Senate Reform Redux

With a small minority of senators under the spotlight for spending irregularities and the Duffy trial adding a further spotlight on how the unprincipled nominated to that body can cheat the system (such as it is) there are the predictable calls for it to be abolished. NDP leader Thomas Mulclair is one such individual, he has said that if elected he will consult with the Premiers to try and come to an agreement to do so, I call this simply political expediency! He knows full well that it will be almost impossible to obtain the unanimous consent of all provinces plus the majority of the House and the Senate required to abolish this institution. He also says that he has yet to meet anyone who does not support his position on this...... what bloody nonsense! I wish politicians would not lie to make their point, whilst there are no doubt many folks that subscribe to his point of view on this some of us look at it in a somewhat more practical way and want major reform, clearly defined rules, and a non partisan way of selecting senators.


My own particular opposition to the elimination of the senate stems a great deal from the Harper Regime's actions regarding legislation since they have had a majority, whilst we know that they have a majority in both the House and the Senate and thus have basically forced bills through with little debate and no regard for the many thoughtful amendments put forward in both houses the senate has at least added to the discussion and given a little time for “second thought”. Imagine if there were no Senate and a majority government (of any stripe), what then would be the restraint upon an ideological government such as the one we have now from ramming through self serving or clearly anti-Canadian or pro foreign corporation legislation without restriction. It would bring us even closer to a dictatorship than we are now!


Although now that the brown stuff has hit the fan Harper insists that “As you know, the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses. The Senate itself commissioned the Auditor-Generals’ report and the Senate itself is responsible for responding to that report,” we know that currently that is not the case and it is for the most part a highly partisan body not known in recent years for its independent thinking.


YES, the chamber needs reform, the way of selecting members needs to be changed (Harpers choices have clearly demonstrated that) but in my view we DO need a chamber of “sober second thought”, it just that right now we have a chamber of partisan appointees some of whom have no regard for either the taxpayer or the need for the independence of the senate. I have said before on these pages that the best solution (without reopening the can of worms that opening the constitution would involve) is to have the PM voluntarily select Senators from a short list provided by the provinces, it seems that Brian Mulroney agrees with me (or I agree with him, that would be a first!). I all so happen to agree with him that some kind of independent panel / commission needs to review and establish some set rules for the way the Senate operates. As with the Liberal proposal to “create a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad, and diverse process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments” the problem will be of course who appoints the panel and will Parliament and the Senate adopt any rules proposed?


One final word on this, if we were to do away with any government institution that broke the rules, whose members spent public moneys with little or no oversight and who set their own rules as and when they thought fit, then the PMO, the House of Commons and the Conservative caucus in particular would be high on my list. Last year, when Green Party Leader Elizabeth May proposed the AG come look at MPs’ books, Tory MPs vetoed her request however now all parties say they are open to the idea but have yet to actually request said audit!


Its not the Senate (or the House of Commons) thats the problem, its those self righteous appointees that are in it who have no moral compass and who do not understand the word ethical!
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

Electoral Reform – Personal Perspective

After more than 5 years of writing about our declining democracy and having several times reviewed the options open to us should we ever get a government in power willing to put the issue of voting reform before the people I am now going to try and spell out my own wishes in this regard. Such wishes must be tempered by some practical considerations, wishing for things that simply are never going to happen is an exercise in futility – perhaps this whole series on Electoral Reform should be filed under that heading!


I will start by reiterating that I do not support Proportional Representation without reservation, I do support SOME PR systems and prefer even FPTP over others. Nor do I pretend that my personal preferences are the only option or better than any other point of view, such thinking is more divisive than helpful in this 'debate'. First some general concerns and considerations that form the basis of my thoughts on this.


Any system adopted should make the elected representative more accountable to the electorate and less under the control of any particular party apparatus, it should not disproportionally flavor larger partys over smaller ones or individual independent candidates. The use of the popular vote to elect Mps or who holds power should not leave minority populations such as rural areas or smaller provinces unrepresented in other ways. In our large and diverse Country we must be aware that just because an area of the country is particularly sparsely populated and other areas are densely populated should not mean that the latter should have total sway over the former as to selecting our government. This is at present ensured to some extent by both the constitutional requirements of minimal representation for the smaller provinces and our system of representation by area ridings.


Given the above I immediately reject STV (as previously proposed in BC) which created much larger 'ridings' with multiple representatives, this may be acceptable in large urban areas where riding are physically small and those elected would still be 'close to' their constituents but in less populated areas such 'ridings' would comprise 100s of square miles with no guarantee that those elected would even be within reasonable travelling distance of some communities. Nor is it really proportional so I see little advantage in going from bad to worse with this one.


My Choices.....
I previously supported MMP in that it enables the voter to select the best local representative and their choice of party to govern separately. We have all wished for that and it would reduce the 'strategic voting' dilemma. I still would prefer this over FPTP but have some real concerns about how the 'extra' Mps (needed to give the new government the numbers of seats reflected in the popular vote) would be selected and to whom they would be answerable to and represent.


I do like the AV system for selecting our local representative, the instant runoff system whereby our second and subsequent choices ensure that no single candidate is elected with less than 50% of the vote seems to me much more equitable. As I said before more voters would be 'somewhat satisfied' with the results and voters could (if they so desired) vote for the best candidate and preferred party candidate with their first and second choices. The strategic voting dilemma would be all but eliminated with this system. It is not truly 'proportional' but would I believe be a very good first step towards Electoral Reform and perhaps more acceptable to PR proponents AND FPTP supporters, a compromise perhaps, not something that political types are well known for!


Finally I recently found out about the system proposed by the Commission charged with suggesting a new system for elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom called AV Plus which is a combination of Alternative Vote and MMP. The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) uses the Alternative Vote (in which voters rank candidates in order of preference) to elect a candidate in each constituency, and then uses a small top-up list to make the overall result more proportional. Voters can then either select their favourite party or choose their favourite candidate from the top-up list and the votes are then allocated to represent each party’s share of the votes proportionally.


The only problem with this system is once again as with MMP how the 'list of top up candidates is preselected and to who they are accountable. As far as I can see this is the problem with ANY PR system where the electorate does not directly elect ALL of the Mps. In every case it creates two classes of Mps which in my view is problematic, I am not against PR but it is not in my view the ultimate fix that some proponents seem to think it is. I do note that with some of the above the counting of ballots and selection of candidates becomes more complex and that the use of tabulating machines would probably be desirable in all but the smallest polls if speedy results are desired.


Getting there......
One of my readers has been aggressively pushing his view of how we should select a new voting system in the comment section of this series calling for a “3 option referendum” between FPTP, AV/RBV and PR and “If PR is on the final round, the two main PR options can be put on the ballot: MMP or STV.” In other comments he says that “If a citizens' assembly chooses some arbitrary form of PR for Canadians, Canadians will reject it as they did in ON, BC & PEI. Then PR is toast. “ He seems to think that the Liberal and Green Party stated position of having a committee (of either citizens or Mps ) come up with recommendations is somehow 'undemocratic' and “ will destroy all hope of bringing real democracy to Canada” It is IMHO impossible in a practicable sense to give the voters a choice without pre-selecting at least SOME of the options and an all party/ citizens assembly mix would seem to be the best option to do this no matter what eventually emerges on the ballot.


