Party Platforms, some thoughts!

If the choice is between fixing the hole in the roof and remortgaging the house then the choice is obvious, particularly with the interest rates so low. Throwing a tarp over it and putting a bucket under the drips is not a long term viable solution, that for so many of us finding a job to even purchase a tarp is a major problem simply highlights the position we are in both individually and as a country. If the roof has been leaking for some time and just moving the buckets around as needed was the solution chosen then simply doing more of the same is equally illogical. When your accountant then proposes that you go out and buy a shiny new Caddy with the money you did not know you had, saved by not fixing the roof, would you rehire him!


With Harper promising billions in funding for various projects across the country despite the numbers that put us in recession whilst at the same time saying that there is / will be a surplus of income over spending is troubling enough but that Mulclair is echoing that scenario is bizarre. Anyone who thinks that the books will be shown to be in the black when the 'new' government is sworn in must be drinking more than coolaid and to promise that all the goodies being proposed can then be paid for without substantial new income is a fantasy. The fantasy includes the recently announced $1.9-billion surplus for 2014-15, a $4 billion jump from the announced deficit just a few months ago and revealed just a month before the election....are you kidding?. The deficit still exists even if only in unfulfilled promises and programs! Of course close examination of many of the promises reveal that the amounts flaunted are to be trickled out over several years, in some cases even decades, and thus can be reduced, redirected or cancelled as required. It is the promise of big bucks for this or that that gets the attention of far too many voters.


It is understandable that all the partys (except the Greens) are reluctant to talk about minority and / or coalition government, they all want the power to pass legislation of their choice without having to 'comprise' by 'cooperating' with those damned folk from other partys who have been elected by their constituents to represent then in our search for a better Canada. We have seen what majority government has brought about, and it has not been pretty, whilst the Cons have been particularly destructive of process and ideologically rigid I suspect any party with a majority will not embrace 'comprise' and 'cooperation' which to my mind is what we need to move forward.


I will be very surprised if we are not in a minority situation come October and that will at a minimum require two or more partys to work together to undo the Havoc that Harper has wrought be it on a case by case basis or on a more formal agreement. I applaud Elizabeth May's efforts to get a conversation started about this possibility (probability?) BEFORE we find ourselves in another constitutional crisis. We cannot forget that despite Harper & Mulclair having said they will not appoint senators and that they want to abolish it, it still is part of our parliamentary process and legislation must be passed in the senate before becoming law. That as it sits now it is a body dominated by Conservative appointees who can be counted upon to oppose just about anything that does not fit their view of the world will be difficult enough without adding further dis-functionality to that body by calling in to doubt its legitimacy.


All the opposition partys are promising to move towards election reform, the Libs say they will introduce a new voting system in time for the 2019 election, are leaning towards a preferential voting system but will form a committee to study it first. The NDP say that they will impose a Mixed Member Proportional system and the Greens have long advocated for change and say that they will “establish an all-party Democratic Voting Commission to review past research and conduct a public consultation on the style of proportional representation best suited to Canada.” With even those of us who strongly flavor electoral reform unable to agree on which of the several systems and variations of same is the best option this one is going to be difficult for all concerned. Then there is parliamentary reform, the return to following the traditional rules and strengthening the system so it cannot be abused as it has been in recent years. Little has been said about that by the partys, they are all too busy trying to GET power rather than restrict and share it!


Finally, little has been said about reinstating our scientific research, Census Canada data collecting, environmental protections, search and rescue capability, social support mechanisms etc etc etc gutted by the Con Regime. These things will all take time and money and require a vibrant “economy” with folks able to finds jobs and pay taxes, stopping the exodus of corporations to other jurisdictions and ensuring those that do stay pay their fair share. In short we need a leader and a government that instills confidence in Canada both internally and overseas, are any of the partys going to provide this dramatic change so desperately needed? Frankly I see a few glimmers of light but still await the rising of the sun over Canada bringing a new era of our 'representatives' working together to bring a new day to our diverse country.


Who is going to be that bright light, I have no idea!





Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Let the Games Begin ...... Again!

With our Federal MP's now back in the House and the Ontario Legislature about to resume under a new leader I am not optimistic that we will see any change in the political gamesmanship and constant efforts of each party to trample each other in the blind rush for power. We here in Ontario just saw a particularly fine example of this from one Tim Harper Hudak and his provincial Cons.......

Within hours of her victory on Saturday evening, Ontario premier-designate Kathleen Wynne was the target of two new Progressive Conservative attack ads that labelled her “another McGuinty Liberal Ontario can’t afford.” That these unproductive personal attacks were aired so quickly after the announcements tells us that they were planned, and probably produced, proir to the new leader even being chosen, a taste of things to come perhaps.

The new Premier Designate, Kathleen Wynne is making all the right noises regarding 'cooperation' in the legislature and getting on with governing the province but in a minority situation that requires ALL Partys to at least show some inclination to work towards that goal. There is little doubt that there are some thorny issues left over from the sudden suspension business some 3 months ago not the least of which is the apparent polotical decision to cancel a half built generating station just before the last election. Wynne won't say if she'll agree to an NDP demand for a public inquiry into the Liberals' decision to cancel two gas plants at a cost of at least $230 million.

