Virtual Idiot?

Unless an agreement is reached before Monday, the House of Commons will resume business as usual with all 338 MPs along with their staff, clerks, interpreters, security and cleaners, returning to work in Ottawa.

The Liberals are also proposing one additional session be held each week with another lengthy question period, but this one would be held virtually.

Andrew Scheer and his Conservatives, meanwhile, are pushing for three in-person sittings per week to hold government accountable for its pandemic response — down from four sittings they were demanding earlier in the week.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/04/18/trudeau-hopeful-for-deal-with-opposition-parties-on-house-of-commons-re-opening/#.XpwzKsIpD3j

It seems that Scheer just does not get it, remember this is the fellow who packed the special flight bringing a couple of leaders to Ottawa for the last special session with his wife and kids.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/challenger-flight-may-scheer-qualtrough-1.5530542

Meanwhile as I said before there is no need with modern communication methods for our MPs, who reside in and represent riding's far from Ottawa, to be in the room to have input to decisions being made.
https://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/2020/04/virtual-parliament.html

Its NOT a time for political posturing Mr Scheer, give it a rest!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Undemocratic Democracy?

Pollister Nick Nanos opines in the G&M that perhaps Canada is a 'joyless democracy' and points to the fundamental disconnect between the economic numbers hurled at Canadians and the anxiety we feel about the future. He continues by wondering if there is a fundamental disconnect between democratic sentiment and parliamentary outcome in regard to the results of our last election which returned a minority parliament.

He goes on to suggest that this is perhaps because the outcome of the popular vote is not reflected by the various party standings in the HoC, this is hardly a new opinion for the efforts to change our electoral system early last term fell by the wayside when the various political partys could not agree on a new system. I would suggest that this was in part, if not mainly, because the various political partys and many of their supporters are scared of MINORITY Parliaments where to get ANYTHING done they would have to find consensus, seek compromise, be open to opposing ideas, something not seen much of generally in the political arena. Perhaps our 'representatives' are more cooperative behind closed doors but on the floor of the House and in public gatherings and social media they are far too busy slamming the other guy to say much productive. It is this that makes for that joyless opinion that so many of us are coming to have of our democracy.

We are a LONG way from having any kind of truly representative parliament here for not only is it, as we have seen, difficult to select an acceptable system from the many proposals and their various specific details but I suspect that even if such a system was brought in tomorrow how would our confrontational MPs react in what would almost certainly be a series of minority coalition parliaments. It CAN work as seen in New Zealand where they are on just their fourth coalition since 1996 and where their native population are part and parcel of that government. I see the desire for such a system building here in Canada but are we ready to embrace and support such a radical change just yet?

Finally a word about the dangers of social media.

As a senior citizen who has personally resisted the thrall of 'social media' I am hardly qualified to comment about its effect upon our democracy but will ask this: is the speed with which information both accurate and inaccurate can be spread part of the problem? How many of us take the time to determine the accuracy of what is being fed to us from the various modern media before having a knee jerk reaction and quickly head for our keyboard (or thumbboard) to add to the confusion. Think before you poke folks, once its out there its out there for keeps in this day and age!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

New Report on the State of our Democracy.

The Samara Centre for Democracy interviewed 54 former MPs from the last Parliament about their experience in Ottawa and found many of them questioning the very purpose of being an MP in an era when political power is concentrated in the hands of party leaders. The Samara Centre is a non-partisan charity working to improve Canadian politics.

The study focuses on the 41st Parliament, which ran from 2011 to 2015 and was led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s majority government.

The Justin Trudeau-led Liberal Party was elected to a majority government in 2015 on a platform that included promises to improve Parliament and make MPs more independent. The report notes there is anecdotal evidence from the current Parliament that many of the same problems remain.

Last year, Samara, with the assistance of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamen-

tarians, again reached out to past representatives—this time to MPs who had sat in the

41st Parliament (2011–2015) and who resigned or were defeated in the 2015 general

election.

The interviews made one thing clear: the problem of a “job with no description” has not been solved. In some ways, it has worsened. Parliamentarians are more cut off from the essential work of scrutiny, legislation and representation than before. The couple of small extracts shown below are but a fraction of this 42 page report and whilst it reflects the situation at the end of Harpers time in power it is no less relevant to today's parliament.

Leaders have grown in strength and capacity relative to the party caucus.

Unelected staffers to the leader—the “boys (and girls) in short pants”—carefully manage the party brand. As the MPs in our first round of interviews explained, any dissent from the party leadership is rare, inconsequential and swiftly punished. Step out of line, even on an ostensibly free vote, and “your name’s now on somebody’s hit list,”

The last Parliament saw by far the most use of time allocation since the tool was introduced permanently in 1968—more than double the previous high-water mark. But the problem has hardly resolved itself. In fact, the current Parliament is easily on track to see the second most frequent use of time allocation. (The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a time allocation motion as a guillotine. In fact, although the rule allows the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill , it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. )

“Committees are the best and most urgent site for reform.”

Not only are considerable parliamentary time and resources already dedicated to them, but committees also offer the best promise to empower MPs.

Committees might never be must-watch television. But they can be home to the kind of politics citizens often say they want: cross-partisan, substantive, evidence-based, civil and accessible. They could also provide a neat “package” for supporting the independence and thoughtfulness of Mps

As one MP described, before committee met, “They have precommittee meetings. And that’s not when you discuss what’s going to happen in committee. You are told

what’s going to happen in committee. And the [party] staff is all too happy to provide backbenchers with questions to ask.”

In 2018, it’s urgent that Canadians rehabilitate representative democracy as the middle

ground between daily referendums and government by unchecked elites. At the centre of

representative democracy are the representatives themselves—the critical link between

citizens and their democratic institutions.

Parliament is degraded, and as one former MP put it: “We don’t have a democracy, outside of that institution.” An intervention is needed.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

No One Is Listening

Below a few extracts from the 128 page report by the measuring democracy people at Samara a non-partisan charitable champion of increased civic engagement.


In spring 2017, Samara Canada surveyed Members of the 42^nd Parliament to explore the state of heckling and decorum from the perspective of those in the House. The survey reveals that incivility remains a problem. It also suggests that MPs have mixed feelings about heckling. They don’t like the state of debate in Parliament, but they don't want to get rid of heckling entirely either. This is still the case even though they know citizens don't like it.

This report presents the results of a survey of sitting MPs on incivility and particularly the practice of heckling. Firstly, it looks at what’s changed and what remains the same with respect to heckling in the current Parliament. Secondly, it examines three main types of heckling and three main reasons why MPs persist in heckling, despite increased pressure not to. Finally, it makes recommendations about how Parliament can nudge its Members toward the kind of culture change that Canadians want to see—to elevate the debate and foster an environment of dignity and respect............

The parties themselves have also taken action to reduce heckling, with leaders publicly promising more civil debate. However, while this survey found an almost even split between respondents who had been formally advised by their parties on how to deal with heckling (49%) and those who had not (51%), there was a marked partisan difference here: 81% of Liberals, 50% of New Democrats and 22% of Conservatives report being advised by their parties about heckling.