Even though I have previously raised the possibility of a multiple choice referendum I have several problems with the above, will the voters be 'confused' by having more than the choice of yes or no for one preselected system and if PR is chosen what will be then put before the electorate as a possible system – MMP & STV are not the only systems of PR and there are many variation within these two systems – and how many citizens would show up for a second vote withing a few weeks?
Another reader suggests that 'run off 'elections would be the answer “if no candidate in a given riding gets 50% plus one, then a second round of voting is held a week later in that riding.” Given our already low and declining turnout at election time the same concern would be an issue for that suggestion also.


I would suggest that if a party that comes to power proposes to 'study' this issue with a view to putting some kind of choice before the citizens in a referendum then we had best encourage them and not be too picky as to the process, any choice is better than no choice. I am concerned that there is adequate public input and education prior to any such referendum which is unlikely to take place before 2019 with even the most optimistic view of things. I am increasingly more concerned with getting some Parliamentary reform given the way in which the Harper Regime is running roughshod over so many parliamentary 'traditions' and arbitrarily changing the rules to suit themselves. The power of the PMO must be curbed no matter who is in power, Electoral Reform without Parliamentary Reform is all but futile if we wish to save our democracy.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral Reform – The Parties Position

Its sometimes hard to see where the parties stand on any particular issue given the hype, bafflegab and spin that issues from almost all of them at times and the ever changing positions taken depending upon their position in the polls or whether they are in power or not. As far as I can tell the following is their current position on Electoral Reform.


Trudeau is a supporter of a preferential ballot, having made it a plank of his leadership platform.
Liberals say they will launch all-party consultations on reform. The party passed a resolution at its convention earlier this year that said a Liberal government would launch an all-party consultation on reforming the electoral system, including looking at a preferential ballot.


Specifically
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Liberal Party pursue political reforms which promote:

• Open, democratic nominations of candidates;
  
• Fewer “whipped” votes in Parliament and more “free” votes requiring individual MPs to assume full responsibility for their decisions;
  
• Stronger Parliamentary control over public finances, including an annual deadline for the budget; accounting consistency among the Estimates and the Public Accounts; more clarity in voting on Estimates; a costing analysis for each government Bill; and a requirement that government borrowing plans must get Parliament’s pre-approval;
  
• A truly independent, properly resourced Parliamentary Budget Officer;
  
• A more effective Access-to-Information regime with stronger safeguards against political interference;
  
• An impartial system to identify and eliminate the waste of tax-dollars on partisan advertising;
  
• Careful limitations on secret Committee proceedings, Omnibus Bills and Prorogation to avoid their misuse for the short-term partisan convenience of the government;
  
• Adequate funding, investigative powers and enforcement authority to ensure Elections Canada can root out electoral fraud;
  
• Pro-active disclosure of parliamentarians’ expenses, a more transparent Board of Internal Economy and better audit rules;
  
• A truly independent Senate not based upon partisanship or patronage;
  

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better.




Tom Mulcair, Leader of NDP replied to a letter from the Electoral Alliance thus-
...our commitment to electoral reform was again reinforced at our 2013 NDP Convention where delegates debated and passed a resolution in support of electoral reform. ....

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal New Democratic Party reaffirm its desire to reform Canada’s electoral system by way of a system that combines proportional representation and direct election of Members of Parliament from constituencies, that is to say, through a version of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation that is adapted to Canada......



The Green Party takes a much broader view in their longstanding support for Democratic Reform simply saying that a proportional system should be considered along with parliamentary reform, a position which I personalty also favour. Given the way in which our MPs and political party’s are operating these days having one without the other will probably not change much.
Reform our voting system. Hold a national discussion on the health of our democracy, address the growing and undemocratic power of the Prime Minister’s Office and explore the options for a more meaningful electoral system. Consider the risks of “first past the post” and vote on whether it should be replaced. Consider proportional representation.


Specifically

• Establish a Public Inquiry into Democracy, with powers of a Royal Commission, to engage Canadians from coast to coast and address anti-democratic trends within Canada:
  
  • 1. The growing and unhealthy power of the Prime Minister’s Office;
    
  • 2. The lack of scope for independent action of individual MPs;
    
  • 3. The use of prorogation to avoid political embarrassment, in violation of Parliamentary practice and tradition;
    
  • 4. The abuse by the Senate of its role of “sober, second thought” in voting down bills approved by the House, as in the case in November of 2010 in their defeat without debate of Bill C-311 (the Climate Change Accountability Act);
    
  • 5. The inequity of the current voting system with a view to replacing it with a system based on proportional representation
    
  • 6. The recommendations of the Public Inquiry will be presented as options to Canadian voters.
    
• Adhere to fixed election dates permitting political stability and fair elections.
  
• Reduce the mandatory $1,000 candidate deposit to encourage more Canadians to participate in the democratic system.
  

Its difficult to find an official position of the CPC on Proportional Voting, we have seen what their idea of Electoral Reform is in the (un) Fair Election Act that was jammed through with minimal debate and only modified somewhat by intense public pressure. Nowhere in this document that I can see is there any commitment to study or move towards a different means of selecting those sitting in the House. In 1997 when in a minority position an essay penned by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan extolled the virtues of both proportional voting systems and coalition governments however once brought to power by the FPTP we have heard nothing of this, its not that they don’t know there is a better way its just that it is not currently to their political advantage to promote it at this time.


Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.
Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power. .......In most of the rest of Europe, proportional representation ensures that coalition governments routinely form cabinets.
Many of Canada’s problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. ..........Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada’s survival as a nation.


In New Zealand, which used to have a Canadian-style system of concentrated power, the voters rebelled against alternating Labour party and National party dictatorships: electoral reform now ensures coalition cabinets.


To sum it up they all at some time or another have been in flavor of electoral and or parliamentary reform but once in power it seems to fall by the wayside, will future leaders follow up upon their promises and will that lead to modernization of our voting and parliamentary systems remains to be seen. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Independent Senate – We can but hope!

“I call upon the Prime Minister to publicly commit, as I have today, to be guided in all future Senate appointments by an open, transparent, non-partisan process, and once appointed, have senators sit independent from the political parties that serve in in the House of Commons.
Justin Trudeou Jan 29 2014

By now you all know that in a surprising and brave move the Liberal leader has released all the former Liberal Senators from any connection from the Liberal Caucus saying that “only elected Members of the House of Commons will serve as members of the Liberal Caucus. “ Whilst this move is not without its problems, not the least of which is how Senate committees will be formed and chaired in the future, it is in my view probably the only way in the short term to return the Senate to its role of 'sober second thought' and reduce the extreme partisanship that has made it simply a rubber stamp of the PMO. That Mr Trudeau also says what many of us who believe the senate has in the past (and can in the future) have an important role in our parliamentary system have said for some time is also encouraging. That being:-

“I’m committing today that, if I earn the privilege of serving Canadians as their Prime Minister, I will put in place an open, transparent, non-partisan public process for appointing and confirming Senators. No more closed doors. No more secretive deliberations. No more announcements the week before Christmas, under the cover of darkness.”