The NDP also are proposing new rules requiring debate by MPPs to prorogue for more than a week — and a firm recall date, something whicch with governments of all stripes increasingly using proroguing as a 'get out of jail' card certainly needs looking at. However I do hold out hope that Kathleen and Andrea can find common ground and move forward without too much political posturing. I hold out no such hope for the PC's Timmy Hudak, he seems to have learned his political lessons at the knee of his federal counterpart and we all know how cooperative and forthcoming that gentleman demigod can be.

Which leads me to this little rant by E May about our new currency, which I would suggest is the least of our problems however as usual she makes some great comments about the remaking of Canada by said demigod. If you believe as I do that Stephen Harper and his supporters, both in the house and across the nation are leading us down the path away from democracy as we know it and towards the sort of regime that we have seen in Germany before the war then perhaps Elizabeth May's thoughts regarding the emperor having no clothes strikes a chord.

Finaly I cannon leave without passing this on from our hero Kevin Page....

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer (PBO), told host Evan Solomon the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer will never truly be independent until it reports directly to Parliament.
"The legislation is flawed," said Page, who was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as Canada's first parliamentary budget officer for a five-year term.
"I'm appointed by the prime minister and yet I'm supposed to be the watchdog for how the prime minister spends money. The office is not independent."
With more and more 'watchdogs' becoming lapdogs of their respective governments across the country do not expect the next appointment by this or any other legislature to be any less partisan than those that preceded it for the opposite will undoubtedly come to pass.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Principles of Parliamentary Democracy

Peace, Order & Good Government is the title a blog about exactly that, a recent post contained links to some opinion and reports from some individuals well versed in constitutional matters. If you think that this election is going to either make such matters irrelevant or resolve them you are dreaming in technicolor. We will in fact in all probability simply move from one constitutional crisis to the next simply because our politicians either cannot, or will not, work together for the good of all Canadians.

I will let POGGE take it from here, extracts from the articles mentioned follow:-

One approach to fighting fiction with facts by Helen Forsey has been to compile and share a list of myths and misrepresentations. These include the idea that coalitions are evil and illegitimate, that Canadians elect the prime minister and a government, that defeating a government on a confidence motion forces a fresh election. The most dangerous fiction is the idea that if the opposition accepts the Governor General's invitation to replace a government that has lost the confidence of the House, this would amount to an "illegitimate seizure of power."

Recently, Professor Emeritus Peter Russell organized a non-partisan workshop for leading Canadian academics and political thinkers to begin a process to create a how-to manual for the country if the next election produces an unclear result. The full report deserves to be read in its entirety. In the meantime, here are 5 key principles to remember when the going gets tough. My thanks to Peter Russell for sharing these and encouraging their dissemination.

1. Parliament is the core institution of Canadian democracy. The House of Commons, its elected chamber, is the one body elected by all Canadians.

2. When Canadians go to the polls they elect the House of Commons not a government. The right to govern goes to the members of the house who can secure its confidence.

3. The prime minister is the servant of the House of Commons and must be accountable to it all times.

4. When no party has a majority in the House of Commons, it is for the House to decide what kind of government it will support. In these situations, the House basically has three choices: 1) a coalition government of two or more parties who share cabinet posts; 2) a minority government in an alliance with two or more parties who agree to support it on the basis of agreed upon policies but who do not share cabinet posts; 3) a minority government that works out agreements with opposition parties issue by issue.

5. The Governor General's role is to exercise the crown's discretionary reserve powers only when necessary to permit the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Writer and activist Helen Forsey, daughter of the late Senator and constitutional expert Eugene Forsey, has this to say:-

This election really is about our democracy. Canadians have a right to expect fairness, honesty and respect from our system of government. Instead, the Harper regime has given us five years of injustice, corruption and contempt.  

Harper uses a stack of fairy tales about our parliamentary system to trick people into thinking they have to vote Conservative in order to avoid disaster. In reality, his threats about the opposition “seizing power” or forcing a fresh election are shameless scare tactics based on lies.

Lie #1: Coalitions are evil and illegitimate.

•Not true. Coalitions are totally constitutional, and can be the most sensible way to govern co-operatively and respect the will of a majority of voters. 

Lie #2: Canadians elect the prime minister.

•Not true. We elect some 300 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. 

Lie #3: The party that wins the most seats necessarily forms the government.

•Not true. The governing party must win – and keep – the confidence of our elected MPs through confidence votes in the House. 

Lie #4: Defeating a government on a confidence motion forces a fresh election.

•Not necessarily. If a recently elected House votes to defeat a government, the Governor General calls on the leader of the opposition to form a government and seek the confidence of the House. 

Lie #5: It is an illegitimate “seizure of power” if the opposition accepts the Governor General’s invitation to replace a government that has lost the confidence of the House.

•Not true. In fact, the opposition has what amounts to a constitutional duty to try to form a viable government with the recently elected Parliament, with no need for a repeat election. 

For more information, see How Canadians Govern Themselves at www.parl.gc.ca/publications.