When surveyed, most MPs admitted they do not like heckling, but most MPs heckle. This is the paradox explored in Samara’s previous report “Cheering or Jeering?,” and it holds true here. A little over half of respondents agreed that heckling is “a problem.” Only 16% of respondents said they see heckling as beneficial to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, about two thirds of MPs (65%) admit to having heckled at some point.............
There is a second category of heckling that is more personal. A full 80% of MPs heard Members heckled for their delivery in the House “You’d think it was Grade Five. I don’t think Grade Fives would do that today. But it’s very juvenile behaviour. It’s obnoxious behaviour to be yelling at somebody because they have paused for a second, or misspoken a word, whatever.”

Most commonly, MPs heard colleagues heckled for their idea, comment or question (94%). Most heard MPs heckled for their political party (74%), their ideology (61%) or ethics (58%)............
While a majority of MPs regard heckling in the 42nd Parliament as a problem, they actually express rather nuanced and mixed feelings toward the practice generally. Only 38% would see it abolished outright—although here rookies and veterans part ways once again. Fully half of rookies favour abolishing, versus only 19% of veterans.

A fourth theme illuminated in an open-ended question among heckling’s defenders was that they were merely preserving an important tradition of Westminster parliaments–Parliaments that spring from the British parliamentary tradition, as ours does. One MP waxed poetic: “Keep it clean and respectful … but let it roll on as a magnificent continuation of our Canadian political history and parliamentary tradition.” Another conceded that heckling was unpopular, but suggested that this was because the public did not fully grasp the history and function: “The public likely doesn’t understand that heckling is a long-standing tradition in parliaments across the world.” “The House is not a church or school. Some outbursts are reflective of genuine outrage.” “Until accountability and truthfulness are restored, I don’t think it will stop.”

One MP put a fine point on it: “There are not examples of a Westminster-style parliament where heckling does not occur. If you can’t handle it, you should be looking for another line of work.” While heckling does have a long history in Canada, there is also a long-standing tradition of not heckling in many national legislatures, including the US Congress and most continental European parliaments. There is also no shortage of Westminster parliaments that are similarly respectful—from New Zealand to the Caribbean, regional parliaments in the UK to territorial legislatures in the Canadian North

One of the suggested solutions
MPs, particularly on the backbenches, lack meaningful opportunities to make themselves heard in Parliament. Truly fixing heckling means thinking about procedural fixes to foster a better debate generally. It also means finding new ways to empower backbench MPs.
Currently, questions and answers are limited to 35-seconds during Question Period. MPs must resort to sound bites as a result. If MPs had the time to make their case, or to pin down a perceived falsehood from another Member (for example), then that rationale for heckling disappears.


In total, 84 MPs responded to the survey. At the time of the survey, 338 MPs were sitting in the House.


I do not follow question period or any of the other daily broadcasts on CPAC just the few brief clips of some MPs behavior shown on the evening newscast is enough to turn my stomach, whilst much of the behavior during QP is more for the camera than to actually promote serious discussion of the issues the ability of those who do have the stomach for it to see (actually more hear the background heckling) the proceedings is important. If Canada is not to descend into the same sort of parliamentary dysfunction shown by a number of legislatures in Europe then our MPs must show more respect for each others point of view AND for those who view the proceedings!
Recently a vocal critic of heckling in the House of Commons, (Green Partys Elizabeth) May said there is still too much reading of notes and "bad high school drama" during question period and debates. She credits the Liberals for trying to improve the tone, but said the behaviour of the other opposition parties remains "appalling."

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

When is our raise coming?

Members of Parliament and senators will get a $3,000 increase Friday in their base salary, while cabinet ministers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will receive a larger raise – at a time when Canadians are struggling with stagnant wages and rising unemployment.
The wage hike of 1.8 per cent for MPs and 2.1 per cent for senators is about four times what the federal government has offered public sector unions and executives in the federal public service.................
Federal legislation automatically gives MPs an annual pay hike on April 1 that’s equal to the average percentage increase negotiated by unions with 500 or more employees in the private sector. The data are published by Employment and Social Development Canada.
The pay hike for MPs is nearly double the average increase of one per cent that public sector unions negotiated in jurisdictions across Canada in 2015.
MPs have the option of freezing their own salaries through federal legislation, but the government has decided not to do so. Salaries for MPs were frozen at 2009-10 levels until the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year under legislation introduced and passed by the former Conservative government...............
Since the MP wage freeze was lifted in 2013, the base salary of members of Parliament has increased eight per cent, from $157,731.
Taxpayers will cough up an extra $25.4 million for an increase of 20 per cent to office budgets for MPs and House of Commons officers that also takes effect Friday.


“I don’t think most Canadians have much sympathy for the notion that MPs need a pay hike, considering they already earn far more than the average Canadian.” said Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.


And he would be right about that, why is it that their compensation is based upon average PRIVATE sector UNION wages when by far the greatest number of taxpayers are paid far less than union rates and rarely if ever see raises of any amount. Next thing you know they will want to be paid for two weeks of sick days just like or poor hard done by teachers .....oh wait, they get paid whether they show up or not don’t they Mr Harper?

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

First Week Back.

With parliament resuming its been an interesting week both in the House and elsewhere, our new Prime Minister continued with his almost unrelenting schedule of travelling around actually talking to people (something the previous PM avoided at all costs) and with everybody from Mayors to Provincial leaders asking him to do the impossible and reverse the decade of reduced federal support overnight. (Where is that instigator of democratic destruction anyway, I thought a sitting MP was supposed to actual show up when the House was sitting?)


The Auditor General revealed what many of us long suspected in that that magical disappearing surplus was found at least partially on the backs of the needy by withholding funds already committed for various programs and initiatives.


“Auditor General Michael Ferguson's latest report lays bare massive delays processing Canada Pension Plan disability payments that have left some of the most vulnerable Canadians waiting years for benefits. 

In his annual fall report released Tuesday, the auditor general uncovered an average processing delay of 884 days that has left Canadians with severe and prolonged disabilities — such as nervous and circulatory diseases, cancers and mental illness, among others — waiting for a crucial source of income. “


The membership of various committees and when they will be formed is being discussed, the most important of these perhaps being the ones to recommend persons for the Senate and the one to recommend changes to our electoral system. In regards to the latter the NDP has suggested that the governing Liberals surrender majority control over the committee and that it be formed to more closely reflect the popular vote during the election. That would mean five Liberal MPs, three Conservatives, two New Democrats, one Bloc Quebecois and one Green party member. This would reduce the implications of self interest if certain systems which some say would flavor the Liberals were to be recommended. Although I do not subscribe to the view that any particular system flavors any particular Party I find the idea of a more balanced committee membership a very good idea, all appearance of partisan interference with this decision must be eliminated if it is to be accepted by the general public.


And finally we have the bizarre sight of a Conservative standing up in question period and accusing the Liberals of being unethical for trying get some of the many persons unethically pre-appointed or reappointed to various tribunals (by their former leader) to voluntary step down and submit to a parliamentary process.


