I'm hoping some of you politicos might jump in here with comments and will spread the word that this is something to be aware of ... the toxicity that's spreading throughout our country becoming harder and harder to ignore, in my always humble opinion.

 That is crap!!!! there is no way a corporation should get a vote! It's creeping fascism.

I feel the urge to vomit.

Addresses to let voices of the people be heard?

Please feel free to make your thoughts on this matterk known to our premier, Gordon Campbell. He can be reached either of these two ways, according to his website.

corporations are persons? Can, then, we draft corporations to serve in uniform.

theh idea that people who are free have equao freeddm.. any corporation has freedom to apeak now. This has nothing to do with freedom. ItI hada to do with byuing power

And the idea that corporation heads cant' reach the sources of political power is utter nonsense. History is fulo of recorded instances of politicians being free to drop in on prime miniIsre at any time. I was in the room at the founding of an organization. Attending was a prominent lawuer. He picked up the phone  - to Trudeau]'s home - and got a promise of  renewable and large grant on the spot.

I don't know that it is "facism".  However, it is definately something VERY creepy.  How can Campbell call himself a "Liberal"?  Wild Rose Alliance would seem a better fit.

 Thank you for bringing this forward!  Had no idea...   ugh!

What I received as feedback was that municipal election needs reform and that this is about voting rights being restored for business and industry that pay property taxes and have no vote in setting those rates.

In BC, apparently businesses did have a vote until 1973, when it was rescinded.

It was re-established in 1976 but restructured for small business(where you own land and are also a tenant) and one owner (or family) with more than 50% share and not incorporated. It still reflected one vote per person.

That was only eliminated in 1993.

It is an issue is whether one determines municipal voting on citizenship or tax paying.

Where one stands may depend. I know that knowing this information has changed my position from firmly entrenched on one side, to more understanding of both sides of the issue.

The vote goes to citizens. Taxation has nothing to do with it. If you are a penniless hobo, you have the right to vote, anyway.

Corporations are a special interest group. So are churches. Should all churches have a right to vote? Dar drivers are. We pay licenses, taxes when we buy cars, and fines, none of which we have a corporate voice in. Should drivers get a special, extra vote because of that. Civil servants have no government voice in deciding on their salaries. Should they get a corporate vote? How about home owners. They pay taxes on their property, but they don't have a corporate voice in setting those taxes - and the list could go on for pages.

They basis of democracy is that each person of legal age has a vote. Once you change that rule, you begin the destruction of democracy.

And to anyone who knows anything about the real working of democracy, the whole idea that business has no voice in setting taxes, etc. could only be voiced by someone who has not the faintest idea of what he's talking about. For openers, every part of the country has "bagmen" who collect party contributions from business. And there is always a price to pay for money.  Almost every premier and prime minister in Canadian history has a clear record of association and availability to big business. Albertans will remember that when Premier Manning retired, he got eight or ten major directorships from grateful companies. Mulroney cashed in on that, too, and now sits on the board of a notorious sweatshopping company in Congo.

The idea of democracy is that the vote goes to people. It does not go to trees, rocks, farms, schools, churches, or corporations.

I am simply highlighting that this is not a first in the nation or a first for BC. This had been in place. This is not about it being on the table. It is about it being on the table again.

Personally, I believe in voting as an individual right, one person one vote, period.

That said, I can understand those small business folks who once had a vote wanting to maintain it or have it restored. That does not mean I agree it ever should have happened, but it did in BC (like elsewhere, folks).

Paying property tax, there is certainly no better way to hold your local government accountable than through the voting process. 

Corporate vote existed long before 1973. It was the status quo.

The gap between 1973 and 1976 with no corporate vote was because of objections about those who owned multiple businesses having many votes in one election and it not being one person one vote.

It was reinstated from 1976-1993 with one corporation one vote. When it was rescinded they cited it being complicated and easy to abuse, along with few businesses being able to vote due to eligibility.

So, though it is not my cup of tea and goes against what I believe the system should be, I am not sounding panic alarms. Why? Because, under our noses it was there, for most my lifetime, we just did not know about it.

I also believe that a democracy means the people who are voting do the deciding. I do not have to agree and perhaps don't, but it is their vote that counts, not my outrage.  If the people of BC are ok with it, then they are ok. I am not a BC voter.

You have talking computer?

Corporations are already heavily represented in the legislatures of Canada, and they own the legislatures of the US outright.

The practice in Quebec for over a century was that the Minister of Finance was always English, and always chosen from a leading business figure. Any premier or PM who has been a good boy can always count on nice directorships when he steps down. Corporations also own the major sources on news on print and TV - the only sources of news for most Canadians. Get every New Brunswick paper published in the last sixty years. You will not find a word of criticism of the Irving family and its holdings. When was the last time you saw the National Post calling for higher taxes for business?

Consider, if a corporation is a person who has the right to vote, then it is a person entitled to run for office, right up to Prime Minister.

As well, since you cannot move a whole corporation into an elected posittion -  not enough seats - What you are really talking about is not a vote for the corporation. It is the CEO who will choose somebody obedient. 99.9 percent of the corporation's employees will have no voice in the selection. So what it good for the corporation is what the CEO thinks is good - like lower wages and bigger bonuses for the execs.

I take the point that corporations in our lovely province did previously have the vote but it was an anomoly among other parts of our country and I consider the change to eliminate part of democracy continuing to evolve. I hold the views that graeme does, that being that corporations already have more than their share of input and influence. To me, this move would be more than just giving corporations a single vote anyway -- it symbolizes much more than that. And, where does it stop, once granted?

StevieG, I live in BC and this affects me directly. I have every doubt that the corporate sector, as it has done in the past, and as it's doing now, will pull out all the stops to influence this decision. This province has been ruled, not governed, and these sorts of decisions are reflective of that.

MotherofFive, I personally and politically agree with you and graeme.  I also respect that BC voters also determine their path and have chosen and taken various paths.

That does not mean I cannot letter write, vent my opinion, object loudly, make sure it does not spread, educate municipal voters where I live, disagree wholeheartedly... and then if it passes work with those who wish to repeal the law.

Beshpin, I am no different here than I was in the Uganda thread. It is simply that you believe law is hands off and customs and practices of people is hands off.  I do not. Law is a collection of rules imposed and rights. The rules can and do change. The rights can and do change. The rules may or may not remain imposed. The customs can be dropped, exchanged, evolved....

If you pick a point in history whether it be slavery, George Klippert... there can come a time when two sides oppose each other. Who or what side prevails can be permanent, temporary or even unclear. It is the voting process/laws job/goverment's job (depends on system)  to represent the best interest of the people or the goverment (again depends on political system) and what is it the best interest can and does change.

In this country, it was common for child and spousal beating. It was not against the law. That fact did not make it a-ok for those who opposed. It changed.