The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, a centre within the University of

Toronto, Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion of leading constitutional scholars following the

prorogation of Parliament in 2008 and after further discussions recently produced a report entitled “Adjusting to a New Era of Parliamentary Government”

They say:-

“While the constitutional conventions discussed in this report may seem somewhat

removed from the concept of rights, they are essential to the realization of democratic

rights in Canada. Without transparent and accountable systems of government, citizens’

democratic rights to participate in those systems are undermined and may be rendered

meaningless. This report is a solid step along the path to a greater understanding of our

uniquely Canadian version of Westminster democracy.”

After reading this important and long overdue examination of this subject I found this bit to be the most telling:-

“One of the areas where adjustment is needed is the lack of clarity and agreement

around important unwritten conventions of our parliamentary system of government.

Constitutional conventions are at the heart of our system of responsible government. To

be effective they need to be agreed upon by the political leaders of the day. Political

debate about these unwritten principles and practices of our constitution has the potential

to plunge the country into a serious constitutional crisis.”

In their recommendations they say:-

“There would be much less risk of a parliamentary crisis following an election in

which the result is not clear if there were an authoritative set of guidelines such as New

Zealand and the United Kingdom now have in their Cabinet Manuals. “

That says it all, reading of their discussions it is clear that whist the 'conventions' may be fairly clear to most of us there are not (for the most part) 'rules' set down and thus, as we have seen with recent governments, there is much room for abuse. We cannot let successive governments interpret those 'conventions' to suit their political agenda, we must seek consensus on setting some 'rules' (good luck with that!). There is much more in this report and it is, as they say, a good first step. I seriously doubt however that anything meaningfully will come of it no matter who gets the most seats on May 1^st. The points raised about what to do with a 'hung parliament', confidence votes, and who is able to govern 'with the support of the House' may well be front and center once again however with another minority government elected as seems highly probable.

The full report deserves to be read in its entirety. (235k PDF)

There's also an excellent article by Lawrence Martin on iPolitics.ca about Harper's methods, and how they've "brought Canadian democracy to new lows." 

Here's a bullet list of Harper's actions Martin discusses in the article courtesy of Catch 22

TREATMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

• Prorogations of Parliament

• Contempt of Parliament

• Scorn for parliamentary committees

• Challenging constitutional precepts

• Lapdogs as watchdogs

• The Patronage Machine

• Abuse of Process

INFORMATION CONTROL

• The vetting system

• Public service brought to heel

• Access to information

• Supression of research

• Document tampering

• Media curbs

 INTIMIDATION OF OPPONENTS

• Afghan detainees

• My way or the highway

• Personal attack ads

• A democratic party?

• Legal Threats

 

A BIG tip o the hat to POGGE for this one, and a honorable mention to Catch22.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

On Political Advertising and Funding.

With the recent round of 'advertising' by political partys and the character assassination contained in many of them one has to wonder what, if anything they have to do with our democratic process. When you add this out-of-election-period spate of 'advertising' with the recent statement from our ruling regime that they will once again seek to discontinue the per vote funding that gives opposition partys, large and small, a least a fighting chance of getting their message out to the voters and countering the resources available to whatever party is currently in power, then we must conclude damn little!

One must conclude that, at least so far as the ruling regime is concerned, its all about retaining power and demonising any that might challenge that, about untruths and innuendo being more effective than truth and information, about how money can buy or influence voting pasterns. At this point the opposition must be congratulated for not sinking to respond with personal attack ads but concentrating on policy however I wonder if this is going to now be the norm....... a constant year round barrage of political advertising by those partys that can afford to pay for such unnecessary and partisan posturing.

The opposition does have an excuse, they were after all 'attacked' plus it is their JOB to hold the government to account and to point out flaws in questionable legislation and spending. I do hope they continue to take the high road as things escalate as they no doubt will.

It would seem that this is all in preparation for yet another test of seeing who blinks first as the budget is presented, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May had this to say recently:-

“A Prime Minister in a Minority government preparing a budget should be meeting with Opposition leaders. The Finance minister should be doing the rounds with opposition finance critics. Key stakeholders should be getting a lot of time for their proposals to fight the deficit, while continuing economic recovery and creating full-time, well-paying jobs.

But collaboration and olive branches are not in Mr. Harper’s repertoire. Attack ads clearly are.........
Clearly Mr. Harper is in no mood to make Parliament work. These ads are the Parliamentary equivalent of a declaration of war............. Attack ads are anti-democratic by definition.
It turns out they are also anti-Canadian. Thanks to Toronto Star journalist Susan Delacourt’s blog "Ad standards" I read the plea from Advertising Standards Canada to political parties. “

With this all in mind perhaps any political advertisement should be required to show the following disclaimer during the entire length of the broadcast or at the bottom of every newspaper or on-line advertisement.

“Political parties are exempt from “truth in advertising” requirements of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. “

It seems that not only can MPs get away with untruths and personal attacks in the HoC and be protected by 'parliamentary privileged' but the political partys can fabricate any kind of fiction for their advertising with no repercussions, at least so far as the broadcasting and advertising industry is concerned. Hardly news, but hardly the sort of thing you would expect in a 'democratic' country either.

We cannot leave this subject without pointing out one lie that is being recirculated in some of these ads, that being that a coalition government is somehow wrong, unconstitutional and a thing to be feared. I call BULLSHIT. I will not repeat here the many arguments that show it is both a legitimate form of governance or point to the many democracy's across the world that have (or have had) a coalition government, I will however say that I am disappointed that the opposition have so strongly rejected the notion that such a cooperative government is possible when we all know that if and when it become politically advantageous to do so they will rapidly change their tune and seek to form such an alliance.