"Talking about ethical guidelines, when we are talking about a previous government's decision, at five minutes to midnight, to appoint a series of individuals to jobs to take effect after it lost the election, with no ability for this House to scrutinize those appointments, from our perspective, that was the abuse of process," said. Dominic LeBlanc, the government's House leader,


As always Mr Mercer put it all in perspective in a few short sentences:-


If you're like me, since New Year’s, you were waiting desperately for Monday, January the 25th to roll around. Last week it finally happened, marking the return of the 42nd Parliament. I was going to go up there in person and line up at midnight so I could actually watch it live but instead I caught it on TV.

Now, since then, there have been seven Question Periods. I’m guessing you don't watch every day because, well, you have a life. It's far more likely you’ve set the PVR so you can binge a whole bunch of them on the weekend. You know, invite over a special friend, Question Period and chill.

Now I don't want to give away too much away but spoiler alert—this season is awful.

Remember Rona Ambrose? Last season she was Minster of Health, this season she's Leader of the Opposition. And remember when she got the job she said on her watch the Tories wouldn’t heckle and act like spoiled children. Turns out she meant the opposite. They’re worse now than they ever were.

And the plot lines this season—totally unbelievable. Like the Conservatives are now mad that the Liberals haven't legalized marijuana yet. That is the most ridiculous plot twist I have ever heard. Do they think we’re stupid? Rona, we remember last season, heck, we remember the past ten seasons. Your party has always said legalizing pot would mean the end of the world. Now you're upset because you can’t get your weed at Costco?

And what's with Tony Clement? Every time he opens his mouth he’s saying that governments have to be transparent. Who are these people fooling? A couple of seasons ago Tony took fifty million dollars earmarked for border security and secretly spent it on gazebos in Ontario cottage country. I'm sorry, his character talking about transparency just doesn't ring true.

And then other main characters from last season have been totally written out. According to the credits, Stephen Harper’s still in the cast. He has yet to utter a single line. Why are they still paying this guy?

Look, it's early in the season, granted I will still keep watching Question Period. And Rona, it’s okay to oppose. You are the Leader of the Opposition. But stop pretending like the past ten years didn't happen. Despite appearances, it's a democratic institution, not a soap opera; you just can't pretend the past decade, poof, was all a dream.


Thanks Rick, I am sure there will be lots more ammunition for you next rant coming shortly!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Promises - Parliamentary Accountability

As promised in my post A cabinet that looks like Canada, this week I am going to take a closer look at the Liberal Government's quite modest promises as regards to parliamentary reform as listed in their platform document. Taking them one at a time they are (in shortened form):-


“Strengthen the role of parliamentary committee chairs, including elections by secret ballot. Ensure a more robust system of oversight and review for legislation.”

This one bothers me a little given that committee chairs already have considerable power over the way such meetings are conducted and can, as we have seen in recent years, use procedural actions to disrupt open discussion should they wish to. They need to be more open and accountable with rules established to ensure such partisan or personal biases cannot substantially effect discussions not more power over the process. I am not at all sure what “ a more robust system of oversight and review for legislation” means, reviewing proposed legislation is after all THE function of committees. Government House Leader Dominic Leblanc says House committees should be independent from government with non-partisan chairs and possibly no parliamentary secretary members. As with all things the devil is in the details, this one is a wait and see item.


“Liberal Caucus members will only be required to vote with the Cabinet on those matters that implement the Liberal electoral platform or traditional confidence matters.....”

Whilst more 'free' votes are highly desirable I am not sure that this actually promises that, in the short term at least most, if not all legislation could be said to “implement the Liberal electoral platform”. No MP should be “required to vote” in any particular manner, naturally those who disagree with their own party’s legislation and vote against it may face some kind of 'disciplinary' action from the party but telling an MP how to vote is wrong and antidemocratic. The ONLY vote that could result in a minority government falling should be one that specifically says “This house has no confidence in thus 'whipping' the vote would be unnecessary.....”


“Create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments.”

We do not know at this point what this “process” will be however given the restrictions placed upon the PM by the constitution, and if he truly wants to make the Senate the non partisan chamber of 'sober second thought' then taking advice, or even better, candidate recommendations from outside government is the only alternative. I have said before that given that Senators are meant to be representative of the province in which they reside that it seems appropriate that said provinces should be able to propose at least some of those candidates. Once again this is a wait and see what the 'process' involves but is far better than proposing reforms that involve opening up the constitution in a long and potentially divisive process..


“Work with all parties in the House of Commons to ensure an inclusive, representative, transparent, and accountable process to advise on appointments to the Supreme Court.”

It is my understanding that such a process was already in place, it is just that the previous PM chose to ignore such processes.


“Introduce a Prime Minister’s Question Period, empower the Speaker to challenge and sanction Members during Question Period.”

The PM is supposed to be one amongst equals, is having a special question period just for him reinforcing the perception that he and he alone is responsible for policy? I agree that the speaker should have more power to enforce members to behave and to answer actual questions put, not go off on some unrelated time passing distraction. Good luck with that.

“Change parliamentary financial processes, ensuring accounting consistency among the Estimates and the Public Accounts, providing costing analysis for each
government bill and restoring the requirement that the government’s borrowing plans
receive Parliament’s pre-approval.”

Duh!


“Ensure that all of the Officers of Parliament – the Chief Electoral Officer, the Access to Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer etc, etc, are all properly funded and respected for doing their important work to help Canadians.”

We have seen during the last governments tenure that when you cant get rid of an officer whos reports you don’t like the next best thing is to cut their funding. We hope that they all do get sufficient funding restored to do their job effectively but must ask if there is a way to ensure that future governments cannot silence these officers by such methods.


“Not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances, change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end the practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny
prevent future governments from using this method to silence critical reports.'

Both of these promises are a very good start and we hope that they can indeed “prevent future governments (and their own) from using omnibus bills“ although how you 'lock in' such rules to prevent future governments from changing them back and what penalties can be put in place to prevent the rules being ignored is questionable. All the rules around prorogation, forming coalitions upon the defeat of a minority government, and similar constitutional matters need to be clarified, particularly if electoral reform takes place that results in a greater probability of more minority’s being elected.

The above is almost identical to the 'list' proposed by Ms May of the Greens as presented in the post Fixing What Harper Broke where she says “Ideally, a parliamentary committee will be mandated to review the abuses of the last ten years and recommend a full suite of measures to ensure it never happens again. “ There is the rub, any incoming government can seemingly come in and change the rules (or ignore them) as most are not enshrined in law, but for a few citizens invoking constitutional challenges it could have been much worse.
As we have seen in recent years the rules around prorogation, minority and coalition governments and even House proceedings are easily abused, and how and when such constitutional maneuverings can take place is far from clear and governed more by 'tradition' than any hard and fast rules or guidelines. Such things need to be formally documented to avoid future 'constitutional crises'. With the House setting its own rules this is not an easy task, we wish the new Liberal government well with these changes and await the recall of the House to see exactly how much the 'tone' and substance of the proceeding will change under what we hope and expect to be a more open and respectful leadership.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

As Predicted......