There already has been a great deal of debate upon exactly what kind of process such a system will entail and no doubt there will be much more. As always the devil is in the details! We know that Harper has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule upon exactly what can and cannot be done within the existing constitutional framework and you may be sure that if he cannot hold sway over decisions in the Senate his preference would be to abolish it (as it would seem is also the preference of the NDP) so that a PM who holds a majority (preferably him of course) can have total control over legislation. Justin covers this point thusly:-

As an unelected body, there are — and ought to be — limits on the Senate’s power. These limits have expanded over time and have become conventions. These proposals are in keeping with that direction.

As you all know, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule sometime soon on the exact limits of the House of Commons power as it relates to Senate Reform. Let me be clear on this point: these proposals, while bold and concrete, are not the final word. They represent our judgment of how far we can go in the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court.

In other words, I believe this is the most meaningful action possible without opening up the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says more can be done, we will be open to doing more.

All in all despite some of the details that will need to be sorted out in both the actual operation of the Senate with no party caucuses and the way in which future Senators are selected (perhaps recommended to the PM would be a better term as under the constitution the PM must still 'appoint' the senators) this in my view a fantastic move by the Liberals. Some have already said that:-

“when (when, not if) Trudeau is Prime Minister, he will have a problem. Every single piece of legislation must pass the Upper House, the unelected side. To do that with a chamber for of independents will be hard, if not impossible. When push comes to shove, independents will flex their political muscle. They will pass nothing that they don’t approve of, Senate traditions not withstanding.”

I disagree, A senate full of independents would work EXACTLY how it was supposed to work, legislation would pass or fail entirely upon its merits rather that along partisan lines, now wouldn’t that be refreshing? Its not like should the Liberals come to power that all those Con Senators appointed by Harper will suddenly disappear, they will in fact be an undemocratic presence in the upper chamber for years to come. We hope that at least some of them will declare themselves independent and think and act independently, it would indeed be a step in the right direction, as is this brought to our attention by Nancy over at Impolitical:-


“This may be a nod to the democratic reform resolution that the federal Liberal MP caucus has proposed as one of its priority resolutions to be voted upon at the upcoming February biennial policy convention in Montreal, less than a month away now. That resolution, Bolstering Canada's Democracy, contains this operative proposal:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, the Liberal Party of Canada institute an all-Party process, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with analysis and recommendations for an electoral system including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent all Canadians more fairly and to allow Parliament to serve Canada better.

I do hope the Libs endorse this resolution.


A final note here if anyone, including Justin, thinks that Harper will willingly give up his control over the conservative senators or despite his rhetoric to do so, embrace a “open, transparent, non-partisan process” for appointing them then they are dreaming in technicolour. This will be particularly true if the Cons think they are going to be in opposition come 2015, after all we wouldn’t want any one else to be able to pass legislation through the Senate would we? Watch for a highly partisan attack upon this idea from the Harper Oligarchs.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Gift of Democracy for Christmas

For those who may not know Leadnow is “an independent advocacy organization that brings generations of Canadians together to achieve progress through democracy.” They are particularly focused upon building “a stronger democracy that protects our environment, creates economic opportunity while increasing equality”
Leadnow has become THE organization for those concerned with these things, and who cannot be, to support and become involved with and their “plan' is outlined below as distributed with their latest fund raising appeal. It is an unfortunate reality that it is going to take not only thousands of concerned citizens to spread the word to defeat the current corrupt and antidemocratic regime but also money to organize such efforts. Please consider supporting Leadnow in whatever way you can.
Here is their plan and the reason it is needed.
Connect people who want to make a difference: In the new year we’ll host kick off events and trainings to bring people together, share our plan for action and train people to organize in their communities.

2. Keep growing opposition to contain the damage: We’ve already stopped or delayed this government time and again. We’ll keep running campaigns to hold this government accountable on the issues that matter most to this community.^[4] Together, we’ll create a list of the worst damage done by this government and build a powerful campaign to get the NDP, Liberals and Greens to commit to undo that damage after the election.^[5]

3. Create a program for action on climate, democracy and inequality: We’ll ask people who didn’t vote in the last election about their concerns and see how their answers connect with the Leadnow community’s big picture goals on democracy, climate and inequality. Together we’ll create a program for action that will motivate people across the country.

4. Organize in ridings across the country: We’ll work together to get out and build support in communities across the country. We’ll focus efforts in places where a hundred, or a few thousand, votes will make the biggest difference. We’ve done a detailed analysis so we can spend money wisely.

5. Build support for crucial reforms: As we reach out to more and more Canadians and focus organizing in key ridings, we'll make sure the political parties respond to our community’s program for action on democracy, climate and inequality with strengthened commitments in their campaign platforms.

6. Cooperate, endorse or support before the next election: Before the next election, we’ll either secure local cooperation agreements between the NDP, Liberals and Greens, or we’ll find a community-driven strategy to focus support behind the key candidates in strategic ridings. We’ll work together to find the best solution.^[6]

7. Get out the vote during the election: During the next election we’ll focus our efforts on mobilizing in key ridings to inspire hundreds of thousands to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of representing their values in Parliament.

8. Undo the worst damage: After the election, we’ll work with the new government to undo some of the worst damage that’s been done in the last few years.

9. Pass crucial reforms: Now the real work begins! We’ll work together to ensure the new government passes crucial reforms to fix our broken electoral system, make Canada a climate leader and build a fair economy that reduces inequality.

As they say “This fall, Prime Minister Harper kicked off his campaign for the next Canadian federal election - and the stakes could not be higher. The question is: Will Prime Minister Harper be able to lock in his anti-democratic agenda - with all the consequences for our country and our way of life - or will Canadians come together across party lines and organize to reboot our democracy and make progress on the major challenges facing our society?”


“The Harper Conservatives are using the power of our government to stack the deck in their favour. From spending $113 million on Economic Action Plan ads to putting people like Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin into the Senate so they can charge you for expenses when they hit the Conservative fundraising circuit, the Harper Conservatives are using your money to cement their political control of your country.”


Indeed all the power and money that the Harper regime is pouring into ensuring that they and they alone will have control over the future of our country may well be successful in spinning the facts to confuse enough citizens to let them retain power under our flawed voting system which encourages conflict not cooperation. Only a realization that conflict is exactly what the Conservatives thrive on and cooperation will return us from the brink of democratic destruction will bring about change for the better.


Further information on Leadnow may be found at http://www.leadnow.ca/en/index
and you may donate to their cause here.