Must we descend further into a what can only be called a majority dictatorship from our current minority dictatorship before our “representatives” and the citizens who elect them wake up a realize that democracy is far more precious than one particular ideology or another, and lies, spin and personal attacks have no part in such a system.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Victory for Democracy ….. or maybe not?

Many of the recent headlines have been proclaiming a win for democracy including some Liberal blogs and even the Liberal Party web site after an all-party deal was reached on the Afghan detainee files , I am not so sure about that.

As a number of observers have noted this may well be but a small step forward in an ongoing war, Poggie sums it up quite well like this :- A deal "in principle" is not a final deal when the memorandum that actually spells it all out won't be ready for over two more weeks. And if that memo isn't available until the end of May, when will the specially selected committee of MPs actually be selected, sworn in and get down to work? When will the unredacted documents actually begin to flow? And when will the panel that reviews the documents to determine whether there are national security implications attached to their release be selected, sworn in and settle down to work? And incidentally, when will the MPCC start receiving the information needed to properly conduct its inquiry?

If we then add the fact that –“ Between 20000 and 40000 uncensored pages of documents about Canada's handling of Afghan detainees will be secretly examined by a security-cleared all-party committee of MPs” and that “Even after the MPs have decided that a document is relevant and necessary, a "Panel of Arbiters" will make its own "final and unreviewable" determination as to what will actually be released”. This tentative agreement would seem to leave much room for yet more “maneuvering” and takes the final say about what will or will not be released out of the hands of the parliamentary committee. If parliament is “supreme” then what exactly is this panel of Judges doing, it would seem that the contentious issue is whether or not the material is of concern to our National Security or endangers our military , one wonders what expertise any of those chosen to decide will actually have in those matters.

It is quite clear that both the Government and the Opposition could have come up with a similar arrangement prior to it almost precipitating yet another “constitutional crisis”. How many is that now since the Harper regime came to power? It seems they just CANNOT work together and agree on anything without pushing things to the brink… but wait, the did agree unanimously on something!

MPs have united to keep their expense’s from being audited In a rare act of unity on Parliament Hill, MPs from all four political parties have said that MPs say expense scandals couldn't happen in Ottawa, so no audit is required . So every one of our MPs and all their staff are 100% trustworthy, never make an error or charge something to their office budget that they should not. OK, I believe that …. Hardly!

Sheila Fraser's is correct on this one "The Auditor General Act does not list the agencies and departments to which our mandate applies," … "The act provides that the 'Auditor General is the auditor of the accounts of Canada ......' These accounts include ...... the House of Commons." MP’s office budgets, including “other” expenses reimbursed, are public moneys and should be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as any other government expenditure. I hope she continues to stands her ground on this. for it is once again a fundamental issue of transparency and accountability of our parliamentary system.

How can our MP’s defend not allowing scrutiny of their expenditures whist at the same time demanding that the government release the requested Afghan documents. Open and accountable, I think not, they are all playing the same game, hide their own errors whilst seeking to reveal others errors. Even our British cousins have decided that NONE of them can be trusted with a majority and brought in a Coalition Government, I wonder if we are ready here for that outcome because I see no other in the foreseeable future.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Small but Important Distinction.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, picked up on this recent statement by Stephen Harper leader of the Harper Regime regarding the behaviour from his ministers in airports.

As seen on the national news last week he said “Do I realistically expect that everybody who works for me is perfect? No. We can’t run an operation like that. But when people make mistakes, we expect them to own up to them and learn from them and I’m sure they will in these cases.”

Seems that not only do the ministers of his regime think they are above the law and can ignore the rules that the rest of the citizenry must follow but he also seems to think that those ministers WORK FOR HIM and not those who they purport to represent. It is a small point but goes to the very heart of the problems rampant within our governance at this time as it shows the mindset of both Mr Harper and his Ministers.

This small “slip of the tongue” is just another indication that this regime has no idea of how our parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, that MPs, including the PM, WORK FOR US and that as such they are all ultimately answerable to parliament as a whole. Other more obvious manifestations of this mindset have of course been seen, the proroguing of parliament, twice, to avoid accountability, the refusal to produce documents to a parliamentary committee, the suppressing of any information that might reflect badly upon their management of our country. The list is endless.

There are those in Ottawa who have expressed concern over this, one such individual being Senator Elane McCoy whose web pages have recently been made more accessible to those without high speed. In exploring the information thus now available to me I found these two quotes that speak to this subject:-

‘Parliament evolved as an institution to oversee and curtail arbitrary decisions imposed by the executive branch. The "power of the purse” is the most effective measure to hold a government (that is to say, cabinet) to account, but Parliament has forgotten this. Too many decisions are made without reference to Parliament or are "ratified" by overly obedient backbenchers and senators.’

Senator Lowell Murray

‘…in our system the word government now means Prime Minister....
[T]he system of parliamentary democracy we originally chose for Canada is not the system we have now. It has been transformed by the concentration of power more and more in one person – and so is subject to terrible abuse when, for example, that person has the attitude and style of a bully and, of course, surrounds himself with people of like mind.’

