Electoral and Parliamentary Reform (part 2)

Electoral reform

All the electoral reform in the world, everybody getting out and voting, more partys represented in the mix, even a better quality of representative will not make one iota of difference if the current “if he said it, it must be wrong, If I say it, it must be right” confrontational, non co-operational, my job is to prove the other guys wrong attitude remains unchanged. We need a quantum change in attitude from both our representatives and the partys that they purport to represent (damit, they are supposed to be representing us!) before we can wrest what is left of our democratic processes out of the hand of the politicians and their corporate lobbyists and back into the hands of our citizens where it belongs.”

So said I some three years ago and this is reflected in the Conservatives report on Canadas Democratic Institutions way back in 2007 where those few who had a say in this 'National Survey' were much more concerned about what our Representative were doing than how they were elected. Little has change over those 3 years except perhaps the 'parliamentary dysfunction' has increased! I am increasingly leaning towards that view myself, whilst electoral reform MAY change the outcome of any election the question remains will it change in any way the partisan nature of our Parliament that is stifling free debate and producing flawed legislation.

Given my previous post whereby I opine that electoral reform is most unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future I am not going to spend a great deal of time laying out the various options, that are readily available on line for those who care to look. Suffice to say that is is not sufficient to say “I favor STV” or “I favor MMP” as each system has numerous variations that can make a considerable difference as to how they affect the resulting parliament. The question is why do we want electorial reform? For many of us it is because we do not like the results that we are getting under our current system, but whether that is a general dislike of the results as not being 'proportional' to the popular vote or more political, i.e. we don’t like the lot that got in via this method. We must be aware that just because we change the way we vote for our individual MP does not necessarily mean that the collective riding’s across the country choices will add up to reflect proportionality, only the MMP system takes that into account.

That said here is a very brief look at the major voting systems generally proposed and a couple of personal comments upon them. I note that such systems may have different names and slightly different features in different countries.

FPTP - First Past The Post

The status quo, simple winner takes all.

Not proportional, can lead to strange results when multiple candidates split the vote.

MMP – Mixed Member Proportional

Proportional, allows voting for MP and Party separately, ridings remain unchanged

Creates 'extra' MPs to produce proportionality, methods of selecting 'extras' complex and controversial.

This is the one that failed to get support in Ontario

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/

STV – Single Transferable Vote

Somewhat proportional, many more individuals to choose from when voting.

Complex, hard to understand, multiple MPs for greatly enlarged riding’s

This is the system that failed to get enough support in BC

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

AV – Alternative Vote

Allows voters to indicate their 2^nd and subsequent choices, no 'wasted' votes, simple, easily understood, ridings remain unchanged

Not truly proportional, however use of 2^nd & 3^rd choices make it more so.

This is the system proposed but not adopted Great Britain in 2011

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote

Whilst I previously preferred MMP I now am leaning towards AV for a couple of reasons, firstly it is simple, easy to understand and gives some weight to a voters SECOND (and possibly 3^rd) choice so that voters who do not get their first choice (and that will invariably be more than 50%) do get some satisfaction from their votes actually impacting the results. Whilst not truly proportional this use of second and third choice is perhaps better as more voters will be somewhat satisfied with the result. (even with truly proportional systems as many as 60% of voters will not see their choice of individual elected, and the riding system can further skew the results of which PARTY gains power) AV is a compromise, and perhaps one which all sides can agree upon, it would sure be better than the status quot!

For those who want to see which systems various countries around the world are using a good overview can be found at http://www.idea.int/esd/world.cfm. These sorts of discussions may be somewhat academic given the chances of seeing any move to actually place such choices before us, but are still important to have to try and reach some sort of consensus as to where we want to go WHEN such a move is made. A look at the 8 Principals of Electoral Systems as provided by Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform a few years ago may help put things in perspective.

As a final observation I must say that we cannot discount “Electronic Voting” as an 'Electoral Reform', a means of voting easily from within our homes, be that by computer or telephone, would markedly increase the number of citizens who exercise their voting privilege. This in and of its self would probably do more to change the political landscape than any change in the way we mark or count votes. The difficulty is to both design a secure and problem free system and to convince the public that it is indeed both those things, given the increasing probability that the existing system is being abused that may well be the hardest thing to accomplish.