Lets make a gift of democracy to our children and grandchildren!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Created Crisis?

The whole debate about the reform or abolition of the senate would not be getting the attention it is currently getting were it not for the somewhat overblown concern about just three senators expense claims and Harpers request to the courts to find out if he can do away or substantially change the upper chamber without broad agreement from the provinces and Canadian taxpayers. Is this much like the “dysfunctional parliament” that said 'leader' referred to when trying to justify his decision to shut down parliament a few years ago? Is the 'crisis', as with much of the ongoing infighting in the house and in committees, something of his own making, the senators under scrutiny are after all all highly partisan conservative individuals chosen by said 'leader' and the 'cover up' seems to be centred in his office! Is the underlying aim to abolish the senate so that the PM in a majority government can have “absolute power”?
A few days before the election of 2006, when the polls showed he was about to end 13 years of Liberal government, Stephen Harper told reporters that Canadians shouldn't be uneasy at the prospect of "absolute power" for a Conservative government because it would be kept in check by senators, civil servants and judges appointed by the Liberals.
"We have no alternative but to accept the checks," he said. "They're part of our system. Judges are named. Judges can't be removed except under extraordinary circumstances."
Seven years later, the Senate and the senior ranks of the civil service are full of Harper appointees, but judges are acting as a stubborn check on Harper's absolute power, just as Harper predicted.

Indeed some of the arguments put forward to the supreme court by the government side would seem to indicate that he has little regard for due process as set down in our constitution and would prefer to simply change thing to his liking without any consultation or agreement with the provinces or the people.

It will be interesting to see how Harper reacts when the Supreme Court justices eventually tell him that he can't reform or abolish the Senate without a deal with the provinces.

It seems likely that he will see this as a communications challenge. The prime minister can't fight the Supremes, can't reform the Senate, can't lock up everybody he'd like to lock up, but he can deliver messages that press his supporters' emotional buttons, even if he can't deliver on what he has promised them.

Some of the presentations to the court were indeed as this observer notes rather outrageous.....

So the Stephen Harper government complains to the Supreme Court that the Senate is too partisan. This is the most outrageous legal argument since the fellow who killed both his parents asked for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I have said in these pages a number of times that simply asking the provinces to submit a list of candidates to the PM and him committing to choosing from that list would eliminate much of the problem with partisan and unqualified individuals and enhance the regional representation that is the basis of the senate selection process. I am not alone in seeing this simple solution!


There is no more reason to elect senators than to elect judges. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law. The purpose of the Senate as conceived by the framers is to act as a chamber of advice and consent. It is the House of Commons that has the unique task of representing the popular will, for which purpose that body does indeed need to be elected.................



How to choose them? We can look at how we select Judges. These worthies are also appointed by the PM (in effect – the Prime Minister’s Office passes on every name) but the problems are few because in almost every case the choice is made from lists drawn up by the legal communities in the various provinces – lists of people with a known and respected track record.
Let us choose senators in the same way. Let some great Prime Minister (will Mr. Harper step forward?) establish the precedent that with few exceptions, he/she will choose only from such lists. The provincial nominating bodies might be made up of members chosen by the governing and opposition parties in the local Legislature, by the municipalities, business and unions, the bar, universities and perhaps a few others. As with the court nominations, their work could be private and only for the eyes of the PM (which makes it easier for some to put forward their names), or it could be public.
This process would yield a truly respectable Senate. Yes, it would mark a diminution of the Prime Minister's patronage powers, but that would happen under the alternative of abolition in any case. We would be better to preserve and improve a truly useful advisory body.

Even Mr Harper has floated this idea but has said that he would not necessarily select from such lists which totally negates the whole idea but would of course allow the PM to continue to appoint partisan flacks. I think we all know where this one is going....absolutely nowhere, any major change will need constitutional change and that requires broad provincial support. Lets face it the Harper regime is not exactly renown for building broad support for anything and a PM that refuses to even meet with his provincial counterparts is unlikely to get a lot of cooperation in that regard.

The Senate and the House of Commons will continue to be a partisan war zone for the foreseeable future and we can but hope that a more 'cooperative' government can and will find a way to get consensus on bringing in Electoral, Parliamentary & Senate reform that will better serve the Canadian people than that which exists now.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Insidious Sickness

Canadian Democracy is sick. It has been showing alarming symptoms for some time now, they range from the inability of a large portion of our MPs to speak out without first consulting the PMO and a failure to listen to those with opposing or alternate opinions, to totally ignoring the rules and conventions built up over years of parliamentary debate and development, and a total lack of ethics and honesty. A new symptom appearing just this week is the removal of independent and small party MP's right to intervene at the report stage of proposed legislation and at the Con convention the ruling regime came out AGAINST proportional representation and for 'riding equality' whatever that means!

Other symptoms include the starvation of many government departments essential for the well being of the country, environment & science, information services, parliamentary and electoral watchdogs, etc etc whilst at the same time other less essential departments such as the PMO and their advertising budget are being well fed and becoming obese.

As with most sicknesses there are those that are alarmed by the development and try to intervene and suggest some possible remedy’s, those who are so disconnected that they are unaware that the patent is sick, and those who say its nothing to be alarmed about, the symptoms are meaningless, ignore them there is nothing wrong. Some would have us believe that the current affliction of the senate is part of the sickness, and indeed it is, but the removal of that organ will not stop the spread of the sickness for it has spread far too wide within the body political to be cured by random amputation.

Only the removal of the cancerous tumor in the Prime Ministers office will set us on the road to recovery but even then it may take years to get back to good heath and in fact we may never recover all that is lost, we may indeed not recognize our country even after the tumor is removed, democracy will be but a shadow of its former self for years to come. We can only hope that the cancer is not terminal.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Rules and Conventions, Lies and Punishment

I will not dwell in great length upon the ongoing soap opera that is the 'Senate Scandal', there is quite enough commentary out there without my adding to it. I will instead examine how and why such thing are even possible in a 'democracy' and I contend that it is, at least in part because the 'rules' are not clear, documented for all to see, and that no clear penalties exist for those ignoring the rules and conventions that do exist.


Be it what does or does not constitute a legitimate expense for a senator, or an MP for that matter, and whether partisan content in a speech makes the travel to that event non-elegable as an expense, or if a governments advertising promoting itself and giving little real other information is acceptable on the taxpayers dime, the 'rules' are unclear. There is little or no oversight, there are no set penalties for abusing the system or even a way, in a majority government situation, of bringing the government, the senate or the prime minister to account other than in the court of public opinion.


