Marke S announced that a Picnic in honour of Roscoe Fillmore, the benefactor about whom Marke had spoken at our last meeting, is now definite for Saturday July 10th, which would have been Roscoe’s Birthday. The exact time is to be announced, though it will likely be in the afternoon. Nicholas Fillmore, son of Roscoe, will be involved, as will Ralph Surette.

The more structured conversation then began, with Bill Z guiding us in setting an agenda for the discussion, and assigning informal time limits for each subject. [We pretty well stuck to these limits, and ended the meeting promptly at noon.]

The first item on the agenda was the possibility of the federal Liberals and the NDP forming some kind of coalition or merger, which had been much discussed in the media in recent days. Of the two ideas, it was agreed, a coalition is preferable to a merger of the parties, which might prove to be unacceptable to ‘hard core’ members of both parties. Marke S remarked that there is a danger of splitting the non-Con vote (allowing Harper to come up the middle) unless an arrangement can be made ahead of time to assign specific ridings in which one or the other of the two parties would run candidates – the sort of arrangement that was made between Stephan Dion and Elizabeth May, in the 2008 election. “We have to make the idea of Coalition legitimate, and acceptable”, Bill commented. “Can we not move to a system that acknowledges that we have a spectrum of political opinion in this country, and that politicians will have to come together to meet the broader interests of the population?”

Clearly, some sort of system of proportional representation is required. But how do we get there? Governments made up of parties elected by proportional representaton can work together. [We can look at some of the northern European countries as an example.]

Reference was made to a website, Catch22, which, although it has art direction described as ‘garish’, may have some useful ideas we could consider.

But how do we get past the splitting of the vote between the Liberal and NDP parties? The merger of the two parties is not the solution. Is this an issue to be dealt with in each individual riding?

Bill’s vision seems to involve persuading each of the non-Con (who probably wouln’t accept the idea) parties to pledge that, if they succeed in having enough members elected to help form a workable coalition government, they would promote and support the idea of proportional representation, as opposed to our archaic first-past-the-post system. He would like to see us, and similar groups, be “a voice for transition to a new system”. He says there is or might be some useful advice “out there” which could help us to reach this goal. In the last election, however, the efforts to get people to vote ‘stategically’ turned out not to be very successful, with Harper ultimately winning [albeit with another minority, so it could have been worse]. Even if the Cons again win a minority, said Bill, if the other parties were all committed to the idea of proportional repesentation, it could not be stopped.

Which raised the thorny issue of the Bloc Quebecois – it is ‘an aberration’, which is ‘way over-represented in Parliament, under the present system, and therefore would not likely be receptive to the idea of prop rep. What is needed is a form of regional proportionality, so that the proportion of Quebecois who vote BQ would affect their own seats proportionally, but that the other, non-BQ votes in that province would be counted in with the votes for other parties from other regions, in determining the ultimate number of seats each receives. [Bill explained this idea with mathematical examples, which I must say I grasped only tentatively ...] The point would be that each *region* would have its own proportionality. Would the Bloc buy in to such a proposal? There is some suggestion that the Bloc may be fading as a force, since, although it is true that they have a disproportionate number of seats in the House, the *never* have a chance for a seat in the Cabinet.

But we do need a new system that reflects the diverse nature of politics in Canada, which is different from that in the northern European countries. An embryonic group of our members is forming to begin working on tactics to try to bring about this kind of transition. At the moment the ‘committee’ consists of Bill, Marilyn Manzer, and Michaele. Anyone else who would like to be involved in working on this, please contact Bill william.zimmerman AT greatisland.ca .

The person who most recently joined our group, Frances Jacobson, expressed a sense of urgency to begin structuring our efforts more concretely by setting short-term and long-term goals, and working toward them. When asked for her own priority as to a goal, she replied that she wants to see Harper defeated! This is a desire clearly shared by all present.

How can we approach this goal without being perceived as negatively partisan? Is there any way to reach out to conservative voters to bring them ‘on board’? Could we state an objective which focuses on doing something ‘positive’ for ‘democracy’? Frances feels that the Harper campaign tends to appeal to some voters, not because of the hard-right ideology he represents, but because the are encouraged to feel economically ‘safe’ with that choice. An effort by us framed as “Anyone But Harper” is too narrow and partisan (though of course that is what we really mean, in the same way as it had been decided that framing the upcoming Roscoe Fillmore Picnic as a ‘socialist’ picnic would be too narrow and might discourage some people from becoming involved). ‘Anti-publicity’ (e.g.’anyone but Harper’) could turn out to be anti-productive, since any kind of publicity, even negative publicity, can help the oft-mentioned individual or party. The challenge is to frame the idea in a way which *doesn’t* make Harper the ‘star of the story’, even though the underlying message is the same.

Frances raised the issue of needing to have an expanded list of the ‘transgressions’ of the Harper government, with more research done into the various issues. Sarah agrees, mentioning some work that she and Carol Harris are doing regarding how Harper’s policies are affecting Women’s issues. In other words, are we talking about an ‘opposition research office’? Bill referred to an item he had sent out to all on this list (on the account of Susan Hauer, blueheron AT greatisland.ca on June 10), which includes six attachments. These are elucidating articles written by Lois Sweet, professor of Journalism at Carleton University, and they contain some interesting analysis. We should all read these. If you can’t find the item, please let Michaele know (kmichaele AT hotmail.com), and I can forward it to you again.

So, what’s the target?

We want to defeat Harper, but without actually *saying* that. How should we go about reaching ‘average’ people with our message?

Frances suggests that going door-to-door with flyers to hand out could be effective.

Maxine remarked that the issue of Harper having spent $57,000 on a ‘fake lake’ might resonate with a lot of people. Also the issue of shutting down prison farms.

Personally, I think that although the thinking behind the issues may be complex, it is necessary to ‘boil it down’ to ideas that are easily grasped and digested, as many people have neither the capacity nor the inclination to grapple with complex concepts, and are used to absorbing only information that comes in bite-sized morsels.

Jody opined that even though the objective may be anti-Harper, it would be most constructive to lay out both an ‘argument’, and a ‘story line’, saying to the public, after having presented the facts, ‘Where do you want to go?’. For example, on the issue of the closing down of prison farms, discuss in detail the positive functions these provide in our society, how productive they are in various ways, etc. Approach the topic(s) from a positive angle. Lay out the information, then let people decide for themselves.

Sarah observed that ‘the Right’ is good at passing on their unified message to their next generation, while ‘the Left’ doesn’t agree on anything! We need to have a unified voice, and to get our message out.

“Dominators tend to overpower co-operators.” [I think it was Bill who made this remark.]

Frances reminded us that the idea is to get back to our democratic roots. We need to research, and to put out ‘stories’, she said. It’s how you put it that makes the impact. “We Want Our Canada Back” – for a few moments there was concensus in the group that this might make a good slogan for our ‘movement’ – until someone remembered that it sounds uncomfortably similar to the slogan of the Tea Party movement in the US!

[Since Saturday, this issue of coming up with an impactful slogan has been much on my mind. I've been rolling words around in my head, coming up with ideas such as ""Re-democratize Canada" .... "Take Back Our Democracy" .... Canadians Take Back Democracy" ... "Canadians Want Our Democracy Back" .... "Democracy Yes, Dictatorship No" ....]

On to another topic: As most probably know by now, Friday June 25th will be a big evening at the Al Whittle Theatre. An important gathering called Shout Out for Social Justice, which is being held at Massey Hall in Toronto on the eve of the G20 events, is to be live-streamed to the Whittle, so that we shall be able to watch it in real time. Several internationally recognized speakers are scheduled, including Dr. Vandana Shiva, Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow, and others. Michaele had brought some newly-minted colourful posters for the event, and was asked to send the electronic template to others, for further distribution. This has been done.

Back to the issue of electoral strategy.. The big question is, HOW shall we do it? How do you really get to people, to get them to know what’s going on? We need to think about ‘tactics’ for the next election. How do you reach people in today’s environment? “No more FaceBook sites!”, proclaimed Sarah. We need something “simple .. downtown .. in-your-face”.

Frances thinks it would be better to focus on a short-term goal that gets people working together. She also wonders why so many of the people who attended the original meetings of this group, and whose names are on our extensive email list (see above), have stopped attending these meetings? (From an original group of close to 100 who attended the first anti-prorogation meeting in January 23rd, we are down to a hard-core group of only ten to fifteen.) Is it because Saturday is a bad time for such meetings? But then when would be a good time? Is it because it is indoors, when on beautiful sunny days people would prefer to be outside? Is it because it is Summer?

This led to the suggestion that our next meeting, which will take place on Saturday June 26th, be held in Willow Park. There are picnic tables there, which some of us could set up for a ’round table’ discussion such as we have been having. Bring munchies if you like. The focus will definitely be on planning election tactics, since it seems to be a general concensus in the group that an election is likely to happen in the Fall, so it’s time to get started on this. Our short-term objective is clear – to organize around a specific issue, to formulate a slogan, and to plan tactics. Anyone with ideas for tactics or/and slogans, please send them to Bill. Gerri offered to make some handbills to hand out at the Shout Out event on the previous Friday evening, inviting people to join in this discussion of election strategy and tactics in the park, the next morning. (In case of rain, it’ll be back to the refrigerated box car, ie BAC rm 132. Sarah will book the room for us, as a fall-back venue. Bring a coat.)

As a longer-term plan Sarah suggests an event in September – a potluck, with speakers – a big event for the whole community – an event that will appeal to a broader audience – “even the odd Acadia student(!)” – maybe entertainment, ‘guerilla theatre’, would appeal more than speakers. We should start planning it now.

And we need to think about how to network with like-minded groups in other parts of the country.

- Submitted by Michaele

Some informal conversation then commenced, the topics including various somewhat relevant issues in the news – the ‘omnibus’ bill Harper is attempting to ram through Parliament … a recent poll the results of which suggest that 67% of Canadians feel that the Harper government has eroded democracy in the country … Although the initial version of the ‘manifesto’ for CAfD, which Marilyn M and Leon A had drafted since our last meeting, was read aloud, the feeling in the group was that there were not enough people present for any major decision-making to take place. (“It’s a good time to carry out a coup”, Bill Z joshed. “We could call ourselves ‘The Bolsheviks!’”)

We again introduced ourselves by name, since a new member, Frances Jacobson, had joined us.

Marke S made an announcement about an event which is to take place on Wednesday June 9th, at the Black Point Fire Hall. A ‘connector’ is being proposed on Highway 103, and citizens will be meeting to discuss the proposal, which will cost $10 million. This announcement led to some discussion about the Transportation issue in Nova Scotia, in general. It appears that at least some of the money is probably coming from the federal ‘stimulus’ program. It was noted that locally, a small but tenacious group has been meeting to resist the ‘twinning’ project on the 101. The major issue is that there seems to be no ‘democracy’ involved in the implementing of these projects. It appears that the ‘transportation’ issue in the province is focused solely on highways, with no attention paid to possible alternatives such as public transportation, and no opportunity for the public to make input into these decisions. ‘The government has not done its homework’, someone commented. There is no alternative vision.

Marke would like to attend the meeting at the Black Point Fire Hall on June 9th, and invites anyone who would like to car-pool to the event to be in touch with him. He could accomodate three passengers. If more are interested, of course, more cars will be needed. If the people who live in the community and who would be most directly affected affected by the project genuinely want the ‘connector’, he remarked, of course that would be ‘democracy in action’, and a sign that the project should proceed as planned.

In our own area, Bill informed us, the Eastern Kings Chamber of Commerce is campaigning hard for the twinning of the 101.

Michael B said that this brings up the issue of the deplorable oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico area. The ‘democratic’ decision SHOULD be for us (the polulation in general) to ‘change our ways’, so that we would no longer be so dependent on petroleum. Unfortunately the bulk of the population (including ourselves, most of whom probably traveled to the meeting by car) are quite happy with the convenience of getting around in our personal automobiles. We need a more progressive and visionary approach to the issue of transportation.

In essence, Bill said, we are saying that whatever the majority of us ‘feel like’ doing, is what we should do. This is NOT really democracy, however. Rather, we should be be developing a ‘consultative democracy’, where first we LEARN about the issues, and THEN decide. We should be asking ourselves not merely “What would I like?”, but rather, “What would I be willing to pay for?” Real democracy occurs when people know the issues, discuss them face-to-face, and THEN decide. Most people do not, unfortunately, ‘connect the dots’.

Will any of these concerns be dealt with at all by the present NDP government, Michael B mused?

Bill replied that the present government is giving a lot of attention to possible alternative forms of transportation. This issue is no longer dealt with under the Department of Transportation (which seems able to think only about roads) but is now in the jurisdiction of Ramona Jennex in her role as Minister of A BIG public education process will have to be undertaken. We North Americans have a ‘love affair’ with our cars, and to many people their car is one of the most important aspects of their lives. Roads HAVE to be kept ‘smooth’!

Judy K commented that we had come to a point of “convergence and contraction” – the convergence of ‘peak oil’, and the environmental crisis we are facing. We HAVE to ‘contract’ [our profligate 'life-style']. We are facing a challenge to grasp this opportunity to turn the direction of the changes we shall be forced to make, to the advantage of our democratic ideas and goals.

Regarding the twinning-of-highways issue, Susan S remarked that ‘hysteria’ had been drummed up, [purportedly for safety concerns] The [previous] government had decided that they would get more “brownie points” among voters by proceeding with twinning. Can governments ‘kill’ projects initiated by previous governments, Elizabeth F inquired? Yes, they can, was the reply.

There needs to be a Vision of what is actually good for us [as a society], upon which to make informed decisions, rather than simply deciding what we reflexively think we want. That is what makes a functional democracy, Bill stated. What we need is a European-style multiparty minority-based democracy. This style of government permits Change to take place in a more gradual manner, with positions not too far from the “centre’ of the political spectrum (though the centre may shift somewhat). This is preferable, and more acceptable to the public, than sudden and dramatic shifts which are likely to occur in a ‘This vs That’ type of democracy such as exists in this country.

Marke made a second announcement at this point, talking about historical figures in our local area, Charlie MacDonald, and Roscoe Fillmore, a self-proclaimed socialist, who ‘walked the talk’, and lived his life in a true socialist manner, even to the point of giving over his business enterprise to his workers, at the end of his own working life. Marke is proposing a Roscoe Fillmore Picnic, the last of these having been held in 1998. For more information about MacDonald and Fillmore, and perhaps to discuss potential Picnic plans, people are invited to contact Marke at 678-3748.

Michael B reminded us that a few meetings ago we had discussed the possibility of young adults being provided, on their 18th birthdays, with a package of information congratulating them on reaching Voting Age, and advising them of their new priviledges and responsibilities as a fully-fledged citizen. We had felt that it would not be too difficult for Elections Canada to access the birthdates of those about to turn 18. Michael had followed up on this idea by being in touch with Elections Canada, and had recently received a reply from them. They apparently share our concern, and reported that, despite the fact that in 2004 they had tried this approach, sending out Registration Kits to young potential voters, the effort proved to be not as effective as had been hoped, with only 37% of 18-yearolds voting in the most recent federal election. Despite the disappointing results, Elections Canada has continued with this effort, in an attempt to encourage more participation. Thousands of these mailings are sent out each month. The letter Michael had received was signed by the Assistant Director of Outreach for Elections Canada.

By this point in the conversation, several other people had drifted into the room, and our number was now 17, close to the usual number of our members who have been attending recent meetings of CAfD. This seemed to suggest that a more ‘formal’ discussion was now possible, and Bill Z moved seamlessly to the front of the room, to facilitate.

The issue of the ‘Manifesto’ was raised. In previous conversations, it was pointed out, three principles had been generally approved by the group, but these don’t seem to have made it into the Notes [mea culpa ...]. Most of the draft document Marilyn and Leon had prepared was taken from the Democracy Watch site, and was meant as a start-off point for further discussion, rather than as a ‘manifesto’. This was simply the beginning of a ‘mission statement’. There needs to be a lot more talk about Democracy. It was suggested that Marilyn and Leon’s initial draft be sent out to our participants again, asking for response. It would then be discussed at our next meeting, and when concensus has been reached on the content, it would be adopted, and posted on our Website. That will be done in the near future. All are asked to read it, when they have received it, and to reply to me [Michaele] in a timely fashion if they would like to make any changes or additions, or if they have any other concerns. A link to Democracy Watch will also be included, and people are encouraged to have a look at that, as a starting-point for our discussion next time.

The differences between a ‘mission statement’ and a ‘manifesto’ were discussed. A mission statement is totally ‘ideology-free’. Do we still want to work toward a Manifesto? That would require a lot of discussion (and would possibly be more ‘ideological’). We want to be a “hotbed of dmocracy”, Marke remarked. To develop a manifesto now would be a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Rather, such a document should ‘erupt’ spontaneously from group discussion. Several of those presnt agreed with his position.

Regarding the Democracy Watch website (www.dwatch.ca) Marilyn reported that there is not much on it, and that it doesn’t seem all that democratic. She has sent an email of inquiry, but so far has not received a reply. Many ‘projects’ are listed on the site. ‘Stuff’ appears to be happening, but it is difficult to find out anything about the organization itself. It doesn’t seem to Marilyn to be an organization that anyone could join.

Bill remarked that the only way things can be made to change, is to elect a different government (or to start a Revolution!). He mentioned a book by Kinsella [didn't catch the first name ...] – ‘The War Room’. “Facts tell, STORIES sell”. In other words, what is important in bringing people on board is the ‘story’, which may have no basis in fact, e.g. Fox News, John Stewart, or the ‘story’ about all the deaths on highway 101 (when in fact there have ony been four in ten years), which led to the clamour for twinning). You need to make sure that the story that dominates is YOUR story, that it is the most compelling, and that it grabs all the attention (e.g. the story that crime rates are skyrocketing, when in fact they have been diminishing). Debates are not really very important, except to get ‘your’ story out there. In other words, What will be ‘The Question’? A ‘story’ must be a clear and consistent message. Don’t improvise! Stephen Harper, especially in the first election in which he won (a minority) government, clearly understood and followed this principle. How shall we position OUR ‘story’ and get it across to voters, before the next election?

Jim Ruddy commented that people were votoing for ‘stability’, when they voted Conservative. The Conservatives have been very disciplined, and have stayed resolutely ‘on message’

Our story has to be oriented not toward victory for a particular party, but rather we must select a crucial issue on which we want to see change, and try to motivate a lot of people to buy into this. Bill suggested that the key to this type of change would be NOT to have a majority government, but rather to provide some kind of proportional representation. The ‘story’ should be about how we are not fairly represented in the present situation. It is necessary to accept the fact that multiple parties will have to work together. In Sweden, for example, they almost always have minority governments (NOT ‘coalitions’). Parliament then becomes a truly deliberative body. (All our federal parties might be willing to sign on to this sort of system, with the exception of the Conservatives.) There will almost certainly be a federal election within the next twelve months. CAfD needs to focus on having a credible and powerful ‘story’ to take into the election. Bill quoted Kinsella as saying, “All political consultants hate the media, because it is not controlable by them”. If we want to have an impact on the next election we have to have a coherent story, and to get it ‘out there’.

Colin B suggested theatre as a possible vehicle for getting our ‘story’ out there.

How shall we network with other like-minded groups? Janet E is the ‘networking master’ among us. Unfortunately she has been unable to attend our last two meetings. We really need to have someone to perform this role.

Gerri suggested that perhaps if we did go with the idea of a Roscoe Fillmore picnic, that might be a good venue at which to present our ‘story’. One or more short theatrical presentations, or readings, could be a part of the agenda.

Bill volunteers to write up a proposal for our ‘story’.

Marke is interested in organizing this event. He has already contacted the MacDonald Society. He suggests Saturday July 10th, which is Roscoe Fillmore’s birthday. The three-day ‘August holiday’ was suggested as another possible time, but it was felt that it might already be ‘over-subscribed’.

Michael opined that a picnic celebrating Roscoe Fillmore might be ‘too ideological’ (in view of Roscoe’s socialist leanings). He referred to an article about a group of Egyptian women, called ‘We Are Watching You’.

Time was now rapidly diminishing, and we quickly wrapped up the meeting.

Anyone who is interested in collaborating on an election strategy, please contact Bill [contact information given in the newsletter email]

We will next meet at 10:30 am on Saturday June 12th, in BAC room 132. Sarah has already booked the room for us.

Please feel free to make any additions or corrections to these Notes.

- Submitted by Michaele

We began by starting to draw up an ‘agenda’ for the meeting. The items were some of the issues which had previously been discussed – the proposed Economic Bill of Rights; a review of “the demise of democracy generally” in our country; the plan for teams of us to observe proceedings at the NS Legislature. (Michael Bawtree had looked into this, and had found that the week just ending would have been the only time before the legislature recesses for the season that it would have been possible to make such a foray; none of the people who had expressed an interest in being involved in this plan were able to make themselves available at that time, so it looks as if this is something we will have to follow up on when a new session begins in the Fall.)

Leon suggested that we observe a moment of silence in honour of WWII veterans, who were being celebrated for the liberation of the Netherlands 65 years ago. We did this, then had a brief conversation about issues of war & peace. “Peace”, said Bill Z, quoting the famed Ursula Franklin, “involves the presence of justice, and the absence of fear.”

Janet raised the issue of refocusing our attention on “the Big Picture” – ie the instances of Stephen Harper insideously attacking the fabric and the institutions of democracy in Canada. She mentioned the de-funding of several groups whose roles had been seen to be counter to the interests of the Harper agenda. Apparently these include groups of radical students on university campuses (campi??). What would we be able to do about this state of affairs, Skip H asked. The writing of “a paragraph or two”, describing what has happened/is happening, and how this will impact these policy groups which have been instrumental for years in generating positive policy, would be helpful, Janet felt. “He who lives by a grant, dies by a grant”, Bill remarked. “As citizens we need to support the groups we support, without relying on either government or corporations”.

At this point, we re-introduced ourselves around the circle to one another (since a couple of new members had joined the group). It was then agreed that we needed to get on with what was perceived as being the major issue for our discussion, ie events planned for Saturday May 15th, in conjunction with the National Day of Dialogue about Democracy.

Because, as it turns out, the Wolfville Farmers’ Market will still be being held indoors at the SUB on the 15th, our previous plan to hold our public discussion about Democracy needed to be adjusted somewhat, in order for it to take place closer to the actual venue of the Market. It was noted that a local group of citizens concerned with Food-related issues is planning a ‘Fun Food March’, also for the 15th; the people involved in that event will gather at 10:30 am at the Clock Park on Main Street. There seems to be a connection in theme between these two issues, someone suggested – protecting our right to a sustainable food supply, and protecting our right to a government which respects the history and institutions of a democratically-run government. We should not set up our ‘booth’, ie our discussion site, until after the Food March ends, someone suggested. We can join in with the Food March, then invite those participants to join our event. Everyone should be permitted to raise any issue they wish, at that time. We could plan to begin our event, also at the Clock Park, at 12:00. Sarah had produced a very eye-catching poster (black-on-yellow, which seems to be shaping up as the colour scheme of our ‘movement’), announcing that the Community Discussion about Democracy in Canada would in fact begin at the ‘Clock Tower’ on Main Street, at 12 noon.

At this point, a slight digression to discuss our previous idea of setting up a ‘Speakers’ Corner’ at the Clock Park. Susan thinks we should go ahead with this plan, as “our little stamp for democracy in Wolfville”. Skip made the point that “we don’t have to ask permission” to make use of the park, since it is public space. He volunteered to make a sign for the speakers’ corner, plus a small flag or pennant, any colour [we] want, to “stake out the territory”. Some in the group did not like the idea of “staking out …”.

We then proceeded to what turned out to be a very l-o-n-g discussion about the ‘buttons’ for the event, which Bill and Susan had volunteered to provide, at our last meeting. The buttons, too, are to be black-on-yellow, but there was considerable debate about what wording should appear on them. Some seemed to favour a ‘wide open’ general invitation, such as simply “LET’S TALK”. Others wanted a more focused and specific message, such as LET’S TALK DEMOCRACY, or, simply DEMOCRACY.

“We need to say the word ‘DEMOCRACY’, to get the message out there.”

“The word ‘democracy is so overused …!”

“Just ‘TALK’ offers a broader possibility of potential topics. We don’t want to exclude anyone”.

“We need to focus people on the issue of what is happening to our Demcracy!”

“‘Let’s Talk’ is a slogan which has already been used by at least one commercial enterprise [an insurance company].”

“[We] have to ‘wear out heart on our sleeve’ – eg BAN THE BOMB, STOP THE VIETNAM WAR. You have to be prepared to make your claim!”

“We need to keep the focus on ‘democracy’, the issue around which we originally came together.”

Should we, as a group, be working by ‘consensus’, or applying Roberts Rules of Order??

It was interesting to learn, in discussions with various participants following this rather lengthy discussion, how it had been perceived by different people; some seemed to enjoy the lack of structure in the discussion, and to feel that it was a fine example of the democratic process being allowed to unfold as it will. Others, it seemed, felt somewhat anxious about the apparent dilution of direction and focus, and that time and purpose were being lost. Some felt that the energy of the group was being dissipated, and that we need to “stay true to the issue of democracy”. We need to organize as a Citizens Assembly and connect with other like-minded groups through our web-site. Others prefer growing the movement in a more ‘organic’ way, and dislike the more ‘goal-oriented stuff’. Some felt the need to employ parliamentary procedure, in order to clarify the process; others prefer a consensus-oriented way of decision-making, rather than a ‘win/lose’ format. When striving for consensus, the question for each individual is, ‘Can I live with this decision?’

“Is democracy adversarial, or is it consensual?”, Marke S mused.

The group has a name, but “we’re just a venue, not an organization”, Jim remarked. How close are we to having a Mission Statement?

Dan K suggested that three different versions of the button be made, allowing each person to choose to wear the version they like best. The group seemed to like this idea. A paper was passed around, on which each person could ‘order’ the version they would prefer. We should wear them around town, so people get used to seeing them, and identifying this as a ‘movement’.

Today (Wednesday May 12th) we received the following message from Bill, regarding the buttons:

Hi All,
I have the buttons for May 15 for those who requested them at the meeting on May 8.

Let’s talk . . .
Let’s talk
Democracy.
Democracy!

There re some extras if others would like one.

They ended up costing about 82¢ each so I figure if we all pitch in $1 per . . .
[Bill's contact info removed for blog post so he doesn't get spammed]
Thanks,
Bill Z.

(In an email message following the meeting, Carol H remarked, Hope you were pleased with the Dem. meeting. I was — even feeling that the hour spent on buttons was somehow a philosophical discussion. We all, though this discussion and vote, are better able to place ourselves on the continuum of “openness and structure.” That sounds like a judgemental phrase and I don’t mean it that way at all.)

The discussion then moved on to what needs to be said on the hand-out sheets Sarah is preparing for the 15th. The basic concepts we wish to include are, Organize .. Educate .. Advocate.

We want this event to be a ‘community discussion’, with no one ‘on a soap-box’.

We’ll need a really good moderator/facilitator – perhaps two, one male and one female. This would be a key to the ultimate success of the event. [** In looking through the notes, I don't see any firm mention of who is to take on this role, although David Mangle was mentioned as a person to ask. Has anyone taken on the responsibility of finding a facilitator/facilitators? Who will do this?]

The possibility of using a ‘Talking Stick’, as in aboriginal communities, was raised. Someone rejected this idea, as being “outside our culture”. “How about a microphone instead of a stick?” Bill asked (perhaps facetiously?).

As for a ‘weather alternative’, a room in the SUB would have to be used, in case of rain.

FINAL DECISIONS on plans for Saturday May 15th:

- Meet at noon at Clock Park. A moderated discussion is to follow.

- Bring chair(s), if you think you will want them.

- In case of rain, meet at noon in the Michener Lounge of the SUB.

- We’ll start with one ‘big’ conversation, which can then divide into more, smaller conversations, as the participants may wish to do, later.

- Submitted by Michaele

Wolfville Meeting April 24th

Wolfville Meeting March 20st

The fifth meeting of the group which has now adopted the name  Citizens Assembly for Democracy  (CAfD) took place on March 20th, in Room 132 of the BAC.  David Mangle had again graciously agreed to act as the Facilitator of the discussion.

Gerri Robertson reported that she had carried out her commitment, made at our last meeting, to draft a letter to MP Derek Lee, expressing our support for his stated intent to hold the government of Canada in contempt of Parliament, for its failure to  submit to Paliament, as requested,  relevant documents regarding the treatment of detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military.  A number of our members had signed on to the letter, which Gerri had then sent to 120 MP’s.  (BQ MP’s were not included in the mail-out, because of difficulty obtaining translation into French.)   Gerri had received replies to the letter from several MP’s, including Hon. Jack Layton.

Janet E then raised the subject of the ‘homework’ assignment to which some of our members had agreed at the March 6th meeting.  Janet herself had done her ‘homework’,  by providing a link with the CAPP (Canadians Advocating Political Participation) group  (a group which has developed from the original nation-wide Facebook movement against Prorogation, a few weeks ago).  She reported that someone on the CAPP site had connected with our own website, and had reported that a ‘National Day of Discussion’ is being planned for May 15th.  This would hopefully encourage like-minded groups across the country to share their views on issues of mutual concern.  Janet distributed printed pages, listing all the communities in Canada which so far had signed up to be involved, including our own.   Our group confirmed an interest in participating in this May 15th event.   Janet volunteered to be the Contact Person to connect us to the national group.  We briefly discussed the possibility of forming a committee for the event, perhaps to plan a potluck supper or other facilitating gathering.

Referring back to the ‘How’ vs ‘What’ issue we had discussed at our last meeting, Peggy Hope-Simpson remarked that exercising our democratic right is the How;  we have to decide on the various areas or issues we wish to discuss.  As areas she considers important, she suggested the Economy;  the Environment;  and Climate Change as urgent issues we might choose to address.

Since some new members had joined the group since the last gathering, we briefly went around the group, with each member introducing her/himself.  A brief re-cap of our discussions until now was then given, touching on Prorogation, issues regarding democracy, and our responsibilities as citizens, as we see them.

Gradually, the conversation turned to,   ‘OK, so what are we going to be ABOUT?’

View More…

View the entire summary of discussion here [PDF]. If you do not have a PDF viewer you can download Adobe reader for free here.

Wolfville Meeting March 6th

On March 6th 2010, the group of concerned and politically involved citizens of Wolfville & environs (Citizens Assembly for Democracy or CAfD), which first came together on January 23rd to add our voices to those of other Canadians across the country who were outraged by Stephen Harper’s cynical and self-serving decision to prorogue Parliament for more than two months, met for the fourth time. The gathering took place this time in room 132 of the Beveridge Arts Centre at Acadia, a space which seemed to suit our purposes very well, since it allowed participants to sit at desks facing each other across a four-sided space, encouraging a lively exchange of ideas. David Mangle again ably facilitated the conversation.

During the two weeks since the previous meeting, Parliament had at last reconvened, on March 3rd. A Throne Speech and a Budget had been presented by the Harper party. Also, on the 3rd, an energetic group of our members had surprised Acadia students who were changing classes in the BAC at noon, with a ‘theatrical performance’ of the Broadway hit (suitably altered for the occasion) ‘I’m Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair’, to the enjoyment and entertainment of all. If you have not yet seen the clip on Youtube…

With the prorogation itself no longer the main focus, the group broadened the discussion to consider more far-reaching implications of Harper’s devious attacks on our democratic processes and institutions, and to coming up with ideas about how we should proceed toward our stated goals of further educating ourselves and other Canadians about the issues, and reaching out to like-minded groups across the country. Where do we go from here? What are the issues regarding the dismantling of democracy? What is the way forward for our group?

David suggested that the first part of the meeting be open for people to make whatever remarks they might feel are relevant, and that it was not necessary to rigidly follow an agenda. What followed was a very free-flowing and creative discussion among the participants, which touched upon several important issues. I shall try to summarize the areas which came up in the conversation, below:

I Relationship between Constituents and their Elected Representatives

II Linking with Other Citizen Groups

III Other Paths to Consider, Besides Improving Relationships with MP

IV Managing the Group and its Activities

V Possibility of a Coalition of Opposition Parties

VI Need to “Renew the Democratic Process”

VII Need to Educate the Public

Since I had taken copious notes during the two-hour meeting, and since it was a lively and important discussion the purpose of which was to come up with some sense of where we are going and what we want to accomplish and how we hope to do it, and since the process of our coming to a concensus about these important decisions seemed to me to be as relevant as the decisions we ultimately will achieve, it appeared to be necessary that the flow of the conversation be captured and recorded, as accurately and fully as possible. To the credit of both the members of the group, and the skills of our Facilitator, all of the various and at times quite divergent points of view of the participants were expressed and accepted with absolutely no indication of frustration or argument among the group’s members. Truly, we could set a worthwhile example to our rude and wrangling politicians in the House of Commons!

View More…

View the entire summary of discussion here [PDF]. If you do not have a PDF viewer you can download Adobe reader for free here.

-Gerri Robertson

FEBRUARY 20, 2010, WOLFVILLE,  NS

Since January 23rd, when a group of concerned citizens in our area joined 60-odd other communities across Canada in protesting against Stephen Harper’s high-handed prorogation of Parliament, a group of local citizens has continued to meet bi-weekly in Wolfville, to discuss this and related issues.   With a capable facilitator, David Mangle, leading the conversation, and with the participants seated in a circle to encourage all to participate in the conversation,  the group has now met on three occasions, the most recent being Saturday Feb 20th.  We have been discussing our concerns, not only about Prorogation itself, but about the many ways in which Harper is continuing to dismantle democracy in Canada.   We have talked about how we may best catch what we hope might be a rising tide of citizen reaction to the deceitful ways of Stephen Harper.  Our goals are to educate ourselves and the public, and, hopefully, to link with other concerned citizens across the country.

Between 40 and 50 individuals attended the meeting on the 20th, held for the first time in the Reading Room of the Acadia Library, where the chairs facing each other in a rough circle were comfortably upholstered,  the room providing a picturesque view of the snow-covered lawns of Acadia.

Janet Eaton presented a tentative Agenda, based on notes from the previous gathering of the group, as a template for the on-going discussion.

David Mangle opened the conversation by inviting the group to consider how far we have come in our efforts to start addressing the perceived present deficit of democracy in our country, and how we should proceed into the future.    Skip Hambling framed the question a little differently, suggesting that perhaps we should start by seeing  “where people are at”,  before getting into details of how far we have come.

The diverse group includes people ranging in age from about 18 to about 80 years of age.    Among the younger members are high school and university students whose skills in the the use of current electronic technology, and of social networking to efficiently ‘spread the word’ are invaluable.    Malcolm McCulloch, a senior student at Kings Edgehill, has already set up a website for the group  -  www.wolfvilleca.wordpress.com

It was agreed that the two main issues facing the group at the moment are,   1) Prorogation itself, and plans for March 3rd, the day Parliament is to reconvene;   and 2) Longer-term plans to address needed reforms, networking and activism, as we form ourselves into a true Citizens Assembly.

Colin Bernhardt  made an interesting observation that we would see, over the course of the Olympic games in Vancouver, what Harper’s true intentions are.  Colin remarked that  citizen demonstrations are going on in that city, but that they are not being reported upon by the mainstream media.

In accordance with the Agenda, the next topic up for discussion was,  What recent developments have there been in the Canadian political scene?  Janet informed the group that the Harper government is aggressively pursuing free trade agreements around the world, and internally among the provinces.  Some of these deals would limit the sovereignty of municipal and provincial governments.  She noted that these Free Trade Agreements should be seen in the same light as prorogation and other tactics of the Harper government to diminish our democratic traditions and structures.   The already existing NAFTA  (North American Free Trade Agreement) for example, in its infamous Chapter 11, allows corporations to challenge democratically implemented laws, regulations and decisions.   The new round of agreements, including two internal agreements in Canada, all have major implications  for local procurement, public services and existing legislation that is seen as being counter to corporate profits.   The recently negotiated Buy Americal deal permanently binds Canadian and Provinical governments under government procurement rules which could prevent them from giving preference to local goods or suppliers.    The signing of this agreement while Parliament is prorogued, and while much of the country is distracted by the Olympics, clearly represents further dismantling of our democracy in a big way.

Janet also mentioned that the Facebook site for Citizens Against Prorogation of Parliament has many themes under discussion, including one on Harper’s assault on democracy, to which more than 200,000 comments have been posted.   Another thread of discussion refers to the invitation of the young man who started this Facebook site, to take part in the Liberal Round table on Democracy, in Ottawa.

Several interesting topics were raised in general discussion  -  the nature and impact of the act of Prorogation, including the waste of parliamentarians’ time and effort spent working on bills which have subsequently been left to ‘die’ because of the shutting down of Parliament’s business;   the role of the Governor General in Prorogation, including historical precedents;   the need to begin opening the door to the concept of Coalition among the opposition parties.   Some good questions were asked, and some informative answers provided.

At this point Skip Hambling reminded us that there is no point in “closing the door after the cow is out”!  We need a pro-democracy MOVEMENT, he stated, rather than allowing ourselves to become “a debating society for constitutional lawyers”.

There was some discussion about technical details regarding setting up of the web-site, the possible establishment of a ‘domain’, and how information about our ‘Movement’ can be made accessible, Canada-wide.

As for how other people, who may be interested in the same topics as we are, but who have not been able to be present at our meetings, can join in, it was suggested that these people be invited to read up on the relevant topics, via the web-site, so they can be ‘up to speed’ with what we are doing, and not require further reiteration of information already covered.

We then moved the conversation to talking about activities being planned to mark March 3rd, the day parliamentarians will be returning to The House.  Some excellent and creative ideas were raised, and an informal work group/co-ordinating committee was struck to attend to plans and details, which will be made widely known as ‘The Day’ approaches.

It was noted that 36 parliamentary bills had died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued.  Some, like the Canada/Colombia free Trade Agreement,implementation bill, we would perceive as better ‘dead’!  Carol Harris remarked that even though private members’ bills have escaped ‘death’, they will not be high on the Government’s priority list, and will require pressure from the public if they are to remain ‘alive’.  There will be a chance of some of these bills passing, if the public puts pressure on MPs, however, due to the Government’s continuing minority status.

It was decided to meet again as soon as possible after our March 3rd event, which is planned to coindide with the re-opening of Parliament.  At that time, we plan to discuss other actions taken by the Harper government during the prorogation, and to set an agenda for moving forward into the second phase of our activist process.

The group then turned to selecting a formal name for itself, so that we can all refer to our organization in the same way.  With seamless skill, David swiftly led us to reach a unanimous decision that  CITIZENS ASSEMBLY FOR DEMOCRACY  will be the chosen moniker.

The next meeting of Citizens Assembly for Democracy will be held …

TIME: Saturday March 6th 1:00 pm
PLACE: again, the Acadia Library Reading Room

1. Stephen Harper has ‘prorogued’ Parliament. What does this mean?
It means that he has shut down the House of Commons, so that its re-assembling after the Christmas break has been postponed from January 25 to March 3. That’s 5 weeks and 2 days! – 37 days, of which 22 would normally see the House of Commons sitting and at work.

2. Why did he do this?

If you ask him, he will say he has done it in order to give his government time to ‘re-calibrate the economy’ – in other words to decide how to re-jig the Canadian economy to help our return to prosperity.

3. What’s wrong with that? – sounds like a good idea.

Fixing the economy is a good idea. Shutting down parliament isn’t. Particularly when all the rest of us get shut out in the process.

What’s wrong is that under our parliamentary system, the House of Commons is the place where questions of government policy are debated and voted on. You and I have our representatives there, questioning the proposals of the government. There’s also a committee system, where MPs of all parties discuss government proposals behind the scenes, and suggest changes and amendments. These committees are one of the most important ways for our democratic system to work.

In Nova Scotia most of our federal MPs are Liberal or NDP. So if they can’t represent us in committees and can’t represent us in the House of Commons, they are cut off from the whole process. If they can’t represent us, that means that you and I are being cut out of our right to be heard, and our right to share in the running of Canada.

4. Does Harper have a right to shut down Parliament?

Yes, he does. But governments usually ‘prorogue’ or shut down Parliament near the end of their term, and only when they have completed their program of legislation. In this case there were 36 pieces of legislation before Parliament, and all the work on these bills, taking up hours of research and debate, has been wasted, at great expense to the public.

5. Did Harper need to get the Governor-General’s agreement to shut down Parliament?

Yes he did, but a lot of Canadians are wondering why she permitted it. We assume she was advised she couldn’t oppose her Prime Minister. But a lot of us believe Harper should never have put her in this position.

6. So why do you think he shut down Parliament for so long?

By shutting down Parliament he cuts off all questions from the opposition. Some of these questions were embarrassing Harper, especially the ones concerning his government’s refusal to request the repatriation of Canadian Omar Khadr from Guantanamo, and others accusing the government of allowing the Canadian forces to hand over Afghan detainees to the Afghan authorities, in spite of knowing they would be tortured. Harper didn’t want any more of these questions to get into the media. That’s why a lot of people think he ‘prorogued’ – shut down – Parliament.

7. Didn’t Harper realize that there would be an angry public reaction to his shutting down Parliament?

No, apparently not: he thought Canadians woudn’t even know what ‘proroguing Parliament’ means. And he reckoned we would all be too wrapped up in the Olympics to bother about it. But that’s not what happened. There are 220,000 Canadians already on the internet who have voiced their anger about it.

8. So: what can we do about it?

We simply must let Harper and his party know that we Canadians won’t ever put up with this again. We have to let our MPs know that on March 3rd they have to create a real stir in the House of Commons. And we have to remember that Harper’s shutting down of Parliament is only one of the ways in which he is showing he doesn’t care about running Canada as a democracy. We feel he has contempt for us ordinary Canadians, and manipulates the system so he can hold all the power in his hands. That’s really dangerous. Let’s never forget how democracies in the past have turned into dictatorships. Don’t think it can’t happen here. It can!

9. So how do we get Harper out of power?

If the opposition (Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois) all vote against Harper’s Conservatives, Harper’s government will have to resign. Then, if the opposition parties make an agreement to form a coalition government, they could create a new government. They threatened to do this last year, and made an agreement. That’s when Harper last prorogued Parliament. Once again, he used his power to avoid going down in defeat.

10. But aren’t coalitions illegal?

Not at all! Many Western democracies almost always form their governments from a combination of two or three or four parties.

Our system is based on the British parliamentary system. This has always been against coalitions, because the big parties don’t like the idea, and use their power and money to oppose it. But many of us feel it is far more democratic to have many points of view represented in the government. It may require more discussion and more compromise – but then that’s DEMOCRACY!

So: Join us, your fellow citizens, and show that

WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!

Wolfville Meeting February 6th

Focus of the Group:

1. to stand for democracy by taking action to enhance and protect it
2. to educate the public about different types and aspects of democracy and the history and context of our system
3. expose Harper’s anti-democratic actions and the misinformation he spreads about things like prorogation and coalitions

Strategies

• understand the adversarial and anti-democratic nature of what is happening now in Parliament and the conservative party strategies
• develop understanding of those who approve of Harper
• disseminate information to refute Harper’s misinformation
• study our political history and our system of representative democracy and consult constitutional experts
• find ways to involve and inspire citizens and decrease apathy, especially among youth
• talk up democracy face to face with as many people as possible
• communicate with groups across Canada, e.g. Council of Canadians, Facebook group
• get rolling protests against Harper going across the country (during Olympics?)
• ensure candidates in elections understand our system and respect Parliament
• pressure MP’s to bring down the government
• work for proportional representation
• make good use of the web and internet while taking measures to prevent paid hacks and misinformed people from subverting it (can we learn anything from Obama’s use of web?)
• get civics courses into schools
• encourage alternate media while at the same time trying to get the mainstream media on side; get the CBC involved
• guerrilla theatre
• arrange public showing of CBC TV series on Democracy hosted by Patrick Watson
• create pamphlets/postcards giving webstie

Immediate Actions

• define our goals
• attend the panel “What is Democracy?” on Feb 28, 2-4pm at Manning Chapel, Acadia University
• set up an interactive blog site and later website where we can have discussions between meetings and post relevant articles
• circulate a petition and talk to people while doing it
• set up work groups
• focus on prorogation until March 3
• pressure NDP and Liberals to defeat conservative government in parliament
• Have lunch meeting on March 3 with press and raging grannies and a theatre piece and people speaking out and video it and get up on YouTube right away for rest of country to see
• Pursue finding a well-known figure to be honorary patron — suggestion of Joe Clark
• Write letters all the time to MP’s, newspaper editors, send copies to web site,
• Create speaking points for reaching out to new citizens
• Next meeting Feb. 20 1 pm. Location TBA .
• Several working groups set up:
  • Web site – Malcolm, Skip, Jennifer
  • Six Points – Michael B. Colin B. and Janet E.
  • History context – Janet Eaton, Leon Agla, Judy Kennedy (write up on prorogation)
  • Michael Bawtree (wants to write on coalitions and will do a glossary for democracy)
  • March 3 event – Jody Corkum, Mark Slipp (web cast, rolling rally), Skip, Bill
  • Next Meeting – Sarah
  • Contact Joe Clark, Maureen McTeer – Janet Eaton
  • Michaele will write an article to send to Wendy Elliott and
  • Mark Slipp will send photos.