Please note:- In view of the ongoing revelations of electoral fraud during the 2012 federal elections I have created a permanent page providing links to some details of this and other recent electoral malfeasance. Click on the Election Malfeasance tab at the top of the page.

Electoral and Parliamentary Reform (part 1)

Introduction

Recently my co-blogger posted an opinion about creating support for electoral reform and this has encouraged me to reexamine where we are in that regard. I will in future posts also take a look at the other side of the coin, that being parliamentary reform. Lets be clear here right off the top, neither is going to happen in the foreseeable future. In fact it is improbable that even any meaningful move will be made to either study such options or to ask the citizens of this country if they are interested in such changes. Changes to the way we elect our representatives, be that federally or provincially can only come about with the support of a majority of those very representatives and far too many of them are, having been persuaded that they represent the party rather than the people, are quite happy with the status quot. The party apparatus will only support such moves if there is something in it for them and thus it is very improbable that any party in power will even bring up the subject, the best bet being if one or more opposition partys promises to bring a referendum before the people if elected - and then actually not only comes to power but carrys out their promise!

It can be seen then that from initial promise, to study, to proposal, to vote and then to implementation could well take 10 years or more, and thats if things go forward smoothly the first time around. As the BC and Ontario efforts have previously shown that is improbable and will probably entail not only the government of the day and the major political partys creating much spin and confusion in an effort to retain the status quot but the various folks who fully support change splitting public opinion by arguing about which system is the better, or that any proposed system is 'flawed'. Here is a news flash for you – There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system any more that there is a perfect system of government, we can but try and improve upon what we have and try and eliminate obvious flaws without screwing up and making it worse, and that folks is not going to be easy given that we must do so with a reasonable amount of consensus from both the political hierarchy and the citizenry who elected them.

Having said all that the conversation about reform is non the less important, it will take much public pressure to even start the process and the more we know about vulgarities of the existing system and the options that may be available the better equipped we will be to push for change. I will deal with the various options in a later article, for the time being I will simply review some of the problems we seem to be encountering with the present system and potential problems that changes could bring.

The first question is of course do we really need change and if so , why? There are perhaps two main indicators that something is wrong, the first is the oft cited way in which a minority of electors can elect a majority government, the second is the ever declining number of those who are eligible to vote do not bother. Now it seems the very process of where to vote has come under attack by those who would 'game' the election results. Most of those who feel electoral reform is necessary feel that the resulting mix of parliamentarians should better represent the popular vote, it cannot of course ever be exactly proportional but we can indeed improve on the proportionality, each of the various voting systems would produce varying results in that regard and I will cover such details in future posts. There are in my view two 'concerns' with a more proportional system, firstly that with a multiparty system it may well result in a series of minority governments being elected, for many this alone is reason not to change things, this thinking is to me, totally wrong. The problem with minority governments is not that they fail to give one party absolute power but that our political partys and the parliamentary system has evolved to the point where those that we elect have forgotten that they all, no matter what party they belong to, represent US not the party. They no longer will listen to opposing points of view and try and find middle ground where compromise and cooperation result in better legislation but insist it 'our way or no way'. Hence the need for parliamentary reform to reduce the opportunity for such partisan games, but that's for another post also. I will simply say that a electoral & parliamentary system that dramatically skews the power that PM holds away from that which the popular vote indicates the citizens want must be considered flawed.

The second thing that concerns me is that a proportional system, particularly in such a large a varied country such as ours must have checks and balances to ensure that minority populations, be that a Province or Territory, those in a less populated areas within such boundaries, or some other minority, have adequate representation. By enlarge our present system of electoral districts along with previously determined lower limits of representation for those provinces with small populations does ensure this. Any proposed new electoral system should not disenfranchise these areas of small population. With recent census figures revealing that 35% or so of Canada’s population live in just 3 metropolitan areas its clear that these urban citizens, whos view of Canada may be far removed from that of say those in Newfoundland or Northern Manitoba, are clearly in the drivers seat when it comes to electing who is to govern.

These are not the only concerns I am sure, but they do illustrate the need for dialog – and the need for those pushing for change to seek common ground, compromise & consensus early on in the process. That is after all what, in my opinion, democracy is all about.

Next week – more about the electoral options.

A matter of Privilege.

“It’s becoming increasingly evident that the Harper Conservatives dislike public accountability,” said Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party.  “They are already limiting debate in the House on a regular basis, and now they intend to make committee business secret.

“With their majority muscle, the Conservatives can already pass whatever they want in committees. They are running roughshod over past practice and doing away with any pretence of democracy.”

Just a few weeks into the new session two committees have considered motions to hold their meetings “in camera” this effectively bars the press and the public from any information as to the proceeding that take place in those meeting. Indeed it also restricts those who participate in said meetings from revealing anything about said proceedings, including opposition motions and the results of vote on such motions. In short the Conservative dominated committees can not only force through flawed legislation at the committee stage but, by making said meeting 'in camera' using their majority in the committees, completely suppress any concerns or discussion regarding the topic at hand from public view. This is clearly undemocratic, unnecessary and yet one more step by the Harper regime to suppress ALL those who disagree with their ideological agenda. Remember these are the guys that wrote the book on how to disrupt committee meetings if thing were not going their way. We note that this is as Ms May says “ Widely considered as a test run for all committees” , open and accountable government eh!

The following gives some background as to In Camera Meetings:-

“On occasion, a committee may decide to hold an in camera meeting to deal with administrative matters, to consider a draft report or to receive a briefing. Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure usually meet in camera. Committees also meet in camera to deal with documents or matters requiring confidentiality, such as national security. Depending on the needs, a committee may conduct one part of a meeting in public and the other part in camera.

“Neither the public nor the media is permitted at in camera meetings, and there is no broadcasting of the proceedings. Usually, only the committee members, the committee staff and invited witnesses, if any, attend in camera meetings.

Transcripts of In Camera Meetings

“While no public transcript (Evidence) is produced of what is said during in camera proceedings, committees generally decide to have a transcript produced for the private consultation of committee members and staff. The transcript is retained by the clerk of the committee. Committees must also decide how such transcripts will be disposed of at the end of the session, that is whether they will be destroyed or made part of the permanent record for historical purposes.

“Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.”

From http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/

Given that there may be much that the Conservative members are trying to hide from the public via this antidemocratic move from going in camera 'on occasion' to as a matter of routine, I wondered what penalties there were should an opposition MP decide that the machinations of the conservative members behind these closed doors warranted breaking Parliamentary Privilege. Its not clear what those penalties could be but it is clear that to bring charges of breaching parliamentary privilege forward is a complex and lengthy process and that said allegations must be brought before the house and debated in open session.

Here is some information on that aspect:-

“Any claim that a privilege has been infringed upon or a contempt committed must be brought to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity. Once the Speaker recognizes a Member on a matter of privilege, the Member must briefly outline the complaint, following which the Speaker may choose to hear from other Members prior to deciding if there is a prima facie case of privilege (i.e., whether the matter appears to warrant priority or consideration).

“If the Speaker finds there is a prima facie breach of privilege, the Member raising the question of privilege is asked to move a motion, usually requesting that the matter be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If there is a favourable vote in the House on the motion (which can be debated), the matter is examined by the Standing Committee, which may choose to call expert witnesses. The Committee's report of findings and recommendations is presented to the House, and a motion to concur in, or agree to the report, may then be moved.

From http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/

“Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member. As Speaker Milliken indicated in response to a question of privilege raised in 2003 concerning the disclosure of a confidential draft committee report: “In the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgement as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges”.

From http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/

In short if someone was to report to the public a egregious action by conservative (or for that matter any) committee member from an 'in camera' meeting the matter would require a public complaint to the speaker, a debate in the house and probably be refereed to committee. This could be declared 'in camera' (Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure usually meet in camera) but at that point what would the member breaching privilege have to loose by revealing the proceedings and would the committee dare do such a thing after all the public debate on such matters? Even after all this procedure and debate the member could then could be just given a slap on the wrist by the Speaker! Seems to me we need a few opposition members with some guts to push the envelope, that is after all what the Conservative have been doing with the rules for some time now, and totally getting away with it. Also I do not see how a member could be construed as breaking privilege by revealing what did NOT happen, little things like open debate, due consideration of amendments etc etc? With the PMO controlling everything, the conservative MPs, department heads, scientists and various bureaucrats say, now its sights are on opposition MPs. Do we now need 'whistle blower protection' for MPs and their staff in order for them to talk publicly about their work?