It may well be that the senate can remove appointed members from their seat but it is pretty clear that as it is now proceeding it is far from an independent and equitable process. I have no great love of the conservative senators currently under examination but it is pretty clear that both their appointment and the attempt to fire them is a purely political decision and has little to do with the real job of senators to closely examine and recommend changes to proposed legislation. In this instance Ms Wallin is correct when she says “The Government has truly put the cart before the horse – the sentencing before the trial – and that is why it would be both unfair and troubling if his motion proceeds.
If it does, each and every one of you will seriously have to consider whether this is a place of sober second thought, or a place where anyone who enters must blindly follow a political master’s dictates. ” That is not to say that that is not what she and most other conservative senators have not been doing for years and continue to do as we speak. It is not even about unacceptable expenses, which there is not much doubt did occur, it is about were the rules clear from the start, were these senators encouraged to bend the rules or told (by the PMO or Senate Leaders) that everything was OK. If not why did not those responsible for signing off on these expenses pass them through for payment without question, or were they too blindly following a political master’s dictates.


Which brings us to the lies part of the equation, it has become standard practice to deny any wrong doing whether it has in fact occurred or not. This is hardly a new phenomenon in political circles “plausible deny-ability' is a fixture in government across the world but our current regime seems to have brought it to new heights, along with the old adage that 'if you say it often enough it becomes true'. It used to be that if the principals involved destroyed any paper trail the matter became a he said she said debate which could be sloughed off in most cases. With the advent of email and electronic communications it is much harder to 'destroy all evidence' and even the most powerful may not be able to wriggle out from under. It remains to be seen just how much off the 'evidence' in the current scandal will come into the public purview, we have hardly been overwhelmed with such documents in the robocalls election fraud case or any of the other Harper regime messes and spending fiasco’s. We can only hope Duffy, who says this current scandal goes all the way to the top, and others fight dirty and shows their hands to the press, the RCMP obviously cannot and will not release documents in an ongoing investigation.


To sum it up, there are few rules governing the actions and spending habits of either our politicians or governments, there are few penalties for those who break or ignore the rules that do exist, and there is little the opposition or general public can do to stop such abuse except to wait for the next election and try and elect honest and principled representatives. And that is increasingly becoming an oxymoron!
We are reliant upon the MP's, The Prime Minister and his cabinet, and the Officers of Parliament to have due regard for our Parliament traditions and unwritten rules of conduct, unfortunately such reliance upon these individuals to respect out democracy no longer is sufficient. The only good thing about the current Senator Expense Soap Opera, about what in the scheme of thing is a piddling amount of money – probably less than the daily budget for Harper's self promoting ads, is that it may signal the start of some parliamentary reform. But NOT under this government if you want to retain some semblance of democracy, and not without Provincial approval it would seem.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Voting for a New Voting System.

Of late there seems to be an increased interest in bringing forward a new way of electing our 'representatives' in the House of Commons no doubt brought on by the possibility of the Harper regime winning another majority with a minority vote in 2015. Given their expertise in spinning the truth, using taxpayers money to beat their own drum and fool most of the people most of the time this is a real possibility.


There is little doubt that both electoral and parliamentary reform is needed and that the debate about what is needed and how to accomplish it will be difficult and divisive, it has been already. Even those that agree that First Past the Post must go cannot agree upon what should replace it. In my view any of the alternative would be preferable but as opponents of the various choice will point out all have their flaws and the devil is in the details. In previous provincial efforts to select a new voting system there has been one major flaw – the vote to perhaps remove the FPTP system with a more democratic system was presented as a FPTP choice, voters were only given one alternative which naturally was not supported by the partys who thought they had disproportionate chance of being elected by the old system.


The whole debate is a little silly in that the chances of any party elected via FPTP would have any great incentive to put a new system up for consideration to the voters, something that would in all probability not happen until the NEXT voting cycle. In other words it aint gona happen anytime soon!


That said there is a way to eliminate at least part of the dilemma if and when we can persuade a government to actually ask us what we want, and that is to give us a variety of choices and vote upon them using a ranked ballot. That is – your choices are FPTP, MMP, STV, AV etc - now rank them in order of your preference and if, as is probable, none get 51% of the vote then the second and possibly the third choices come in to play. This is of course the system (Alternative Vote or Ranked Ballot) that many are now proposing as a compromise system for elections until such time as we can agree upon a more proportional system, there will no doubt be those that would prefer just a choice of their preferred system verses FPTP. Such a choice of one or the other hardly seems democratic to me!


Lets get the various political partys who are talking about this voting method or that voting method being the one they might support if we ever got that far stop, and have them all agree that if elected they will give us a chance to vote for change by presenting all the various viable choices to us. Should that ever happen the challenge will be to educate the voting public as to the various advantages and disadvantages of the various choices something that the various supporters will no doubt have lots to say about.


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


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


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Dysfunctional Legislatures

Is there any such thing as a fully “functional” legislature in Canada? I am starting to wonder. I do not follow all the various provincial maneuverings but it seems to me that many of our governing institutions across the country are in disarray. Certainly the only time our federal government can be called somewhat functional is when the legislature is not sitting, which situation appears to be the preferred option of the Harper regime and now the BC government. I cant speak to the rest of the provinces but it seems to me that they will take note that if they can effectively silence the opposition, eliminate debate and rule by executive order many 'leaders' will prefer that option. Democratic debate, cooperation, sharing ideas and seeking a consensus on proposed legislation is all but a thing of the past, its now 'my way or the highway' with not even a pretence of trying to work together for the betterment of our population.


Even those legislatures that are back to work with the government leader saying the right thing and calling for cooperation are in disarray due to to political posturing, it is after all far more important to make political points in an attempt to get that much valued majority during the next election rather than get on with the job you were elected to do. Others would restrict freedom of expression be it in whatever language or personal choice. No matter which side is to blame our legislatures are increasingly all about getting elected, individual or party power, forcing their ideas on the public with little regard to opposing ideas and blocking any alternative amendments simply because they are not 'our' ideas. It has always been thus but it seems to me that the harper era has brought in an increased disdain for the democratic process not only within the House of Commons but in other legislatures across the country. There even seems to be an increase of this affliction in municipal government which in previous times was largely apolitical but now sees an increasing right left split and political posturing rather than simply working together for the benefit of the municipality being managed.


With the advent of deciding upon actions based upon political ideology rather than factual needs the few individuals who try to make decisions based upon facts & needs are now seriously hampered by the lack on reliable data. That decision the the harperites to do away with the long form census is now coming home to roost with Census Canada not only saying that much of the data released from the 2011 census is less than reliable but that in many cases it is so unreliable due to low participation that the data will not even be published. This is not just a federal problem, provincial governments, municipalities, social support organizations and even small business need reliable data on the communities they serve to make informed decisions. How does one decide where to build a new school (or close an old one), expand a hospital, decide upon future municipal services etc if one does not have reliable population data. How does one decide upon the need for food banks, public transportation, housing needs etc if one does not have reliable income level information on you local or regional population. Quite simply without such information you cannot make an informed decision but must make an unsupported guess, which unfortunately no one can oppose with factual information because it is not available.....which of course is what those who govern by ideology want.


Dysfunctional Government indeed, and if anyone thinks changing the incumbent in any legislature is going to change much they are far more optimistic than I.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Be Careful What You Wish For!

