyers. The government, however, has added an additional consultation procedure.

While in a perfect world (and in a much smaller country) we would all have the right and the ability to be in front of the lawmakers and have our 15 minutes of fame to state what we think. Clearly, that is not practical. I would be long dead before the government heard from just the people of Vancouver Island. The government has opened a web site with just a few questions and lots of room to add comments. It is a way of hearing from hundreds if not thousands of Canadians.

I am not sure if the questions they have asked will generate the range of answers they need. I am not even sure if they have asked the right questions. But they have tried and for that - I give them points.

My primary concern is that it does not feel as if the government has sufficiently publicized the fact that Canadians can participate in the discussion. I only found out about it because I read the CBC online news every morning.

There is still a week left - if you have some thoughts - go to https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html and get involved.