Senator Royce Frith

It has become a test of wills between those who would rule as kings and those who would protect our crumbling democracy, as Travers said:-

“In England, that test of wills was resolved in Parliament's favour when King Charles I was beheaded in 1649. In 21st century-Canada the same effect is achieved more civilly and with less bloodshed when a prime minister loses Commons support.”

But will it be resolved without harm to our democracy? It seems to me that the right hand of our parliament has already been cut off but has a life of its own, the left hand is flapping around uselessly, it has become deaf and blind to the needs and desires of Canadians, and the body is sick and needs an injection of fresh blood to survive. Meanwhile the head continues to ignore all these things whilst singing “don’t worry, be happy” with a video in the background flashing “we have a plan, we have a plan”

It is exactly what that plan is that bothers me, for if we go by past performance, (which would seem to be the only reliable measure of future performance) the destruction of any measure of control by the peoples representatives over the increasingly dictatorial and secretive PMO would seem to be the aim of this regime.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Power of the PM

This week lets pick up on two things from the list from Colin in the first “Now What” post, which was reinforced by Senators McCoys post regarding the “Anatomy of Power”. As has been said by several observers its not just about the abuse of the ability to prorogue that has our citizens talking, its about the ongoing decline of the ability (perhaps the desire) of our MPs to represent US not the political party to which they happen to currently belong. This suspension of parliament was but the tipping point in the long, but recently rapidly increasing, takeover of the democratic process by the PMO.

The Ottawa Citizen has this to say:
For many years now, constitutional experts and other political observers have lamented the concentration of power in the prime minister's office. They've warned, persuasively, that this concentration of power erodes Canadian democracy -- and it doesn't matter who the prime minister is or to which party he or she belongs.Harper's arbitrary abuse of the power to prorogue has caused many Canadians to wake up and realize that all might not be well with our parliamentary system. Although the Governor General is in theory able to restrain prime ministerial power by denying a PM the right to use prorogation for partisan purposes, Canadians have discovered that in practice prime ministers do what they want.Have the powers of the Governor General atrophied to the point they don't exist? Is this a good thing, in that the GG is unelected and shouldn't have real powers anyway? Then again, aren't the aides and minions in the PMO also unelected, yet wield more power than any legislator except the PM himself? Everyone in Ottawa has heard anecdotes of 20-something staffers from the PMO scolding senior cabinet ministers, and loving it. That can't be great for Canadian democracy, either.What began as a debate revolving around an arcane term is turning into a much bigger and more interesting conversation.

SO Now What …..
MP’s job description. MP’s need to be more independent……

Or as Sen McCoy says : “Why does the Prime Minister have so much power? The answer is quite simple: Because the House of Commons no longer holds the PM to account.”

But why is that and what can be done to change it? Why? Simply this, the political party holds all the cards, they control to a large extent the nomination process, the public awareness process (largely due to the high cost of “advertising” a candidate), the impact (read power) that an MP can have within our parliament (and within the unofficial corridors of power), even the basic services which an MP can call upon to do his or her job (ask an “independent” MP how that works!). It has reached the point where the “party” can dictate to the MP how to vote on a particular issue simply because to resist the “party machine” results in what little influence a typical back bench MP may have can be substantially reduced should they publicly disagree (or god forbid not vote with) their partys official line.

As many others have pointed out one of the best tools to ensure that our MPs represent US and not their party is to change the manner in which we elect them to ensure that we can choose an individual without necessarily endorsing the party with which they are affiliated. As it stands now when we finally get that choice it’s a difficult thing to choose the best local representative when perhaps his party has shown a total disregard for both his opinion and the parliamentary process. All too often we are FORCED to choose the party over the person, this is NOT how it was intended to work! In my mind proportional representation is only PART of the solution which is why I favor some form of MMP voting where we can vote for the person and the party separately. Trouble is we have to get a majority MPs who are elected by the FPTP system to as a minimum call for a referendum for change and then convince a majority of our citizens that change is not so scary that it cannot be. Hard to do when those in power will (and have) used their considerable recourses to convince the public otherwise.

Size, purpose, and power of cabinet. We have a very powerful executive in Canada

If you have read the Hill Times article referenced in last weeks post by Senator McCoy you will realize just how much power the PMO has in this country and how little a non cabinet MP has. Even in a minority parliament there are few practical limits upon the PMs power and whilst in theory this power is shared with cabinet in practice it does not have to be, the PM is all but omnipotent. In a majority situation a PM who does not wish to respect our democratic conventions, listen to the opposition or accept changes to legislation suggested by committees does not have to.

It would seem to me that the only real limit upon the abuse of this power is vested in public pressure and opinion when such abuse comes to light, if this power is also used to control the dissemination of accurate information as to the actions of government then even that pressure is substantially reduced. The “power” available to the PM has changed little in recent decades, it is the manner in which it can, indeed is, being used that should give us all nightmares.