Abolish the Senate? Be careful what you wish for, we all know that it has become highly partisan and some of those appointed feel they are entitled to their entitlements and take even more, reform is needed but do away with it entirely? I maintain that it is not the institution that is the problem but the people who are appointed to it and the manner of appointment, despite his appointment of many undeserving and unprincipled conservative flacks to ensure that he can jam questionable legislation through Mr Harper would like nothing better than to remove this impediment to his plans. I begin to wonder if all this recent expense scandal was not deliberately created to bring the senate into disrepute in order to sway public option against the senate and for abolition.

Without a bill having to be sent to the Senate it would be much easier and quicker for a majority government (any majority government) to push legislation through without sufficient examination and debate. Is this a good thing, I dont think so. Many of these bills are complex and written in such a way as to be all but impossible to fully understand the full ramifications, MPs have little time to fully dissect such legislation and all to often simply take their partys word upon both the content and upon how to vote. True the Senate is becoming a similar partisan rubber stamp despite the ability to more fully examine and debate a bill, but that once again is a problem with those appointed not the senate itself or for the most part its way of doing things.

Reform yes, abolition no. Besides the fact that it would be almost impossible to meet the conditions set down for such a move it would simply put more power into the hands of a majority PM who it would seem has very few checks and balances upon his power, many of the 'rules' be convention not requirements, and there being no consequences for ignoring such 'conventions'. Senators are meant to represent their Province not a particular party, if the next PM were to simply say to the Provinces 'I will accept you recommendation for filling this position (subject to the normal checks and debate) we would at least have a broader range of individuals appointed.

“But is abolition any more feasible than reform? It has proved hard enough just to change the length of senators’ terms. How is it supposed you could abolish it altogether? Indeed, whereas major reforms to the Senate — including changes to its powers, the numbers of senators from each province or the method of their selection — would invoke the Constitution’s general amending formula, requiring the support, not only of both Houses of Parliament, but of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, abolition would seem to require unanimity.”

The issue of the length of term, compensation & pensions is, in my opinion a separate issue and one that needs examining for both the Senate and the House of Commons. It is difficult for Canadians who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis to justify the amount of money these folks receive both during their time in Ottawa and after they 'retire' from the legislature.

Thats just one opinion, the debate continues......probably for years and most certainly beyond the next election!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Is Politics a Team Sport?

Recently a Conservative MP became the first MP in more than a decade to raise a point of privilege against his own government in questioning why he was denied an opportunity to speak by his own party whip during question period. Whilst the item that he wished to speak about (selective abortion) is rater controversial it was the Government Whip Gordon O'Connor response that was the most revealing. He told House Speaker Andrew Scheer that such matters (deciding who may speak to the house) are the exclusive purview of the parties, and, as such, firmly outside his jurisdiction as guardian of the House.

"Put simply," O'Connor informed him, "this is a team activity and your role is referee ... It is not your job as referee to tell the coach or manager which player to play at any given time." That, he concluded, "is a question for each team to decide."

After a second conservative MP rose to say that he too had been prevented from speaking during the period set aside for members to make a statement about a subject of their choosing. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May remarked that O'Connor's sports metaphor "cut to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy" by characterizing MPs as "teams" simply there to "take instructions from our team boss." She went on to say we are not here as teams, but as representatives of their respective constituents, and mused that, as far as the constitution goes, political parties do not, in fact, exist and that democracy is not a sport.

This incident gives a clear indication of how the conservatives think the 'game' should be played, ignore the rules, sideline the referee and let the captain and coaches dictate what the players can say and do but at the same time pretend that they are all for MPs rights to represent their constituents and speak their mind.

Indeed back in 2010 Peter Van Loan the conservative bulldog in response to a point of order by Ms May about the lack of decorum during such statements said that he found it “curious is her suggestion that somehow it is inappropriate for members of the House to stand up for the views of their constituents” (something she did in fact not say) and “ I can think of nothing more representative for a member of our party, certainly in my case when I talk to my constituents, than to come to this place and let my views be known” “especially when we are talking about members’ statements under Standing Order 31, one which has been the greatest tradition in this House of allowing members the utmost freedom to speak their mind.”
So MPs should have the “utmost freedom to speak their mind.” unless the party whip decides otherwise!
This is not the first time the use of SO 31 and the party control over the list submitted to the speaker as to who shall have the opportunity to speak has come under scrutiny, back in 1993 the House Management Committee tabled a report recommending that the speaker "exercise greater discretion and independence" in choosing the daily SO31 playlist.
The report argued that instead of having the parties control the agenda by submitting lists of approved SO 31-ready members, each caucus would be permitted to designate just one MP to speak on its behalf, with the remaining slots allocated by the speaker. Sadly, the committee's findings were never concurred in, but instead left to languish in neverlandian limbo.

So if it is a team sport which sport does it resemble, Rowing where everybody is expected to stroke at the same stroke and direction as everybody else in the boat as directed by the steersman, Football where players use their best judgement to move the ball towards the goal and everybody gets a kick at the ball or Hockey where tripping up an opponent is against the rules but common practice and taking off the gloves and attempting to beat the shit out of an opponent is considered 'part of the game'. At times it resembles all of these, however it would seem that the referee not only has much leeway as to how he interprets the rules but even when the rules are broken has few options to discipline the players, a caution rarely has any lasting effect and whilst a player can be given a time out it rarely happens and he cannot be ejected from the game not matter what rules he breaks.

Its long past time to change the game, bring in new players and give the referee some power to enforce such rules that currently exist.

31. A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute. The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order

In the coded language of official Ottawa, the lists of who can speak are known as SO31s. It’s a reference to Standing Order 31 of Parliament, which allows that 15 minutes be set aside before question period each day for MPs to stand in the House and make brief remarks about a subject of their choosing.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Stand on Guard

At this time of year as we look back over the previous year and forward to the coming year is also a good time to look at the broader picture of where we are both personally and as a country. When compared with so many other countries around the world that are in conflict or struck by famine, drought, floods, earthquakes and other disasters man made or natural we here in Canada must count ourselves fortunate. Some areas of our country have had a taste of some of those things but generally speaking we have the resources and systems in place to deal with such things in a speedy and organized fashion. Our social services, medical, environmental and emergency services systems built up over many years may not be perfect but they are standing ready for when nature or man creates a need for them. But can we take such things for granted? Given the last years decisions coming out of both the federal and several provincial governments I don’t think so!