To judge by a report released Tuesday by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the outgoing Harper government was unduly optimistic in its forecasts and estimates. (thats putting it 'nicely'!)
......that suggests that the Conservatives' heralded return to a budgetary surplus was in fact a mirage that could not have been achieved without the one-time sale of government-held shares in General Motors early in the first quarter.
For each of the next five years, the PBO projects fiscal deficits averaging $4.3 billion a year.
However, those deficits don't include the Trudeau government's spending plans. They are the deficits that would have occurred under the budgeting of former prime minister Stephen Harper, if his government had remained in office.
CBC Nov 11 2015


When the Liberals take power in the Fall I predict that they will find it is all smoke and mirrors, any 'surplus' will have been spent on shiny goodies and there will be a substantial deficit on the books.
'Rural' Nov 23 2014


With the above in mind lets take a closer look at what the Liberal Government intends to do about such 'slight of hand' when it comes to public accounting.


They have promised to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer truly independent, properly funded, and answerable only, and directly, to Parliament. Under the previous government he was an officer of the Library of Parliament and reported to the Speakers of both chambers. This would seem to indicate that he now would be a fully independent Officer of Parliament, we would hope that he would also be provided with the authority to make all departments provide him with the information necessary to make accurate and timely reports upon the current fiscal situation and proposed program spending. The Parliament of Canada Act states that, "the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the deputy head of a department... to free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate." , however this did not stop various departments from withholding such information under the previous government. His reports can only be as good as the information that he receives, and as the previous PBO did (much to the vexation of those in power) his reports should be made publicly available by default.


There is also a promise to change parliamentary financial processes to ensure accounting consistency among the Estimates and the Public Accounts. My only comment upon that is why the hell would different departments use different accounting methods in the first place? Moving on, they say that they will provide costing analysis for each government bill and restore the requirement that the government’s borrowing plans receive Parliament’s pre-approval. I would bloody well hope so, asking MPs to vote upon proposed legislation without knowing the full impact of said bill upon the country’s finances is literally like “buying a pig in a poke”.


All these proposals are definitely a step in the right direction and we hope will be quickly instituted and we hope legislated into law to make it harder for this, or any future government to circumnavigate said rules. The question remains, as with all parliamentary 'rules' is what penalties will be introduced for those who refuse to follow said rules. As we have seen in the past there are no substantial consequences within parliament for such malfeasance other than at the ballot box every few years (if and when the public realize what is going on).




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A cabinet that looks like Canada, why .... “Because its 2015”

Given the large number of Liberal MPs elected that was one of the easier promises to keep but never the less a damn fine start. Now comes the more difficult stuff so let briefly review the platform promises in regard to our democratic institutions and how “Fair and Open” this government intends to be. We all know we have heard similar phrases before and the outcome was nothing like the promise! With this in mind over the next few weeks I will take a closer look at some of the promises and some of the difficulties that may arise in keeping them, but in the meanwhile here is a quickie primer on those promises.


Restoring a sense of trust in our democracy and greater openness and transparency.
Amending the Access to Information Act so that all government data and information is made open by default in machine-readable, digital formats.
Accelerating and expanding open data initiatives and continually look for additional opportunities to do so.
Creating a central, no-fee portal for personal information requests.
Create a common, quarterly, and more detailed parliamentary expense report, make the Board of Internal Economy open by default.


Restoring democracy and accountability to Parliament.
Strengthen the role of parliamentary committee chairs, including elections by secret ballot. Ensure a more robust system of oversight and review for legislation.
Liberal Caucus members will only be required to vote with the Cabinet on those matters that implement the Liberal electoral platform or traditional confidence matters such as the Speech from the Throne and significant budgetary measures.
Create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments.
Work with all parties in the House of Commons to ensure an inclusive, representative, transparent, and accountable process to advise on appointments to the Supreme Court.
Introduce a Prime Minister’s Question Period, empower the Speaker to challenge and sanction Members during Question Period.
Change parliamentary financial processes, ensuring accounting consistency among
the Estimates and the Public Accounts, providing costing analysis for each
government bill and restoring the requirement that the government’s borrowing plans
receive Parliament’s pre-approval.
Ensure that all of the Officers of Parliament – the Chief Electoral Officer, the Access to Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer etc, etc, are all properly funded and respected for doing their important work to help Canadians.
Not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances, change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end the practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures.


Electoral Reform, advertising and debates.
Form an all-party parliamentary committee to bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election. Ensure that electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully and fairly studied and considered. Within 18 months bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform
Repeal the anti-democratic elements in the Fair Elections Act and scrap the Citizen Voting Act, restore the voter identification card as an acceptable form of identification.
Provide Elections Canada with the resources it needs to investigate matters that threaten the integrity of our electoral process. Ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada have the tools and mandate to encourage more Canadians to vote. Restore the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections so that they are freely able to prosecute electoral violations.
Appoint an Advertising Commissioner to assist the Auditor General in providing oversight on government advertising. Proposed messages will be reviewed by the Advertising Commissioner to ensure they are non-partisan and related to actual government requirements.
Review electoral spending limits, and also ensure that political party spending between elections is subject to limits.
Create a more inclusive, independent commission that will organize leaders’ debates during election campaigns, with a mandate to increase Canadians engagement and knowledge of the issues.
Work with provinces and territories, and support Elections Canada, to register young Canadians as a part of their high school curriculum. Support voter registration as part of a civic ceremony in high schools, support Elections Canada in proactively registering Canadians from groups that historically have lower voter turnout.


Evidence-based decision-making.
Allow government scientists to speak freely about their work, with only limited and publicly stated exceptions. Consolidate government science so that it is easily available to the public at-large through a central portal. Gag was removed Friday
Make Statistics Canada fully independent with a mandate to collect data needed by the private sector, other orders of government etc, etc. Strengthened Statistics Canada to make available more detailed labour market information, child development data,
and statistics on natural capital.
Immediately restore the mandatory long-form census. This was done within 24 hours of being sworn in, details to follow!


Better Service for Canadians.
Introduce a significant overhaul of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) operating practices to proactively contact Canadians when they are entitled to, but are not, receiving tax benefits; offering to create returns for clients, particularly lower income Canadians.
Combat international tax evasion; and ending the CRA political harassment of charities, as well as clarifying rules to affirm the important role that charities play in developing and advocating for public policy in Canada.
Create a Prime Minister’s Youth Advisory Council, consisting of young Canadians aged 16-24, to provide non-partisan advice to the Prime Minister on issues the country
is facing
Create a single window for all government services, and work with the provinces and territories on ways to combine online access efforts. Create individualized, secure accounts for Canadians who want to access all of their government benefits and other services.
Mobilize the experience and knowledge of Canadians using evolving technologies and incorporate their input into our decisions.


Security and oversight.
Create an all-party national security oversight committee to monitor and oversee the operations of every government department and agency with national security responsibilities.