Seems 'they' can view our private information without warrant and that’s ok but we cannot even know what our MPs are discussing in committee. Whats wrong with this picture and when will the attacks upon our democracy stop?

A special tip of the hat this week to all who have spoken out against bill C-30 there is little I can say that has not already been said.

A Mea Culpa ....of sorts!

In recent days much has been said about MP Larry Millers comparing those that favor the gun registry to the Hitler regime, whilst I think that in this case there is no comparison its hard for someone who has alluded to such comparison when speaking about our current PM and his regime to be overly critical. So I will say right here that I in no way wish to suggest that Herr Harper supports genocide or the killing of Jews, rather the opposite seems to be the case as he seems to think that Israel can do no wrong. I do find this comparison rather ironic however when it comes from a member of the most tightly controlled and least open party we have ever had in power in Canada.

Hitler was a dictator who ran the country with an iron fist surrounded by a few trusted lieutenants who effectively dictated policy to the detriment of all who did not agree with them. He came to power largely by democratic means and his ability to sway the public opinion, in part due to the fear of further depression. Prior to coming to power any who voiced disagreement during his speeches were removed, after those removed included any in his party who dared to oppose him.

“During 1933-34, Hitler consolidated his authority through the destruction of all other political parties, "coordination" of all aspects of German life, and the liquidation of dissent”

“March 1933 Election The Nazis stepped up their harassment of their political opponents, “

“On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which gave dictatorial authority to Hitler's cabinet for four years. Armed with full powers, Hitler moved to eliminate all possible centers of opposition. His policy is known as Gleichschaltung, which translates literally as coordination. In this context, however, it meant more precisely subordination, that is, subordinating all independent institutions to the authority of Hitler and the Nazi Party.”

The Nazi Party Organization Book says The Führer is always right! Never go against discipline! Let the program be your dogma.

Given the above I have to say that I find the comparison between the two regimes much more compelling than any comparison to those who would retain a list of long gun owners. I will leave it up to the reader to decide which is closer to the truth.

-------------------------------------

In regard to the elimination all possible centers of opposition watch for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be eased out in the near future and replaced with a more amenable (read less thorough and honest) individual. Over the last few years Kevin Page has repeatedly been at odds with the Harper Regimes budgetary forecast and in almost ever case been proven to be correct. He now points out that the recent threats to increase the eligibility age for OAS and GIS are not necessary needed and that the scare tactics that say the pension system is not sustainable are not necessarily true. For his pains his report was called "unbelievable, unreliable, incredible." by one of the Harper faithful. In my view he should be given the Order of Canada for services above and beyond under constant attack from the ruling regime!

Then there is the recent attack on environmentalists who have been dubbed 'radicals' by this regime, it now seems that they are now considered a terrorist threat. - The minister said that, in addition to foreign threats, the government would be vigilant against domestic extremism that is “based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.” How long will it be before openly criticizing Harper and his followers becomes a crime against the state, next on the list may well be the blogging community, keep you head up folks.

Only hope for Democracy?

This came to my inbox, and although both Rural and I agree that such a plan might be the only real hope we have for democracy (albeit one fraught with potential complications), we also are not going to hold our breaths.  At any rate, what is refreshing is that people are coming up with plans, breaking new ground, thinking "out of the box".  That is indeed what it will take to counter Herr Harper's dictatorial regime.  I'm curious to see what other people think of this strategy, so please post your comments!

***

Dear friends - Chers (chères) ami(e)s,

How can we make our democracy work better for Canadians? There’s no easy solution. That’s why we need to know what you think about one specific, and potentially urgent, idea.

Some quick background: Leadnow launched before the last federal election to bring Canadians together and call for politicians to cooperate on the major challenges facing our country. During that election, 61% of voters cast ballots for change. After the election, the Leadnow community hosted a series of local gatherings (and online votes) all across Canada to set our direction for the coming years. Thousands of us voted to make electoral reform one of our highest campaign priorities.

It comes down to this: we believe that Canada needs a multi-party political system and electoral reform to make sure we can elect governments that best represent all Canadians. The question is: how do we get there? We want to know what you think of the following statement (we are the authors of the statement, which we are using to learn what you think):

“I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform. During the next federal election, the NDP, Liberals and Greens should work together in key ridings to defeat Conservative incumbents. After the election, they should cooperate to pass electoral reform and make sure our government better reflects the values and priorities of all Canadians.”

What do you think?

I strongly agree – I agree – I disagree – I strongly disagree

Thank you for all you do.

With hope and respect,

Jamie, Matthew, Anna, Emma, Adam, Gracen, Ryan on behalf of the Leadnow team and volunteers.


Leadnow.ca is an independent community that brings Canadians together to hold government accountable, deepen our democracy and take action for the common good.

Representation & Depression

With parliament once again back in session I am again fighting depression, its not that the attack on our democracy increases any more during these time but that it receives greater attention and is far more obvious. We have seen the statements by Minister Oliver and by PM Harper regarding the need to 'streamline' environmental hearings and how those that oppose multinational projects that threaten our lands and forests, rivers and oceans are 'radicals' and 'enemies' of Canada' which shows us exactly how much respect this regime has for due process. We have seen them declare that Canada will not participate in future efforts to curb world environmental change without so much as a debate in parliament, we have seen the move to 'harmonize' our regulations and border security with the U.S. Again with out any consultation with either the citizens or their representatives in the House of Commons. But these things are about specific major projects and if these things are not deemed important enough to debate in the house then what of lesser matters?

With the house back in session but a few days we see exactly where things are going, on day one 'time allocation' was used to restrict debate after just two hours. Many committee hearings have already been declared 'in camera' so that all details of same will be withheld from public scrutiny. The PM announces changes to Canadians pension plans, not in the house but overseas, changes that effect the most vulnerable in our society but leave the rich and powerful unaffected. A manufacturing plant which received millions in 'incentives' and was the backdrop for one of King Harpers photo op announcements packs up shop and lays off 100s and the silence from Ottawa is deafening. We could all add to the list but can do little about it, hence the depression.

It seems I am not alone in my lack of optimism regarding our collective future under this regime, Lorne over at Politics and its Discontents it would seem has similar feelings.....

“I have to admit that nowadays I am feeling the pessimism of old strongly reemerging, not to the point of giving up my blog and whatever value it might serve in the fight against the extremists who now control the Canadian government, but to the point where I realize that the battle is lost without the willingness of Canadians, no matter how hard their daily struggles might be, to educate themselves about the issues and keep current with as many facets as possible of the neoliberal agenda being relentlessly advanced by those who pretend to represent us. “

And there is the rub “pretend to represent us” ..... Exactly!

Oxymoron - Open Government

Apparently there has been an “Open Government Consultation” conducted by Treasury Board over the last couple of weeks. Whilst I am not up on such 'consultations' David Eaves is very much so, I will then hand it over to him in these extracts from a recent post at Eaves.ca. He tells us that you can explore on the Treasury Board website and also that Tracey Lauriault has tracked some of the submissions on her website.

“As part of the Open Government Partnership commitments it would be great for the government to commit to guarantee that every request for information made of it would include a digital version of the document that can be searched.

Second, the government should commit that every document it publishes be available online. For example, I remember in 2009 being told that if I wanted a copy of the Health Canada report "Human Health in a Changing Climate:A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity" I had to request of CD, which was then mailed to me which had a PDF copy of the report on it. Why was the report not simply available for download? Because the Minister had ordered it not to appear on the website. Instead, I as a taxpayer and to see more of my tax dollars wasted for someone to receive my mail, process it, then mail me a custom printed cd. Enabling ministers to create barriers to access government information, simply because they do not like the contents, is an affront to the use of tax payer dollars and our right to access information.

Finally, Allow Government Scientists to speak directly to the media about their research.

It has become a reoccurring embarrassment. Scientists who work for Canada publish an internationally recognized ground break paper that provides some insight about the environment or geography of Canada and journalists must talk to government scientists from other countries in order to get the details. Why? Because the Canadian government blocks access. Canadians have a right to hear the perspectives of scientists their tax dollars paid for – and enjoy the opportunity to get as well informed as the government on these issues.

Thus, lift the ban that blocks government scientists from speaking with the media.”

I think by now we all realize that its not just a particular minister who blocks access to unfavorable reports but that this practice is in fact now the standard practice for the current Regime. Whilst I suspect that this 'consultation', as with so many other initiatives from the Harper Regime is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to keep folks happy whilst they go about doing exactly as they intended in the first place, David has submitted a number of suggestions and whilst I urge you to read his entire post here are a few of them which indeed make a lot of sense.

Redefine Public as Digital: Pass an Online Information Act

a) Any document it produces should be available digitally, in a machine readable format. The sham that the government can produce 3000-10,000 printed pages about Afghan detainees or the F-35 and claim it is publicly disclosing information must end.

b) Any data collected for legislative reasons must be made available - in machine readable formats - via a government open data portal.

c) Any information that is ATIPable must be made available in a digital format. And that any excess costs of generating that information can be born by the requester, up until a certain date (say 2015) at which point the excess costs will be born by the ministry responsible. There is no reason why, in a digital world, there should be any cost to extracting information - indeed, I fear a world where the government can't cheaply locate and copy its own information for an ATIP request as it would suggest it can't get that information for its own operations.

Use Open Data to drive efficiency in Government Services: Require the provinces to share health data – particularly hospital performance - as part of its next funding agreement within the Canada Health Act.

Finally before we leave Dave and examine the other side of the coin he points out how far behind Canada is in providing open data to its citizens.

Open Budget and Actual Spending Data

For almost a year the UK government has published all spending data, month by month, for each government ministry (down to the £500 in some, £25,000 in others). More over, as an increasing number of local governments are required to share their spending data it has lead to savings, as government begin to learn what other ministries and governments are paying for similar services.

It is interesting to see that even as they take submissions about improving access to data they are actively doing exactly the opposite. The Sixth Estate points out:-

“......it’s increasingly difficult to find any Royal Commission reports online anymore, thanks to the government’s inexplicable practice of taking down their websites and hiding backup copies on a National Archives server which blocks Google from indexing its contents.

Presently, the Harper regime’s Minister of Graft, the Dishon. Tony Clement, is busy looking for symbolic measures to promote the idea that Canada has “open government.” Restoring full, indexed, and easily accessible Commission reports would be a good first step towards that goal.”

To cap it all off and to reinforce that the Harperites have no intention of letting their citizens know what is going on Poggi gives us this little snippet of information:-

“The House of Commons gets back to work next week and that means that parliamentary committees resume as well. In fact the Standing Committee on Health will meet tomorrow afternoon.

Kady O'Malley, as @kady on Twitter, was kind enough to link to this page which provides the schedule of upcoming meetings. O'Malley also took note of the number of padlocks associated with the entries which indicates that a meeting will be held in camera — closed to the public.

Of the ten meetings currently listed, eight of them will be held in camera. Admittedly this isn't something I've kept track of but that seems high. It's worth noting that aside from preventing the press and public from viewing the proceedings, taking the meeting behind closed doors automatically binds the participants — including opposition MPs — to secrecy.

Eight out of ten would certainly suggest one of two things: either something is in the works that a lot of us won't like or keeping the public in the dark about what goes on in committees has become the default position of this government. Either way, democracy loses.”

So not only can we or the media not examine the workings of these committees but our elected representatives are not allowed to speak of such 'debates' with their constituents or the media.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone following the steady reduction of anything other than “approved” spin from this regime and the ever increasing suppression of any reports or views that do not closely follow their ideological agenda. So whilst I thank David and all the others who have submitted ideas and comments to this 'consultation' I do hope that none of them are expecting a positive outcome from it.

Seems that the public is doomed to be just like Schults from Hogans Heros by the time the next election comes around “I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!” and have blind faith in Herr Harper.