There was a time when major decisions by the government were, even during times of a majority government situation, placed before the House and debated, given public scrutiny and even voted upon by MPs who for the most part actually knew what they were voting upon. No longer it seems. Now the modus operandi is for a few elite in the oligarchy to decide what is to be done, prepare a massive document which few have time to fully read and understand and then instruct those who happen to be elected under that particular party banner how they shall vote. Or where they think they can get away with it, to quietly sign 'trade agreements' that give away our ability to protect our own interests against corporate greed, give foreign governments control over our natural resources and cut funding to those departments that might protect against corporate rape of our lands and seas. All without so much as a moment given to public or indeed other MPs concerns. In short there is no meaningful debate, no changes to the decisions from on high are allowed and the 'vision' of a few at the top becomes the law for all. I use that word 'vision' with reluctance for I know not what that vision is or where it is taking us, I just know what I have seen of it lately I do not like. Of course we are bombarded daily by TV ads, paid for by us, telling us we have a plan, we have a plan.... its just that we have no idea what it is, no input into its formation and no choices as to the manner of its implementation.

As we look forward we all have hard choices to make be it simply whether to buy that cheap dodad made in china at wallmart or shop for our needs at the local farmers market, to burn more fossil fuels flying to exotic isles for a holiday or use a little less seeing part of our vast country or even day tripping and finding those local gems that we usually ignore in our rush to try and make enough to pay for our politicians perks or public servants benefits. There are harder choices to be made as well, the toughest of which we are not permitted to make for a couple of years yet, that being the choice of which individual is going to 'represent' us in our failing and increasingly less democratic parliamentary system. Some provincial choices may well be up for grabs in the spring and the choices there are no less stark or important but it is the federal choices that are the really scary ones.

It pretty obvious by now to any clear thinking citizen who cares about any of the things noted above that the Harper regime must go, but what will be left to salvage when they are tossed out? Will they in fact be tossed out or will they spin and cheat their way back into power? What viable choices do we have when the best person to represent us may not be affiliated with with a party that can obtain enough seats to make a meaningful contribution to our governance? For me this last question has been answered , clearly just one person with moral backbone, a strong work ethic, and knowledge of our parliamentary system as it now exists can make a difference. That the parliamentarian of the year is not only one of the most outspoken politician in regard to the threats to our democracy but also the leader of the only party that has been consistent on the need to guard both our natural resources and our environment makes the choice of which political party to support easy. Unfortunately even the combined weight of all opposition MPs cannot seem to make one iota of a dent in the out of control steamroller being navigated by a group of blindfolded yes men that comprise the Harper regime. So the dilemma of 'strategic voting' under our outdated first past the post voting system to ensure that the spinmasters do not return to do further damage remains unsolved. All the talk of cooperation between the opposition partys will evaporate as the election come closer in flavor of trash talking to try and cast all but their own particular party in a poor light, the 'cooperation' will only last until their own self interest outweighs Canadas need for change.

So as we look back upon 2012 and forward to the start of a new year I urge you all to look closely at what our various governments have done for or to us recently, seek independent information from a variety of sources and not rely upon the 30 second sound bite or latest 'news release' issued by the only government department to not get a budget cut. Sooner or later you will need that information to make a choice that may well be the choice between a hard won (and desperately in need of modernization) democratic parliamentary system and one where you get a choice of which dictator you want till the next election fraud takes place.

“Lewis Lapham, author and twice editor of Harper’s Magazine in the United States, made the same point. Democracy, he wrote, announces itself in three fundamental ways: an honest public discussion about issues; accountability of the governors to the governed; and equal protection under the law. By Lapham’s measure, Stephen Harper’s Canada is not a democracy, let alone a parliamentary democracy. It is an oligarchy with a few well chosen friends and millions upon millions of people to ignore, vilify or bamboozle.”

Be careful what you wish for and resolve to Stand on Guard for a Democratic Canada.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Unwrap this for Christmas!

I wish I could present you with some uplifting and exciting presents on the democracy front at this time of year but I fear it is not to be, there may be hidden amongst the lumps of coal and crushed remains of our parliamentary democracy a few items that you may be able to salvage but I am sad to say that they are few and far between.

Here then are a few of the things that fill your stocking ready for you to rummage through them.....

At the top is a book, but not one that gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling. As reviewed by Frances Russell at ipolotics and written by political scientists Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull it looks at the state of our democracy under the Harper regime. Here are some extracts from Russels review that need no further comment.

They define electoral democracy as “a system in which the electorate decides who forms the government and the prime minister then governs as a virtual autocrat until the next election … The concentration of powers … cannot be permitted to remain in the hands of a single individual who is able to undermine democratic governance at his or her will.”

Harper’s Blitzkreig on parliamentary democracy began in 2008. “Harper, in less than two years, made three unilateral decisions showing clearly how a Canadian prime minister not only can exercise unconstrained power at whim to prorogue and dissolve Parliament but also to declare on what he would accept or not accept as a vote of confidence,” the authors write.

“As with the election call in 2008, there is no evidence that the prime minister was much concerned about public opinion over his abuse of prorogation. If anything, it appears that having successfully employed the first prorogation as an effective partisan tool to avoid defeat in the House, Conservative strategists seized on it as a handy tool for further use.”

University of Toronto professor emeritus of politics Peter Russell describes Canadian democracy as “very weak.” Canada now has what he calls “presidential prime ministerial parliamentary government,” he said, adding that unless Canadians do something soon to save their parliamentary democracy, “they will have presidential government, period.” The leader now controls caucus and cabinet and runs the show, he said. It’s reached a point where the prime minister’s political staff has more power than the cabinet. “We have a 35-year-old ‘communicator’ telling a veteran 55-year-old cabinet minister when to stand up and when to sit down,” Russell said.

The book does however propose a solution. Canada should follow the lead of its sister Commonwealth countries Britain, Australia and New Zealand and codify the principles of parliamentary democracy to ensure the players — voters and politicians — understand the playbook and stay within the rules.

“The other systems have rules about prorogation and dissolution, especially dissolution,” said Turnbull whose book proposes some specific solutions..

The next item to unwrap is wrapped in the Star and contains the news from the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression that the result of a recent study by the Centre for Law and Democracy that ranked the strength and effectiveness of global access to information laws that of 93 countries ranked Canada stands at 55. This is a drop from a year ago when Canada was ranked at an embarrassing 40th in the effectiveness of laws intended to guarantee that all Canadians — journalists and citizens — have a right to public government information that is not supposed to be kept secret.

“If you are going to have a democracy, you have to have a citizenry that knows the essence of the issues,” CJFE president Arnold Amber told the more than 500 journalists and others gathered Wednesday night for the organization’s annual gala to honour courageous reporting.
CJFE points out, quite rightly, that access to public information is a critical component of our right to freedom to expression. It’s how we hold governments to account. The organization has now launched a public campaign to convince Canadians that “what you don’t know can hurt you.” They are seeking public input through a brief survey on its website to gather your views on Canada’s access to information system. That information will be included in the CJFE’s submission to a current review of Canada’s 30-year-old Access to Information Act.

“our access to information system is mired by delays, extensions, exceptions and exemptions — and, on occasion, by blatant political interference, the destruction of documents and intentional failure to create records.” .........Silencing free expression, blocking citizens’ right to information is routine operating procedure in repressive regimes.

Hiding down in the bottom we have this lump of coal donated by Canadian Dimensions.....