The above is a very shortened summary of the Liberal document “A Fair and Open Government” which see for more details. 
  Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Like Lemmings off a Cliff

Canadians who have been taking notice will be aware that C51, the police state law, has past 3^rd reading in the house and now goes before the Senate for final reading. It will come as no surprise that the Conservatives vote en-block for the bill for even if some of them had actually read the bill and had reservations they dare not vote except as directed by the PMO if they wished to remain in caucus. It is not surprising that the NDP all voted against this deeply flawed bill for it hard to see how any who care about individual freedoms could vote for it, whether or not they were directed to vote thus is unknown.


What I find mind blowing is that the Liberal vote en-block FOR the bill, we know that they are afraid of being branded pro-terrorist by the Con spin machine but how is it that not one, not a single Liberal MP. voted against this legislation, are they also in fear of loosing their jobs if they actually use their own brains and vote as their conscience dictates. One would think at least some of these MPs had sufficient concerns about this bill and its lack of oversight provisions to vote against it, but not apparently enough to challenge the group think!


It is this group think that I want to bring to your attention in this post, it is of course nothing new, it is in fact standard practice. If one looks at how they vote on the fine website openparliament.ca you will be hard put to find a piece of legislation where our MPs actually vote as individuals not as directed by their party whip. This to me highlights one of the problem with our current parliamentary system, the political partys have too much power over those that we elect to represent us. We all understand that as a member of that party and being elected under that partys banner they will agree with and follow the BROAD interpretation of their partys platform and ideology, but this group think when it comes to voting in the house does the public and the individual MP a grave disservice.


Taken to its logical conclusion we may as well just vote for the leaders or the party (which many, if not most, citizens do already) and let them debate the bills (they would then have to read their own speaking notes) and save the millions we spend on electing and paying individual MPs. The Leader with the most votes would have the final say and be able to dictate legislation .......... OH WAIT thats sorta like the system we have now!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Your Information is in the Mail

I see a Con MP is proposing to increase the $5 fee for an Access to Information Request which given what Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault says may at first seem like a reasonable idea.


"We need more investigators, and it is not my office that is in a crisis, it is the fact that Canadians' right to access government information is in jeopardy, that is the real issue," Legault said. "Because my office is underfunded to such an extent that we can't investigate their complaint in a timely manner, their rights are being thwarted." 


However as a number of observers have said not only is access to information a citizens right, it is essential in a democracy, and perhaps the problem is more the need for such a system due to the lack of information being freely shared by the current regime. Or more accurately deliberately hidden!  Then there is this.......


The commissioner said a bigger fee would not help with the financial problems she faces. Money from access to information fees currently goes to general revenues, not Legault's office.
Another effort to build that magical 'surplus' to be spent buying votes perhaps?


And talking of access to information here is another little detail I would like to know... Who paid for that fancy double sided, full colour, glossy, unaddressed, bulk mailed Christmas card from my local MP? Was it out of the MPs own pocket (LOL), his office budget (the taxpayer), the 'Queens Printers' (the taxpayer) or the did it come out of the Party coffers (not probable). Was it mailed under the 'free mail' privileges that MPs enjoy or was Canada Post paid separately (or at all) for bulk mail delivery? All I know that it came in a 'House of Commons' envelope and would have cost somewhere around $100,000 or more to print and distribute to all the households in this riding. If all our MPs did this thats around $50 million spent on Christmas greetings.....nice, but what a waste of money no matter who paid for it.


Here's a thought, every piece of mail from an MP, and in particular those printed or issued from the 'Queens printer” should contain the line “Printed by xxx and paid for by xxx” and and indicate if the mailing costs were picked up by the taxpayer with a 'stamp' showing if mailed under the parliamentary mailing privilege.


“The House covers the cost of printing newsletters, commonly known as “householders”, sent by the Member to all constituents. Members have free mailing privileges to send out householders and other materials. [335]  These mailing privileges are often referred to as “franking” privileges. “Franking” is the process by which Members of the House of Commons, by affixing their signatures to an addressed piece of mail, may have that mail delivered postage-free anywhere in the country. It is available only for mail that is addressed to places in Canada and may not be used for parcels, special delivery or other special services offered by Canada Post. “


We know that this privilege has been abused in the past but few of us really know who is paying for what and exactly what is being classed as “a householder”, marking such mail with its source would make things 'open and accountable' so I don’t expect it would fly in Ottawa!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Vitriolic nastiness does not breed respect.

Stephen Lewis , the former Ontario NDP leader, United Nations ambassador and lifelong human rights advocate recently took aim at the “pre-paleolithic Neanderthals” in office and their role in the decline of Parliament, the suppression of dissent, the plight of First Nations, their blinkered climate-change policy and our plummeting world status.
That his words have been picked up by numerous newspapers and bloggers this week makes it no less important that his assessment of the Harper Regime be repeated here, they are words that need repeating time and time again.

Lewis told the Symons Lecture on the future of confederation: that Canada’s world standing is in free fall, the Harper government’s contempt for Parliament and its traditions has degraded political life and fostered voter cynicism and that its attitude to aboriginals is not paternalistic, it is racist. Also that Harper’s refusal to join the rest of the world and move toward renewable energy sources is endangering future generations and contributing to a looming planetary meltdown and that civil society and the ideas it fosters have been slapped down and censored, subverting democratic norms.

In comparing the current atmosphere in Ottawa to that of the Ontario legislature when he served there during William Davis years he said that there was then a respect in that chamber and that it was fostered by the premier.

“Vitriolic nastiness in debate does not breed respect, nor does adolescent partisanship, nor do pieces of legislation of encyclopedic length that hide contentious issues, nor does the sudden emergence of frenzied TV attack ads, nor does the spectre of a Prime Minister’s Office exercising authoritarian control.”Stephen Lewis

Another more recent politician who's scars from some of that “vitriolic nastiness” are still relatively fresh says that in his opinion there is no longer any expectation in politics of debating the message but just attacks upon the messenger


Michael Ignatieff says “I went into politics thinking that, if I made arguments in good faith, I’d get a hearing. It’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s wrong. In five and a half years in politics up north, no one really bothered to criticize my ideas, such as they were. It was never my message that was the issue. It was always the messenger.”
"They will not attack what you say, so much as your right to say anything at all.........”

He goes on to praise those that still come to work every day in the face of such abuse, which in any other place would be subject to numerous allegations of personal defamation or workplace harassment.

“The worst of them—the careerists and predators—you find in all professions. The best of them were a credit to democracy. They knew the difference between an adversary and an enemy, knew when to take half a loaf and when to insist on the whole bakery, knew when to trust their own judgment and when to listen to the people.
As I learned while watching wiser colleagues than I in a democratic legislature, it is really something in life to be utterly disabused about human motive, venality, capacity for double-crossing, and yet still come to work every day, trying to get something done.”

I start to wonder who would subject themselves to these working conditions and is this why we have so few honest, principled and truly dedicated MPs in the house. Unless you are one of those people, as Mr Ignatieff puts it, 'with outsized ambition, have a sense of vocation, a belief that something must be done, that you can make life better for a lot of people' why would you bother. Or is it just a place for those with an overblown desire for glory and fame?


Certainly the quality of the leadership, the respect for both democracy and opposing views, and in many cases the honesty of those charged with representing us in the Legislature seems to be diminishing daily. I can only hope that Stephen Lewis's 'possibility' becomes to pass – but somehow I dont see it happening any time soon, if ever!


“Somewhere in my soul, I cherish the possibility of a return to a vibrant democracy, where equality is the watchword, where people of different ideological conviction have respect for each other, where policy is debated rather than demeaned, where the great issues of the day are given thoughtful consideration, where Canada’s place on the world stage is seen as principled and laudatory, where human rights for all is the emblem of a decent civilized society.” Stephen Lewis


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

.........Democracy Under Fire?

"The objective of these attacks was to instil fear and panic in our country, as I said yesterday, Canadians will not be intimidated. Here we are, in our seats, in our chamber, in the very heart of our democracy." Stephen Harper in the House of Commons Thursday October 23^rd.

This phrase has been much in the headlines and repeated by many both inside and outside the halls of power and was much in evidence during the 'crisis' by news anchors and the like trying to fill in time whist they waited for real information to emerge. I take a little bit on an issue with this.

Parliament may be the symbolic home of our democracy but the true heart of democracy rests with the citizens across this vast country. It is entrusted in those individuals that we elect to protect and enhance it who meet in that place to hold the current government, no matter what particular flavor it currently enjoys, to account and to participate in the process of deciding upon the rules by which out society lives by. It is those citizens who make sure that they take the time to select those individuals who are placed before us as possible representatives every few years. It is within those that take notice of the debates and decisions emerging from 'that place' and make their views know as best they can to an ever less receptive group of politicians. The heart of a country’s democracy lays within its citizens, whether they look after it or not is another matter entirely.

NO the parliament building is NOT the heart of our democracy, if it burnt to the ground tomorrow would our democracy die? I sure hope not, and do not believe it would. It matters not WHERE our parliamentarian meet, it matter that they DO meet and that they are able to represent our views in an open forum where all such views are respected and taken into account. Such open debate is going to be of particular importance in the upcoming day and weeks as the above representatives consider what action to take to reduce the vulnerability of our important physical infrastructure to such incursion as happened Wednesday and to identify individuals with the mindset to do such things.

These nutcases are not necessary 'terrorists', just because they 'terrorized' parliamentary individuals, is that any different from gangs that 'terrorize' neighbourhoods in our large cities, randomly killing those that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are parliamentarians and their staff any different from a family living in a less than secure neighbourhood in Toronto? No, they are as Elizabeth May said in the House on Thursday "At a very basic level, we are nothing more than human beings who at a very fundamental level care for each other," and probably actually more secure that those living in some of those neighbourhoods, this is not to say that they should not be alert for those that would use force to make their views known.

All this brings me to the 'heart' of the matter which is given the events of Wednesday there must obviously be in increase in security of the Parliament Building and probably other such Federal and Provincial locations and finding a balance between security and public access will be difficult. The other side of the coin is the need to identify those who are inclined to use guns, bombs, physical force or destruction of property to make their point, or simply become infamous. These mentally 'challenged' people are not all 'terrorists', we know Harper thinks they can be environmentalists or almost any other group that opposes some of his dictatorial omnibus legislation. It is as both Ms May and MR Trudeau alluded to necessary that our legislators do not 'over react'.

“It is my profound wish that we remain calm, determine all the facts and not make any assumptions. Today is not a day that ‘changes everything.’ It is a day of tragedy. We must ensure we keep our responses proportionate to whatever threat remains.
This senseless, horrifying attack has shaken all of us who work in Parliament, but we stand together, strengthened in our resolve to uphold the values of peace and democracy upon which our country was founded.”
Elizabeth May

“We will remember who we are.  We are proud democracy, a welcoming and peaceful nation and a country of open arms and open hearts.  We are a nation of fairness, of justice and of the rule of law.  We will not be intimidated into changing that.
If anything, these are the values and principles to which we must hold on even tighter.  Our dedication to democracy and to the institutions we have built is the foundation of our society and a continued belief in both will guide us correctly into the future.  Staying true to our values in a time of crisis will make us an example to the world.”
Justin Trudeau

I have not commented upon the specific incidences that took place on parliament hill here, there is more than enough opinion out there on that, as a blogger on democracy I do not believe that this incident, in and of its self, has much to do with our democracy, it is the reaction by government and others that will impact our democratic system, and our rights and freedoms.
I just know that if legislation to bring such measures as may be deemed necessary into force is not debated without closure being enforced, and is not supported by a majority of all parliamentarians, not just those enamoured with Stephen Harper and his war on terror, then it is no less an attack on democracy than that which some say occurred on Wednesday. The danger to democracy lays not with lone gunmen upset over the inability to get a passport but with those within government who constantly use the parliamentary system designed to protect democracy to erode it.

The danger is perhaps best highlighted by the Conservatives tabling of yet another Omnibus Budget (in this case running to 458 pages!) on the day after the normal House of Commons routine was disrupted by the above events. We can be almost certain that this too will be forced through the House with limited debate and total disregard for any amendments proposed by the opposition parties.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

And so it starts......

The first volleys in the election war to come that is, we have our 'fearless leader' “protecting Canadians” by sending a few planes and a handful of personnel over to Iran to drop a few bombs on the terrorist hordes. We have the first of many more to come promises designed to buy your votes next year with an increase in the 'sports deduction' for kids and an indication of where the advertising campaign is going to go.

The Harper government is preparing to alter copyright law in Canada so politicians can use news footage and other journalistic content for attack ads and campaign spots without asking broadcasters or publishers for permission.

CTV News, citing a memo to cabinet, reported Wednesday night that the government has been working on a new “copyright exception for political advertising” that would be inserted into a budget implementation bill.

'Inserted into an OMNIBUS budget bill' that should probably read, what copyright provisions have to do with budget legislation is hard to say except that this would allow the use of large swaths of MSM news and opinion to be used without compensation.

The cabinet memo says the proposed copyright exception “would allow free use of ‘news’ content in political advertisements intended to promote or oppose a politician or political party, or a position on a related issue.”

Heritage Minister Shelly Glover had this to say.....

“Major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians,’’ she said. “We believe that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the (copyright) law and if greater certainty is necessary, we will provide it.’’

Translation for those who do not understand Doublespeak
The networks should be forced to broadcast our daily serving of BS from the PMO but we reserve the right to use out of context clips of opposition leaders to produce personal attacks on them for said propaganda. The opposition will not be able to use similar clips of us as all public appearance by our leader and his followers are carefully scripted and no unscripted interactions with the press will be permitted.


Once again I expect this to go to the Supreme Court of Canada (as is the UnFair Elections Act) if it goes through, that is after all the ONLY recourse anyone has against this regimes ongoing war against Canadians of all kinds who are not on Harpers 'friends' list.

This past May, major broadcasters including CTV, CBC, Global and Rogers sent a letter to all federal and provincial parties serving notice that they would no longer “accept any political advertisement which uses our content without our express authorization.”

“Any government which asserts unlimited access to the airwaves for propaganda purposes is more than into chronic copyright infringement. In some academic opinion, that could be seen as flirting with fascism.”

No doubt the opposition will ask questions about this in the House but getting an honest answer is like trying to squeeze toothpaste back in the tube. Rick Mercer summed it up nicely this week in his latest 'Rant”.

We have gotten to the point now where if you ask this government any question on any issue, domestic or international, they will tell you, "We stand with Israel.” You ask a cabinet minister directions to the closest washroom they will tell you, "We stand with Israel.” Which personally I believe does a disservice to Israel. But that is the situation we find ourselves in. 

He then has a suggestion as to how to proceed with replacing the Con Speaker with a less partisan face.....

May I suggest the job of Speaker, a job that comes with a minister's salary, a staff, a car, a driver, a house in the country where deer gambol on the lawn. Yes, they gambol. And we replace the Speaker with a bag of flour with a smiley face drawn on the front with a sharpie. What's the worst thing that could happen? Questions will go unanswered--rudeness will prevail.

Questions will go unanswered--rudeness will prevail ..... and democracy will continue to suffer until this Regime is removed from power!



Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

MPs Obstructed, Undermined and Impeded!

Recently Green Party Leader Elizabeth May spoke to her fellow MP's and the Speaker of The House regarding the governments ever increasing practice of limiting debate upon important legislation before The House. She contends that the rights of her and her colleagues in parliament have been “obstructed, undermined and impeded” and that “constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House” by this practice. It is hard to disagree with that assessment.

What follows are a few extracts from her presentation which I recommend you read in full and may be viewed on her MP Web Site.

“I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.”

“The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.”

“It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.
The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.”

“As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.
Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.”

“In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function.”

“To hold the government to account is the raison d’être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation’s business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function.”

“Denying the members’ rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d’être of Parliament and of the Speaker’s function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.
In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.”

Indeed, if any of those whom we elect to represent our interests in The House are denied the opportunity to speak to a piece of legislation then the very basis of our Parliamentary Democracy is substantially diminished.
Cross posted at Bruce Grey Owen Sound Greens






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Essential Reading for Democracy.

There have been a number of articles highlighting former Conservative MP Mr. Rathgeber’s new book Irresponsible Government: The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada in recent days. That he outlines the tight control that the PMO exercises over the Conservative MP's is hardly a surprise given that he quit the Conservative caucus over having his private members bill nixed by them, however such concerns by those who sit, of have sat, in the House are not new.

“Mr. Rathgeber, twice elected as a Conservative before quitting caucus last year, outlines how MPs have seen their powers fade away, reduced to “cheer-leading and barking on command” while the PMO has grown stronger over decades, under Mr. Harper and his predecessors, with little oversight.”

Indeed if we take a look at some of the exit interviews conducted by Samara, the democracy measurement people, we will see a great deal of concern about how much 'control' the party brass and the PMO has over those we have elected to look after OUR concerns. It is unfortunate that so few of them do not speak out untill AFTER they have retired from politics, perhaps the following gives a clue, they are more interested in not loosing their perks that in returning the institution to what it was intended to be - “a body in which the Prime Minister is only the first among EQUALS!

“The book offers a glimpse into the tightly controlled Conservative caucus, where backbenchers are given little say and punished – a relocated office, a less desirable committee, the cancelling of travel junkets – for stepping out of line. Mr. Rathgeber was formerly an Alberta MLA under Premier Ralph Klein, whose caucus voted on bills before they were tabled, he writes. Under Mr. Harper, the Conservative caucus is more of a pep rally and doesn’t include votes. Instead, there are “caucus advisory committees” open to Conservative MPs – but their meeting schedules aren’t published, Mr. Rathgeber writes.”

All this is old news, there is one MP who has been warning us of the fragility of our democracy and of the dangers of centralizing power in the PMO for years. Elizabeth May wrote the book on the Crisis In Canadian Democracy back in 2009 before she was elected to the House, her book Losing Confidence: Power, Politics And The Crisis In Canadian Democracy serves to outline how little has been done over the ensuing years to stop the decline.


You may compare her book with Tragedy In The Commons, by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan (of Samara), all these book detail a parliamentary system that is in deep trouble in large part due to the thirst for absolute power by political parties of all stripes and the gradual elimination or disregard of any rules that may limit their power.


There is one small glimmer of hope in the about to be voted upon 'The Reform Act' which was introduced nine months ago as a private member’s bill by Conservative MP Michael Chong. It is far from all that is needed but is a tiny step in the right direction, you may find out more about it over at Samara and send letters to your MP to support it via LeadNow. Unfortunately Mr Chong is proposing even further weakening of the legislation presumably to make it more palatable for his Con colleagues.


I will leave you with this though from Mr Rathgeber in referring to some recent events concerning the PMO
“Leaders lead, they do not perpetually search for scapegoats,”
One might add that good leaders protect democracy not destroy it!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Undemocratic Election Act

“The things in it that are good could have been so much better, but the things that are bad are unforgivable in a democracy.”

Recently Green Party Leader Elizabeth May had an opportunity to speak to the Commons Committee considering Bill C23, The 'Fair' Elections Act. What follows are some extracts from that presentation, for a full transcript and audio of that speech please go the her MPs website.


Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-23 today. I want to pause and say that when we have these rushed processes with closure on debate and an abbreviated time to look at a critical bill, it is rare for me to have a speaking opportunity. Therefore, I want to thank the Liberal Party for giving me a speaking slot today........

We need reform. We need a fair elections act. We need to deal with the unhealthy level of hyper-partisanship, the non-stop attack ads, and the fact that we have not gotten to the bottom of the robocall scandal of the last election. However, this bill is not it.........

A lot of things now pass for political prowess, for which anyone who loves democracy should hang their head in shame and be condemned from ever standing for election again. This is not about every party getting out and urging everyone to vote, as we have heard people from across the aisle say all day. Over and over again, we have examples of efforts to do exactly the opposite. I am afraid this bill is in that spirit of reducing voter turnout..........

I do not really think it is a problem to create a commissioner for elections who operates out of the office of public prosecutions. I see that as an independent place. The problem is the government has not given that office any tools. It has not given that officer subpoena powers. What is worse is, for some reason, it has created a “black box” surrounding the work. It would amend the Access to Information Act to remove, from access to information, anything going on in the work of the commissioner for Canada’s elections. They would also remove in the Elections Act the requirement to give any information about investigations..........

(T)he bill also includes a big new loophole for the spending of money. It now will not be considered an elections expense to spend money on activities that are considered fundraising for nomination candidates. That is an open door to abuse.
What is the worst part of this bill? This cuts to the core of democracy. This is a charter issue. I turn to a most recent statement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the right of Canadians to vote.........
The right of every citizen to vote, guaranteed by s. 3 of the Charter, lies at the heart of Canadian democracy....... Our system strives to treat candidates and voters fairly, both in the conduct of elections and in the resolution of election failures. As we have discussed, the Act seeks to enfranchise all entitled persons,…
A voter can establish Canadian citizenship verbally, by oath.
That cannot happen any more, not with this bill........

We need to do everything possible to restore faith among the Canadian public in the health of our democratic system, and this bill takes us in the absolute wrong direction. Why would a governing party do this? Why is there such a rush to disenfranchise Canadians? Is there an election coming right away that we do not know about? Do we have to have all these new rules in place for first nations, seniors, young people, the poor, and the groups that advocate for those parts of our society that are more disenfranchised by having to produce government-issued photo IDs? Is that the point?
I am baffled and appalled and deeply shocked and troubled by this bill. The things in it that are good could have been so much better, but the things that are bad are unforgivable in a democracy.
Elizabeth May, 11 Feb 2014

There is not much that this lowly blogger can add to the words of someone as knowledgeable about parliamentary procedures and dedicated to the protection of our democracy as Ms May, but to say that it is a sad reflection of where our democracy has descended to when a parliamentarian, and a leader of a political party, has to rely upon the goodwill of another party in order to address a parliamentary committee. That the subject matter is fundamental to the democracy of our Country and that debate upon said bill has already been restricted says much about exactly about how much respect that the current regime has for our parliamentary democracy and the traditions of free debate and open and accountable government.
As for real electoral reform and any kind of move towards a more representative system of electing those parliamentarians, or even a study of such changes, there is not even a mention of it in this bill.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

2014 – The year we 'loose' our democracy?

Whilst some say that it is already gone and that we are being subject to an Oligarchy well on its way to a Dictatorship, a view that I find it hard to argue against, there is still hope. The recent push back by a small number of Conservative MP's gives me a little hope, Michael Chong’s introduction of a private members bill to limit leaders’ powers is one such small step, Bruce Hyer's brave & principled step to quit the NDP caucus due to being forced to vote as dictated by the party whip and more recently to join the Greens (the only party to truly respect and promote true democracy) are small steps in the right direction.

The Green party leader, Elizabeth May has long been quite vocal regarding the threats to out democracy and continues to be so, she recently said “We are on a slippery slope to the loss of our democracy,” Power is now so concentrated in the Prime Minister’s Office and its unelected staff members, says May, that Canadian democracy already resembles “a dictatorship punctuated by elections.”
She goes on to say that this must become a ballot-box issue in the 2015 campaign if things are not going to get much worse. What future prime minister is likely to arrive in office and start worrying that he or she has too much power, she asks. Indeed it has been seen before on many issues that the mainstream political partys will promise the world just to get elected but many of those promises fall by the wayside one in power, particularly if the have a majority in parliament. The current regime is particularly guilty in this regard, remember that open and accountable promise?!

Eminent political scientist Peter Russell even made a YouTube video during the 2011 election campaign, warning voters not to reward the Conservatives’ disregard for democracy. “If the Harper Conservatives were to win a majority in the House of Commons, it would be an indication that parliamentary crime pays,” said Russell, an emeritus University of Toronto academic and a respected constitutional expert, who’s not known for overstatement. Indeed anyone who is taking notice knows that the conservatives have no compunction with 'bending the rules' be it during an election with questionable spending or false calls to electors aimed at changing the outcome in their flavor. The same kind of disrespect for democratic process is seen almost daily in the House of Commons, in the Senate and more particularly in Committee deliberations.
There is a more recent promise that the Cons will keep that being the promise to balance the budget prior to the 2015 election, strange how the same people who spent a massive surplus away in a few months when first coming to power and thus having little to spare during that 'downturn' brought on by the banking speculators are suddenly able to spend so much less. If we look at how they are doing this it become obvious that it is purely a political ploy and nothing to do with maintaining or improving the Canadian way of life.
It is of course being done at the expense of the environment, scientific research, social support organizations, the reputation of Canada world wide and even the spirit of cooperation between provincial governments and the Feds. All this so that they have money to promise that they will reinstate 'services' to selected portions of the population who are more likely to vote for them and to spend on promotion of their pet Alberta centric mostly foreign owned industry that is going to be the 'economic engine' of Canada. Good luck with that, the economic engine of China more like and Canada will be left with the cleaning bill! Me, cynical, your kidding eh!

The other thing that I have difficulty with and which I do not see any other of the big three changing much is those 'free trade' deals that are in the works with the Pacific nations and with Europe. As with NAFTA the 'negotiations' are carried on behind closed doors with no parliamentary input but with many 'advisers' from industry no doubt in the loop who are much more concerned with their profits than whether it will benefit Canadians. What has leaked out tells us that our very right to hire who we want or to buy equipment and goods from local or Canadian suppliers for Municipal, Provincial or Federally funded projects is being compromised by 'investor state' clauses withing these 'agreements'. What else is agreed to that will only benefit the multinationals that are bent upon controlling our access to everything we use or eat we will not know until long after the deals are jammed down out throats.

That such deals can get to this point without any details being given to our 'representatives' in the House let alone letting us know what is being given away in the name of increased international trade is to me but one more indication of how little government in general cares about the average Canadians opinion outside of an election period. Unfortunately that goes for most, if not all, governments provincial, federal or world wide for that matter, and the only thing we can do is try to change the system to make them more accountable. As Ms May says we must get firm promises regarding electoral and parliamentary reform from all the partys and their candidates BEFORE the next election and then do everything in our power to see that those promises are kept. I do think if enough folks make this their priority we can get the promises..... keeping them? Now that’s a different problem!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Quantity not Quality

Quantity not Quality is apparently the Harper regimes measure of 'success' Mr. Van Loan recently extolled the virtues of the 34-day fall session, which started late because of prorogation and was adjourned early. He said 2013 was the most productive year on record, with 40 bills receiving Royal Assent. “ “That’s something we can all be proud of. It shows how Parliament is working better than ever right now,” he said.


So it seems that passing bills that have had debate curtailed or where the Harper regime has dictated that “their” MP's shall vote for it regardless of their constituents wishes is 'parliament working better'


Blocking committees both in the Commons and in the Senate from being able to hear from senior bureaucrats or experts on the matters being considered is 'parliament working better'


Designating a spokesclown to make a mockery of question period by answering questions with disrespectful nonsense is 'parliament working better'


Reducing the ability of independent and minority MP's to amend legislation at the committee stage is 'parliament working better'


Enabling the PMO to interfere with senate business and dictating both the subject and the outcome of investigation “without the Prime Minister knowing” is 'parliament working better'


Jamming hundreds of pieces of unrelated legislation into omnibus budget bills, refusing to split it so that fuller debate can take place and then forcing final vote on it all is 'parliament working better'


Making agreements with foreign governments which give them more rights over our industries and resources than Canadian companies and citizens without any parliamentary consultation is 'parliament working better'


Spending millions on self promoting TV advertising extolling the virtues of the oil industry whist simultaneously cutting funding for environmental monitoring and scientific research is 'parliament working better'


Doing every thing possible to block the investigation by parliamentarians and Elections Canada into electoral fraud during the last election is 'parliament working better'


Failing to replace the Parliamentary Budget Officer with an independent full time knowledgeable individual is 'parliament working better'


I fully expect the next thing we will be told is that abolishing the Senate and recalling Parliament for a week before the summer break and perhaps a couple of days in the fall will be 'parliament working better', after all those pesky opposition members who represent some 60% or more of Canadians just make it more difficult to ram through our agenda so why bother to consult with then at all!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers