Cda Election Issue L'affaire Sheila Copps

[maplesyrup]

Is the Martin Liberals " Copps Clause" an assault on the democratic deficit?

Absolutely.

Canadians want more freedom for our politicians, not less.

Canadians would appreciate if Paul Martin and his federal Liberals were to focus on cleaning up their own act in areas such as mass memberships signups, inability to trace membership funding, etc., rather than try to impose more restrictions on our elected representatives.

'Grits to make candidates sign waivers

'The Sheila Copps clause': Those seeking riding nominations must promise not to run against winner'

by Tim Naumetz

CanWest News Service

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...97-7e1f9b989a84

'In a rule that has been dubbed by party insiders as "the Sheila Copps clause" -- for her hint that she may run for the NDP should her Hamilton nomination battle against Transport Minister Tony Valeri fail -- the party is requiring all candidates to vow support for the eventual nomination victor.

In new candidate rules distributed to party members last week, Prime Minister Paul Martin's campaign directors have also imposed sweeping requirements for disclosure of personal information from prospective candidates, including marital history and private medical information.

The candidates must also sign a waiver that would allow the party to keep the information indefinitely and use it however party officials want.

They must promise not to run against the winner in the electoral district or for any other party anywhere else.'

:angry:

[Neal.F.]

I am actually surprised that this wasn't already an instituted practice of the Liberal Party already, especially given the Liberal party policy of not allowing a member to concurrently hold a membership in any other federal political party.

At least as far back as the last election, the Canadian Alliance had such a form. It asked about criminal offenses (Candidate would be reqd. to submit an "all clear" from

the RCMP, or local police detachment), it asked about bankruptcies, personal debts, marital info, and personal debt, as well as anything you think might be used against you.

They also asked the prospective nominee to agree to NOT run against the eventual winner eiter for another party or as an independent.

However, unlike the Liberals, the information was to be used only for the purpose of the nomination, not for "any purpose whatsoever.

I thought this would be standard with all major parties.

[maplesyrup]

Neil.F.......apparently the aspect of the agreement to not run for other parties, won't hold up legally, however it could be used to discredit or embarass.

The 30-40 page questionnaire concerns me. What if you reveal secrets to the political party of your choice at the moment, and then later on, you decide to switch parties. What you divulge could then be used against you.

My preference is for political parties to have reduced power, and for individual MPs to have increased decision-making abilities.

Getting back to Sheila Copps. Many organizations, when they are being formed, or reconstituted, have what is known as a "grandfathering clause", which automatically admits you based on your previous experience. I believe this should apply to Copps in this situation..

What I'm not oomfortable with, is letting Martin get away with saying he's not involved in L'affaire Sheila Copps.

What is happen' to Copps, from the federal liberal Party, which Martin completely controls, is 100% the result of Martin's wishes and direction.

Edited January 19, 2004 by maplesyrup