U.S. corporations have launched an alarming new offensive against Canadian health and environmental policies under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Three U.S. firms recently announced plans to use the “trade” pact to seek nearly one billion taxpayer dollars in private, NAFTA-created tribunals as compensation for Canadian policies on fracking, wind energy, and medicine patents.

Of the three corporate threats, perhaps most worrisome is the notice filed by U.S.-based pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, which became public this week. It marks the first attempt by a patent-holding pharmaceutical corporation to use the investment provisions in NAFTA (or any other U.S. FTA) as a tool to push for greater monopoly patent protections, which elevate the cost of medicines.
But how can a foreign corporation directly demand taxpayer compensation from a sovereign government over a democratically-determined policy? Meet the “investor-state” system. Written into NAFTA, this system uniquely empowers foreign corporations to skirt domestic laws and courts and directly challenge a government’s public interest policies.

The article goes on the give details of these attacks upon our right to conduct our own affairs as we see fit but more troubling is that Harper is as I write considering a similar 'agreement' with China!

There are a couple of more promising things yet to be fully unwrapped the newest of which is the Idle No More Rallys across Canada, they have become much more than just about First Nations but more about the way the Harper Regime regards all of its citizens both natives and settlers. Another present fighting for our attention is the Lead Now initiative which is also greatly concerned with the FIPA China deal in addition to their other great work in holding Harpers feet to the Yule Log.....

I do wish you all A Merry Christmas and a relaxing and special time with family and friends and hope that next year I will be able to find you some better presents from the democracy isle.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Senate Reform Bill C7

What with all the other stuff going on, not the least of which is the Budget Omnibus Bill which
guts environmental regulation and leaves much of the outcomes subject to ministerial overrides, I missed the Senate Reform Bill C7 until I read that Quebec was challenging it. Upon reading it I at first thought that we were getting a step in the right direction with the PM recommending candidates from a list provided by the Province involved, however I then read that “The list of Senate nominees for a province or territory is to be determined by an election held in the province or territory” which immediately put up a red flag. No choice here, it would seem that nominees selected by the provinces by some other means would not be considered, the province MUST chose their list by an (expensive?) election.

The minute we publicly elect these nominees then there is a real danger of the whole process becoming highly political and partisan (not that is is not now), in other words a mirror image of the current mess in the HoC. In the 'Framework' it says “To be a candidate for election as a Senate nominee in a province or territory that has registered provincial or territorial political parties, a person must be nominated by a registered provincial or territorial political party as the party’s official candidate or be a person who, after the issuance of the election writ, declares himself or herself to be an independent candidate and is nominated to stand for election.”

I further note that in the 'Basic Principles' Framework it says “Senators to be appointed for a province or territory should be chosen from a list of Senate nominees submitted by the government of the province or territory.” Once again that sounds good but for the fact that the actual legislation says “If a province or territory has enacted legislation that is substantially in accordance with the framework set out in the schedule, the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General, must consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees selected for that province or territory.” Lots of wiggle room there, perhaps necessary in order to get around reopening the constitution and getting provincial consensus, which is what the Quebec challenge is all about as I understand it.

All in all I am not totally against this move, it probably is an improvement if the current and future PMs abide by the spirit of the 'framework'. I am concerned however that it would lead to the squeaky wheel getting the job as it were, in that it will no doubt result in a concerted effort by some, if not all, political partys to sway the vote with partisan advertising. We know where that has led us in regard to the election of members of parliament. Further it does not oblige the PM to select ANY of those individuals thus put forward!

There is much more in the schedule containing the 'framework' for selecting senators including

how and when such election should take place and the legislation sets a term limit of 9 years or reaching the age of 75.

Senate reform topics always bring some responses, and on this one I expect no less. I really don’t know if the good outweighs the bad or vice-a- versa on this one. It is all rather academic anyway because even IF it passes and IF the provinces duly hold elections to nominate individuals and IF the PM of the day selects exclusively from those lists it will be years before we get rid of the overwhelmingly partisan and increasingly intransigent lot we have now. By the time the Harper Regime has finished ramming through its attacks upon the environment protection, the charitable and social support sectors, and indeed our very democratic system of checks and balances there may well be, as he promised, no recognizable Canada left. I would be nice if the Senate did their job on the current mess and sent it back to the house as a number of separate bills, removing the non budget items from Bill C38, but don’t hold your breath the the Harper yes men contained within that body will have an independent thought.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral and Parliamentary Reform (Final)

Conclusion

Over the last 5 weeks I have outlined some of the possibilities and challenges surrounding changes to our Electoral system and briefly touched upon some of the issues surrounding Parliamentary and Senate rules and modernization. It seems to me that Canada is dragging its heels in this regard when compared with several other commonwealth democracy’s, the oft cited New Zealand's new proportional system has been in place for some years now and even Great Britain, the home of our parliamentary system, recently had a (failed) referendum to change to the AV way of voting. Such changes, or calls for change, however seem to be brought about where there are coalition or minority government situations where the ruling party must cooperate with minority partys to retain power. I believe the same situation exists here in Canada and only in such situations will any effort to consider reform move forward. As has been seen if the regime in power is fundamentally opposed to any move that may reduce their chances of bending the rules to their own advantage and the opposition is not convinced that a majority of the public are in favor of such a possibility it will not happen even then.

Much the same goes for Parliamentary reform, whilst the opposition may cry and whine about the government of the day bending the rules, hiding information, suspending parliament for political advantage, limiting debate and forcing partisan voting they do little to propose changes that would limit these actions. Not only did many of those previously in power do nothing when they had the opportunity, but should they regain power all the promises for change will evaporate in favor of the status quot. Only immense and ongoing public pressure will bring about change and far too many of our citizens either are unaware of the diminishment of democracy taking place that only an upgrading of our voting and parliamentary rules will stop, or they just dont care and believe the daily spin from the current regime that 'all is well, there are no problems'.

Perhaps the only good thing that may arise out of the successful attempt to steal our last election and the belated but ongoing investigation is that more citizens will wake up to what is going on and become advocates for change. If nothing else Elections Canada should be given additional powers and resources to ensure that our electoral system is as free as possible from corruption, however they too have had their budget cut in the recent rather selective move to reduce the increasing expenditures.

Andrew Irvine has an interesting piece in the Ottawa Citizen this morning about why “quick fixes” like electronic voting or proportional representation aren’t likely to improve the sorry state of Canadian democracy. In linking to Andrews column the Sixth Estate makes the point that “The first problem at this point is enforcement. There is no point encouraging greater participation in a system where what few laws exist go routinely unenforced.”

Bottom line, if you are waiting for ANY move towards Electoral or Parliamentary reform to actually take place don’t hold your breath, I see little hope of ANY substantial movement on this front for many years....... unless the public become so pissed off that political partys are forced to include such issues in their platforms and then actually follow through on them. Add to that the very valid points that the above articles make and its hardy an optimistic outlook for democracy in Canada.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers