Letter to the editor pucblished in the Cornwall FreeNews, the Standard-Freeholder, and the Chesterville Record. 

I recently picked up an income tax guide at our local post office, published by our MP Guy Lauzon. Most tax measures in the guide are OK, some implemented by the previous Liberal government and others adopted by the current Conservative government.

Otherwise, the document is a disgusting partisan rag paid by our tax dollars. If Guy Lauzon paid for this from Conservative Party funds, then fine, but the document does not say that.

It would be appropriate for the Department of Finance or the Canada Revenue Agency to publish a non-partisan tax guide for circulation in post offices and other public locations. But this thing says "Conservative" in almost every paragraph.

It makes me wonder if opposition MPs can publish a tax guide for their constituents who have access to the same tax measures.

Take Page 11 where it says, "By supporting the job creators, our Conservative Government is staying focused on jobs and the economy."

That would be a fine, although debatable, statement in an election campaign, but it has no place in public document from the government of Canada.

It is akin to the Government of Canada using the Conservative logo on symbolic cheques for news events, which was common practice a few years ago until a public outcry pushed the government to shelve that practice.

Conservative MPs need to stop using public funds for partisan purposes.

Tom Manley
Berwick

Letter to the editor in the Chesterville Record.
Appeared March 16th 2014.

I read with great disappointment the report of Maxime Bernier's speech in Avonmore (on March 3rd 2014) on behalf of the Government of Canada. While I second his praise of the freedom, the initiative, the risk taking, and the wealth creation by entrepreneurs, his rhetoric is extremely unbecoming for a minister of government. 

Bernier suggests that entrepreneurs have enemies in the public service ("politicians and bureaucrats") and suffer from "hostility from many quarters of society". Nothing could be further from the truth. A government is supposed to be a government of all Canadians, with a message of unity and cooperation. Instead, the Harper government pits Canadians against each other, in a partisan effort to cater to their target voter, to promote selfishness, and to stoke the fires of resentment against others.  

Businesses have partners in public service to provide infrastructure to get our product to market, enable fair agreements for international trade, police our communities against crime, and ensure the safety of our products and our purchases, among many other critical roles. We depend on a professional, competent, and motivated public service. The Harper government commits a disservice by belittling the public service as foul bureaucrats. Worse yet, Harper and Bernier are the government, the employer of our public service. It is very bad business for an employer to denigrate its employees in public. The same goes for the government's treatment of its employees. 

Where is the hostility against entrepreneurs? All quarters of society express appreciation for entrepreneurs, job creation, rural vitality, community leadership, wealth creation, and especially their generosity in supporting community endeavours. This hostility is only in the partisan rhetoric of Harper's speech writers. They would do better bringing Canadians together instead of pitting us against each other. 

Tom Manley

Published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder and the Chesterville Record on Wednesday, Dec 17th, 2008.

The recent debate over the coalition government in waiting has three distinct issues that cannot be confused with each other.

For one, the debate for and against the coalition is largely split along lines of partisan politics. It is only fair that Conservative sympathizers would condemn the coalition and vice-versa for Liberal and NDP supporters. But let us not confuse partisan opinion with the considerations of legitimacy and mandate.

We elect local members of parliament. But we do not elect a government. Just last year, the editorial in this newspaper argued against proportional representation and in favour of directly electing our local representative. You cannot now reverse that position and claim that the vote for a member of parliament is a proxy vote for the prime minister. We do not use the electoral college method of electing a US president. Each citizen must integrate his/her choice of a member, a party, a platform, and a leader into one vote. The motivations of all the voters are as varied as the issues.

The fundamental principal of democracy is majority rule. The MPs form a government with the majority support of the House of Commons. When a party wins an absolute majority of seats in the House, then forming a government is easy. But a minority government can ONLY operate with the support of another party to form a majority on votes of confidence. We saw Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Martin, and Harper govern with enough support from other parties to govern for some time. Call this support, coalition, alliance, or whatever. We are accustomed to it and it works. It is legal and moral.

When support in the House falls below a majority, then the government falls. The governor general then has two options, call an election, or form an alternative government with majority support in the House. Those are the rules of our democracy. They are non-partisan, fair, and honourable. When Harper commits to using all legal means to retain power, then it is equally moral for other Parties to use all legal means to obtain power. One of those legal means includes the formation of a coalition that would place an alternate government in power. Harper signed a letter in 2004 with Layton and Duceppe, informing the GG that they could form an alternative government without the need for an election. Harper knew that this was legal and honourable as much as the Dion-Layton coalition is legal and honourable.

The third consideration is the electoral mandate. When a citizen votes, it is clear that the vote is a mandate for the MP to form a government by all legal means. Why else would we vote? That is the only reason. By casting our vote, we also know that the MP can only accomplish this by participating in a majority alliance in the House, either a single Party with a majority of seats, or a coalition of parties with majority support. Yes, the voters supporting the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc gave them a clear mandate to form, support, or influence a coalition government.

The absence of a collation during an election is irrelevant. We are a representative democracy. We send an MP do what he/she can to represent us, to exert power, and then come back after the term to be held accountable. When the Reform Party changed its name and mandate to the Alliance, we did not ask their MPs to resign before the next election. When the Alliance and PC Parties merged, we did not ask their MPs to resign. When a prime minister or a party leader resigns, we do not expect their MPs to resign and call another election. That is all because we do not vote for a prime minister or a party, we vote for an MP. It is as simple as that!

The only immoral act committed in Ottawa in the last two weeks was by Stephen Harper. He turned his personal fight for power into an unnecessary and despicable crisis of national unity.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder, Tuesday, October 21st 2008.

In this recent federal election, the real losers are the Canadian electors. How can a government presume to have a strong mandate with only 38% support across the country?

The culprit in this failure of democracy is the voting system that we call First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). It was designed over two centuries ago when voters had a clear choice between two parties. But today, Canada celebrates great social and political diversity. We see five major political parties on the federal scene. For that reason, no new democracy in the world has implemented FPTP in the last 100 years.

As the vote spreads over several parties in each riding, FPTP usually fails to provide 50% support to a clear winner and makes the leading loser a winner with a false mandate. FPTP causes vote splitting in the crowded political spectrum, forces parties into mergers of political convenience as the Reform, Alliance and Progressive Conservative did a few years ago. Jean Chrétien and the Liberals enjoyed three majorities partly because the right wing vote was split. Currently, Stephen Harper won two elections while the progressive vote is split.

Because a candidate only needs one more vote than any another candidate, FPTP encourages parties to drive wedges among the electorate. The response by voters to this distortion of democracy is strategic voting and vote swapping, As a result, too many voters hold their nose and vote against the worst choice instead of voting for their favourite choice.

All Canadian political parties, both federal and provincial, use a preferential ranking method, either by multiple run-off votes or a single ranked preferential ballot to select their leaders and their candidates with a final winner achieving at least 50% majority support. If preferential ranking is good enough for all our political parties, then it is good enough for the rest of us. We would not want multiple run-off elections as it would be too expensive to return to the polls multiple times.

Let's implement preferential ranking on our ballot, otherwise called the single transferable vote (STV). We would directly elect our representative while maintaining the current single-member ridings and the current method of selecting the government from the party winning the most ridings. STV will allow voters to select their preferred candidate/party as first choice while indicating subsequent ranked choices in the event their candidate is last. The ballots of the last candidate are re-counted to distribute them to the voter's next choice and so on until a candidate receives over 50% support.

STV will eliminate vote splitting and the need to merge parties, let the vote merge on the ballot, avoid strategic voting and vote swapping, and select a truly representative candidate with over 50% support in each riding.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder, Tuesday, September 30th 2008

It is a disgrace to Canada and to the democratic process to see politicians use an election to create divisions in our society based on envy, jealousy, and suspicion.

In the news last week, Stephen Harper pitted ordinary Canadians against successful artists, whereas virtually all Canadian artists come from ordinary families, started in their living room, and needed help to develop. Harper also regularly pits working Canadians against some ill-defined enemy although some 94 per cent of Canadians currently have work.

For years, Conservatives have pitted landowners against environmentalists (which includes practically everyone), whereas landowners are in fact dedicated stewards of our landscape and resources.

Jack Layton pits kitchen tables against boardroom tables, whereas a successful economy is a partnership between employees and employers in creating jobs and building businesses. New Democrats will vilify the big bad corporations in one moment and then beg them to stay in Canada and create jobs in the next moment.

In politics, there is the acceptable notion of campaigning on wedge issues. There is no problem in asking people to choose between option A and option B on a difficult question. But instead, Harper and Layton choose wedge groups to divide our society, asking people to identify themselves with one group and vilify some other group. It is a typical Bush republican tactic, when your ideas do not receive broad support, to create a fictional enemy and stir up resentment.

I long for real leaders such as St- Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, and Dion who seek inclusion over exclusion, who present a vision for a better future, who unite us across our differences to achieve a common goal, and who show respect for all instead of disdain for many.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder, week of June 16th, 2008

You would hardly know that the federal election of January 2006 was over. Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada pursues its attack advertising like we were still in an election campaign and like they were still the Official Opposition.

I do not mind so much that their campaign is pointless and offers no alternatives. I won’t complain that their accusations are pure fabrications. I can even skip over the fact that the Conservative Party degrades all politicians in the process and increases cynicism throughout the electorate. I may even hold my temper if an ugly grease spot tries to tell me how to address the climate crisis at the gas pump.

But I cannot accept that the Conservatives waste millions in tax dollars in the process. They claim that they are spending only the donations of their supporters. That is a typical Conservative lie.

A donor earns a 75% tax rebate on the first $400, and a 50% tax rebate on another chunk, in federal political donations each year. Since the Conservative Party collects mostly small donations from many people, the vast majority of their donations received a 75% tax rebate. That means that all Canadian tax payers are subsidizing 75% of their attack campaign. That is a shameful waste of our tax money.

Sure, all political parties benefit from the tax rebates and it is a good incentive to encourage citizen engagement in the democratic process. There are many reasonable political expenses between elections, such as membership development, fundraising costs, policy development, and general awareness campaigns. The bulk of all donations collected are spent during an election campaign. But to spend so much public money by the governing Party on such an extensive negative partisan campaign between elections is downright scandalous.

Note to our MP, Guy Lauzon: the election was over in January 2006. In case you didn’t notice, you won! You actually formed government. It is about time that you started acting like it! So, get off the campaign trail and get to work trying to develop our country for the future.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

The Harper government’s recent tax reductions show how easy it is to be a Conservative. Thirteen years of the previous government redressed federal finances, enabled annual surpluses, invested in the future while reducing taxes, and put Canada in an enviable economic situation. It is easy being a Conservative; they merely inherited a success story and they ask for their money back.

No matter that Paul Martin reduced the base tax rate in 2005 and Harper raised it by 0.5% last year in order to reduce it this year; Conservatives just want their money back. No matter that unanimous expert opinion condemns the GST cut as a waste of money; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that 720,000 Canadians depend on the food banks every month, or that Harper cancelled the Kelowna accord leaving Canada with its own case of third world poverty, Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that the 100$ for young children does not create day care spaces, that the sports tax credit does not build sports fields, that the public transit tax credit does not build public transit; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that the forestry industry is decimated, that the manufacturing sector is losing hundreds of thousands of excellent jobs, and that farmers and exporters are crumbling under a strong dollar; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that Canada is the global laughing stock on climate change, that our economy has to retool to face rising energy costs, and that affordable higher education is the key to competitiveness; Conservatives just want their money back.

Yes, it is easy being Conservative. They do not govern for tomorrow. They only complain about the past, and ask for their money back.

Tom Manley

By Elisabeth Johns

For: www.standard-freeholder.com

- Monday, December 04, 2006 @ 09:00

Tom Manley's predictions turned out to be right on the money. The Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry delegate to the national leadership convention had parked his support behind Stephane Dion while forecasting his victory.

Dion, considered the darkhorse, came from behind to win the leadership on Saturday in Montreal. Manley was ecstatic on Sunday. "Am I ever pleased," he said in a telephone interview. He said the local delegates read the cards well. While the majority supported Dion, some backed Michael Ignatieff.

As for the outcome? "Let me put it this way: some days change the course of history," Manley said.

Much of the criticism of Dion has been leveled at his lack of charisma and his heavy accent. But Manley said the former environment minister has a lot of charisma. Both Manley and the new Liberal leader have a lot in common when it comes to environmental issues. Manley has been a public champion for the environment since he was the deputy national leader of the Green Party.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and 55 per cent of the delegates liked his charisma. Even among Ignatieff supporters, they had great respect for Stephane Dion," he said. Dion won the leadership over Ignatieff, who was considered the frontrunner during the entire 10-month-long race.

Manley remarked the high energy, excitement and enthusiasm of the convention was a "once-in-a-lifetime" affair. He too, was one of the delegates pressing others to join Dion's camp as he searched for people sporting Gerard Kennedy or Bob Rae buttons, scarves, banners or tattoos. "It was down to the last minutes as we were trying to recruit people." The suspense was awful as the Dion camp grew quite impatient as they waited for the results of the final ballot to be read aloud, Manley said.

Beginning this month, all Liberal riding associations across the country will be nominating candidates for an upcoming election, which political observers say could happen as soon as the spring. "Everything will start to ramp up in January and February," Manley said.

[email protected]

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, on Saturday June 3rd 2006, by Tom Manley

The recent budget by the Harper government is another example of politics by illusion and deception.

The Conservative Party ably argued against the CAIS program because it fails to support our farmers against long term trade injury. They promised to replace it and to get support payments to farmers quickly, in time for the 2006 planting season.

In this recent budget, the Conservative government allocated a $500M top-up support for CAIS and only $1B in additional revenue support. Farmers expected a spring payment and believed conservative candidates that one would be forthcoming.

The House agriculture committee chair Ritz has indicated that there will be no spring payment. Money will go out via CAIS and that will be likely in the fall. The method of calculating the support for each farmer is based on the inventory evaluation change dating back to 2003. All this is a complete about-face by the Harper government.

Beef and hog producers will receive some support; however, a substantial amount will end up in the hands of Cargill and Lakeside feedlots thus starving the family farms. Grain and oilseed producers will see very little money. This is a complete betrayal of the farming community by this government while they use the inherited surplus of $13 billion to hand out tax breaks for Canada’s wealthiest.

The Liberal Party understands the needs of Canadian Farmers. The 2004 combined provincial and federal Liberal financial support to farmers came to about $4.3B. In 2005, the federal Liberal farm support was $1.755B. Liberal MPs Easter and Goodale pegged the immediate need for spring planting at $1.6B.

The Liberal Party is also prepared to deal with the root causes of the farm income crisis, a worldwide crisis affecting all commodities and all farmers. The report published by the Honourable Wayne Easter, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, identified corporate concentration in the farm input and the farm marketing sectors as the leading culprit. The report outlines a wide range of actions to reduce unfair corporate control, develop local markets for farmers, provide farmers with more negotiating power in the market, and give farmers a fair share of the consumer food dollar.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Published sometime in 2006.

The pulp and paper executives are probably having a good laugh over the behaviour of some politicians and political candidates on the subject of job losses in the pulp and paper industry.

Domtar clearly explained the reasons for closing the Cornwall plant: strong Canadian dollar, sagging market demand, lower cost of production in Asian countries, international consolidation in the industry. I read in the Saturday Freeholder that Kruger is shutting down five Quebec paper mills and shedding 1,027 jobs. The reasons are the same. "It is the worst market conditions we have seen in a very long time". There it is; the global market is closing Canada's paper mills, not the lack of government action in Canada, no matter the political party.

But some politicians in opposition like to play silly and hypocritical games. Bob Runciman came to Cornwall to stand in front of the Domtar plant, accusing the current provincial government of failing to keep the plant open. He obviously forgot that he was in government a mere two years before the decision to close the plant, while the industry was adapting to the changing market and struggling with those decisions, and while Domtar was already reducing its Cornwall capacity.

I remember my meeting in Cornwall in early December 2005 with Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Domtar union leadership and local business leaders. Outside, Guy Lauzon was parading with local activists, placards in hand, accusing the government of closing the plant. What was he expecting? Government subsidies? Would citizens be happy if the government nationalized or subsidized the horse and buggy industry for decades just to protect it from dramatic job losses?

At the Cornwall meeting, the union leaders specifically ruled out direct subsidies and government intervention. Business and union leadership know very well that the government does not create nor protect industrial jobs. The requests at the meeting were for typical government services: prompt employment insurance service and benefits, additional re-training programs, job search and placement assistance, and a strong general economy that could absorb these displaced workers. All these were delivered by all tiers of government. The Saturday Freeholder gives ample testimony that things in life and markets change; our challenge is to adapt and move on.

Let us please stop the hypocrisy. Leave job creation, closures, and renewal to markets and businesses. Leave infrastructure, support services, general education and training, and safety nets to government.

By Tom Manley