There is little we can do to change this, some rules can be changed (by a majority of MPs) to “encourage” more respect for parliament and parliamentary conventions. We can perhaps move towards minority and coalition governments so that more consensus and cooperation becomes necessary, but if the party in power and the PM of the hour wishes to run our country like a dictatorship during their term in office there is little practical means of stopping them from doing so. It would seem that getting MPs out from under the party control would be the best interim solution. Elect MPs who refuse to be dictated to by the party brass, limit the use of whipped votes, give independent MPs the same resources as those with “official” party status, make the Senate truly independent and its members not beholden to those who appointed them.

How to do this is the big question for as David Mitchell, CEO of the Public Policy Forum said "the modern party system and, in particular, party discipline has been the great corruptor of Parliament. And in Canada we have the most rigid and inflexible party system in any modern parliamentary democracy."

T/H to Accidental Deliberations for the Ottawa Citizen piece. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy Suspended, Now What?

Having been trying to make Canadians aware of the fragile state of our democracy and the manner in which our parliament does or should work in these pages for almost a year now, I am delighted with the increased interest brought on by the prorogue this time around. It was the precedent set by the avoiding of a confidence vote and a possible coalition government by the Harper regime in proroguing parliament in Dec of 2008 that got me started on this journey.

I am pleased to see the numbers on that facebook group growing daily and to see all the commentary and opinion at No Prorogue and many other blogs and newspaper articles.
Ok, so we are all “concerned”, BUT NOW WHAT? This cynical and unprecedented Prorogue is but a symptom of a far more serious malady.

Parliament will resume in due course, The Harper regime will table their budget, the opposition will vote for or against it, we will head for the polls - or not, the various committees and inquires will be reinstated - or not, the senate will be stacked with more partisan members - or not, the public outcry will be forgotten - or not. In short it will simply be business as usual. As many observers have said we need fundamental change both in the manner in which our parliament is operated and in the manner in which we select its members. That can only come about when our representatives have the incentive and guts to initiate that change, to believe that ANY party currently on holiday from the HoC will make any changes that would restrict their power and control over such matters without ongoing and strident call for reforms from the public is naïve.

Some have called for restrictions on how and when parliament can be suspended and that indeed would be a great first step, to put into law those unwritten conventions that up until recently governments took into consideration on this and other issues has now become a must if we are to continue to call our system of government a “parliamentary democracy”.

What follows are but a few ideas of where we should be headed, the big question is not so much whether the ideas are good or bad but how we get the process started. Let those few MPs who are not lapdogs to their party stand up and bring private members bills before the house to, as a minimum, get a process started, but of course we first need to get a functioning parliament back in operation to do that!.

These (highly shortened) clips from Colin LeFevre highlight some of the areas of concern….

Ties to British Monarchy. Honestly, why are we still a part of the monarchy? To me this makes no sense. The Governor General herself has proven the position redundant over the past year or so. She gives in to every request by the Prime Minister, costs taxpayers a fortune, and runs “ceremonial” events.

Our electoral system. Our current system consistently elects false majority governments, the last few aside. Often majority governments are elected with significantly less than a majority of the legitimate votes cast, making many Canadian votes mean essentially nothing

The Senate. There are generally three options I hear on this one. First, keep our current system. Second, elect our Senators, and realign where Senators come from in the country (equal representation). Third, simply abolish it.

MP’s job description. MP’s need to be more independent. They need to be able to do investigative research – not just depend on what the PMO will agree to release. They should actually be responsible to their constituencies because lets be honest, right now they are far more responsible to their party brass than to the constituents who they theoretically represent.

Number of MP’s. How many people can one person effectively represent? Is it more, less or the same as our MP’s currently are representing? Especially if their job is recalibrated to be more legitimately representative to their constituents this number may be significantly different.

Size, purpose, and power of cabinet. We have a very powerful executive in Canada. (To) look at its size, purpose, and specifically power would be a very good use of time. The cabinet needs to remember that it is indeed responsible to the legislature, but historically has not always done this.

House of Commons procedure. We need to look at who holds decision-making power over procedures like proroguing Parliament, and why. Should there be a majority vote of the House of Commons needed? In any case, there needs to be serious discussion into placing limits and rules surrounding these procedures.

Coalition governments. They actually allow a minority government to function because you can have a majority of MP’s on the same page. We could actually have stable and long lasting minority governments if a coalition was an option to Canadian political parties. We as Canadians need to accept that this is a legitimate option.

Set election dates. This of course comes with challenges when it comes to minority governments, but if we effectively move forward with democratic reform minority governments should be much more stable, like in most of the world, thus making set election dates possible.

As one observer said “The public may be in no mood for a complete ‘constitutional’ overhaul, but they are clearly against the frequent and lengthy suspension of parliament at the whim of a minority government.” He suggests this approach….

1. Given that all bills and motions must be ratified by a majority vote in the House of Commons, therefore so must the prorogation of parliament meet this essential condition.
2. Given that the members of parliament are elected democratically to represent their constituents to the best of their ability in a full-time capacity, the cessation of parliament known as prorogation may only be enacted once per calendar year, and for a period no longer than forty-five days.
3. Respecting the above as having the equivalent to force of law, the Governor General of Canada is required to neither respond nor agree to a request to prorogue parliament that does not meet both these conditions, one and two (above).
4. Likewise the privy counsel or any other representative of the House of Commons who makes a request to the Governor General to prorogue parliament that does not meet both above conditions, one and two, shall be considered in contempt of parliament.


Finally here are some extracts from my own proposals first published over a year ago before this blog was started and before the Harper regimes first (successful) attempt to dodge due process in the HoC.


Whereas our Prime minister has called a previous session of this house “dysfunctional” and increased partisanship by all parties both in the house and in committee has had a profound effect upon the orderly conduct of the business of the house.

And whereas many of the rules and conventions of conduct with the House are unclear, unwritten or unknown by both the public and those within the House.

And whereas even when such rules and conventions are broken by our elected representatives or their agents there are few, if any, penalties for such action.

Be it resolved that:-
This house immediately form a citizens assembly consisting of representatives from all political partys, constitutional experts and interested citizens from across Canada to examine and codify the existing rules and conventions of our parliamentary democracy.

Further this assembly shall have the mandate to recommend changes to said rules and conventions and propose specific penalties for those who do not respect said rules and conventions once clearly identified and formally adopted by this House.

This assembly shall have the authority to examine and recommend changes to, but not limited to, the use of whipped votes, the use of votes of confidence, the chairing of committees and the conduct within same, the conduct of members during question period, members mailing and expense privileges, the use of proroguing parliament, the power vested in the office of the prime minister, and other such areas of our democratic processes as it deems necessary to examine.

The assembly may also consider whether the house needs to take such measures as are necessary to initiate an examination of our method of selecting our members of parliament, the funding and informational processes of prospective candidates and partys, and make recommendations as to how such measures should proceed if they deem it necessary for such examination to take place.

The assembly shall make available to all citizens of Canada the opportunity to comment upon such changes and penalties that they may be considering on an ongoing basis. The results of their studies shall be regularly published and available to all citizens in a timely manner throughout the process. Every effort should be made to make the process as open and non partisan as possible.

The assembly shall have the ability to request the assistance of such persons with specialized knowledge of the areas of study as they deem necessary and such support staff as are necessary to fulfill their mandate.

None of these things are easy to do, it will be a long process, nor will many of them find much favor from our established political partys, but if we are to remain a “democracy” then change things we must! Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Coalition Governments in Canada

Earlier I posted a piece by Duncan Cameron that raised some questions regarding minority governments, here is another opininion regarding coalition governments in Canada origionaly posted in Kerstens Kolumn . This subject will no doubt come up again as minority governments seem more and more probable on the federal scene and should BC go to STV voting (more on that in my next post) then there is an increased probability of minority coalition government there next time around.

[T]here is good reason to believe that the possibility of coalition government will remain with Canadians sometime.” That is what William Cross, a well respected Canadian political scientist, wrote in the Globe and Mail a couple of months ago. Last week Cross also held a roundtable discussion on the issue of coalitions and their future in Canada, a lecture that included Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, Dr. David Docherty as well the coalition expert, Kaare Strom.

The idea of supporting the coalition was quite a contentious issue for Canadians. The idea that the nation would have a PM who they had readily and dramatically rejected just six weeks prior made Canadians extremely uncomfortable. It was a perplexing situation. As Segal described it, “what happened in Canada was a joint partisan disengagement. The Conservatives made the either “miscalculation or awful misjudgement” of cutting public funding to parties.

In response, dramatic action was matched with dramatic and a coalition was forged with lasting consequences for both sides. The Conservative Government, after implicitly labelling Quebecers as separatists in his attempt to defeat the coalition, has lost absolutely any chance at gaining seats in the province. Harper also has to face a much stronger voice and confident leader in Michael Ignatieff, whose rise to power he helped accelerate with this anti-coaliton fervour. On the Liberal side, Stephane Dion’s political career was left in ruins and Bob Rae, who would have been key in an NDP-Liberal Government – possibly even PM after the May leadership race, will now never reach Liberal leadership.

Segal maintained that “both sides lost grip of essential fairness of Parliamentary system.” But was that what happened? Did the Liberals and NDP really lose their grip of fairness? The flip side is that coalitions are inherently fair and democratic. They are prevalent – if not the norm – in many European nations. In Canada, they aren’t as new as the public was led to believe. Consider Docherty’s examples from Canada’s history: the Borden-Union Federal Government that formed prior to 1917 election; in Ontario 1919-1923; the Manitoba Government in 1931 which lasted until after the war; 1941 in BC with Liberals and Conservatives in coalition; and the Liberal-NDP coalition under Bob Rae in Ontario. Certainly, we wouldn’t call these governments undemocratic.

Another argument in this vein is that voters do not choose governments, they choose parliamentarians and that Government, in turn, is chosen by Parliamentarians, not citizens. While this would appear to be the case, in a nation that relies on precedence, or “constitutional conventions” to underlie what is constitutionally appropriate or not, we must consider that precedence has reinforced Canadians not voting for their MP. They vote for the party or for the leader. And it would be inconceivable – if not politically disastrous – to convince them that they shouldn’t do so, that their perceived purpose of vote does not matter or isn’t based on reality.

Another problem that we must consider is when it is democratic for a coalition is formed. Most people can agree that in principle, coalitions can promote democratic principles, particularly greater representation and cooperation. But is there a difference in the democratic worth of a coalition formed before or after an election? If you believe that a voters cannot choose Governments, this is a moot point. But for others, consider, from a Senator who has worked to promote Proportional Representation, that forming a coalition to the exclusion of the largest party and voters not knowing who will be in it before the election is may have be “just as undemocratic as the public funding proposal.”

The idea of coalition thus proves to be just as difficult as it was when it was first introduced. But I would suggest that this is not only okay, but a good thing. We need to continue this dialogue on coalitions because they can improve our democracy. It is hard to find someone to disagree with that a proportional representation electoral system increase the chances of having coalition governments, which in turn would increase cooperation and democratic representation. But the devil, is in the details.

In the end, one thing is clear. Canadians must come to grips with these questions and face them head on. The possibility of coalitions is here to stay. As Cross wrote, while “Canadians have largely rejected the proposed coalition, but they should get used to the idea.”

Mark Kersten has a passion for Canadian politics and is interested in Canada’s place in the world and it’s foreign policy, constitutional law, and intergovernmental affairs. He is currently the Compliance and Information Coordinator for the GPC where his job allows him to see and play in the world of political strategy, messaging and campaigning. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Canada's next government

This article By Duncan Cameron originally posted at Rabble.ca raises some interesting questions. Not only that in a minority government situation there is an implied “coalition” but that the PM’s “executive power” stems from the oppositions implied agreement to allow it.

In order to pass laws, any minority government needs a parliamentary majority. Thus, whenever a parliament convenes without one party holding a clear majority, no prime minister can continue to hold power without creating a formal, or (less often) informal coalition. The exercise of executive power by the prime minister requires support by a majority of legislators.
In 80 per cent of cases around the world the link between executive and legislative power is created through coalitions of parties (mainly following elections using some type of proportional representation). Coalition governments have not been part of usual Canadian parliamentary practice. Canada is used to minority governments, which traditionally function on an issue by issue basis, seeking support from one stable partner. This was the case in the two Pearson minority governments (1963, and 1965) and the one Trudeau minority (1972), which depended on the NDP, the third party.

Currently the Harper minority governs with the support of Liberals, the official opposition. The PM has looked to the third party, the Bloc, for support in the past, and presumably could turn to it again. The Liberal-Conservative informal coalition bears some resemblance to the "grand coalition" German government made up of the two largest parliamentary parties, the conservative Christian Democratic Union, and its left-wing partner, the Social Democratic Party.
Last week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation of Germany convened a one-day symposium (covered by rabbletv and CPAC) to examine the politics of informal and formal coalition government with European and Canadian political scientists and parliamentarians as featured speakers.

Professor Barbara Cameron (no relation) of York University, reflecting on the formal coalition agreement reached in December by the Liberals and the NDP, with the support of the Bloc, pointed out that unlike Germany, the Canadian parliament lacked a formal mechanism (such as a vote by parliament) entrusting a prime minister with power. She pointed out: "we rely on constitutional conventions that obscure the responsibility of the executive branch to the elected legislature and, in certain situations, give to the Governor General a larger role than an unelected official should have or probably wants."
The irony in this, said Cameron, is that constitutional conventions work well when they are not needed -- so long as majority governments are the rule we know who becomes prime minister. These conventions do not work well when the situation is unclear -- as can arise in minority parliaments when governments are defeated.

The constitutional practice is that Canadians elect a parliament, and parliament chooses the government. In minority situations, the leader of the largest party governs only so long as she or he maintains the confidence of the House of Commons.
The basic constitutional workings of Canada are obscured by what is referred to as the reserve powers of the Governor General. Once the prime minister has been defeated on a motion of confidence in the House, she or he is no longer prime minister, and the reserve power allows the Governor General to ignore a request by the former prime minister to call an election, and to invite another party leader to become prime minister, that is to say, meet the House, and seek its confidence.

Once a prime minister is defeated in the House, she or he is no longer the advisor to the Governor General. Only then may the Governor General ask another leader if they are able to form a government.
What Cameron suggests is that prior to the delivery of the speech from the throne, and after an election, parliament be asked to confirm by secret ballot the nomination of the prime minister by the party with the largest number of seats. This would make it clear that only parliament can confer, or withdraw, the powers of office of the prime minister. Cameron says: "the effect would be to force negotiations among the parties before the House meets, and could result in more formal and positive agreements that the majority of elected members are committed to supporting." This could be a minority government or a coalition government, or an agreement on something in between.

Grant Amyot of Queen's University presented research showing that coalition governments in general spent between 20 and 25 per cent of GDP on social welfare, while non-coalition governments spent less than 20 per cent. In other words, based on what he called this "rough" measure, coalition governments produce more progressive policies than non-coalition governments. He showed how in the case of the Sweden its long run of social democracy began when the Social Democratic Party entered into a formal coalition with a rural-based party.
In Canada, since 1945, the three minority Liberal governments of Pearson and Trudeau were the only progressive governments we have had, which helps explain why there was so much opposition last December from right-wing Liberals, as well as Conservatives, to the idea of a formal Liberal-NDP coalition government.

So long as Canada continues to elect four parties to parliament, Canada is likely to have more minority governments. The lesson from Europe is that the best way to get stable, progressive government is to form a formal coalition.

Duncan Cameron writes from Vancouver. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers