Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Edward Campbell]

Although this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a bit of partisan Liberal fluff and is, in fact, offered tongue in cheek, it highlights an important point about proportional representation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/silver-powers/harper-suggests-israels-government-is-illegitimate-oops/article1593926/

Harper suggests Israel’s government is illegitimate. Oops.

Rob Silver

Sunday, June 6, 2010

I may not agree with everything Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has done in Israel, but I think Stephen Harper's unprovoked attack on the legitimacy of his election victory this week was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Israel is a democracy and one of our allies, and Harper should not be attacking their Prime Minister the way he did.

What, you missed Harper's attack on Netanyahu's legitimacy to govern Israel? He made the statement to the entire world while travelling abroad, so I'm surprised that it hasn't provoked more of an outcry.

You see, when the results of the 2009 Israeli election were counted, Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party won one more seat in the Knesset than Netanyahu's Likud. Netanyahu was able to put together a governingcoalition with other right-wing parties.

When Harper declared this week that “coalitions of losers don't get to govern,” he was effectively saying that any coalition made up of parties that doesn’t include the party with the most seats in parliament doesn’t get to govern. Not with any legitimacy, according to Harper. They're losers. No nuance, no exceptions. There's a winner and a loser in an election. The winners – Livni, in Israel’s case, not Netanyahu – are in power. Those are Harper's words.

The fact that Harper feels that Netanyahu leads a coalition of losers that has no business being in power must surely come as something of a surprise to his erstwhile ally – but hey, when you have views on democracy as solidly rooted in principle as Harper does, you are sure to piss off your friends every once in a while.

Israel has one of the most proportional of all the various PR systems and the result has been that ‘coalitions of losers’ are almost the norm. For a period, in the ‘50s and ‘60s, Labour managed to form coalitions with only a few other small parties but, starting in the ‘70s, the situation has looked more and more like Canada when one contemplates the electoral map – left, centre and right are about evenly balanced and the religious parties fill the spoiler role of the BQ.

I mentioned before that I did a quick and dirty analysis of several recent Canadian general election – taking Québec out of the equation because Québec does not vote like the rest of the country – and I determined that our ‘first-past-the-post’ does, indeed, reward large parties and punish minor ones. What surprised me, though, was how little the rewards and punishments mattered. When I did some extrapolations I found that, under PR, we would have had a Chrétien majority, a Martin minority and two Harper minorities, albeit somewhat differently structured than the Chrétien majority, Martin minority and Harper minorities we got, mainly in having more NDP members and a tiny handful of Greens. But I asked myself: is it wrong to reward those who get the most votes and ‘punish’ those who get fewer? Do we really want an Israeli system wherein we might well have two or even three parties to the right of the Conservatives and two or even three to the left of the NDP and two or three or even four Québecois parties? Not for me, thanks.

Coalitions are legitimate, coalitions of losers are a little less legitimate than others but with some PR models, like Israel’s, and in some societies, like Canada’s and Israel’s, coalitions of losers are what you get.

 

[a_majoor]

Budget shenanagins in the Senate provide a powerful argument for Senate reform. Opposing Senate reform has actually cost the Liberals this round:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/302687.php

Budget bill passes in the Senate; naming the names
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 07:46 AM

The Liberal Party has real problems with the Conservative budget.  So much so that Michael Ignatieff felt compelled to expend what little political capital he has within the Liberal Party to convince them to enter into the sort of voting charade that had become commonplace under his predecessor, the hapless Stephane Dion:

Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.

The 2010 budget bill sailed through the House of Commons by a vote of 138-126 on Tuesday, with 30 Liberal MPs absent to ensure the budget survived -- along with the government.

NDP and Bloc Quebecois members voted against the budget en masse.

[Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff] called it a "dumpster bill" and "an abuse of power." But his party wasn't prepared to defeat or change the legislation for fear of causing a federal election, which they're not prepared to fight and say Canadians don't want.

Only 47 of 77 Liberals, led by Ignatieff, were in the House for the final budget vote. Every Conservative budget since Harper came to power in 2006 has survived courtesy of the official Opposition Liberals.

That nonsense drew this rebuke from  Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray:

When this monstrosity was before the House of Commons committee the Liberal whips contrived to keep one of their members out behind the door so that the Liberals present could vote against a number of these measures without defeating it, because they wanted to oppose the budget. They wanted to vote against it without defeating these measures. I mean this is a pathetic, a pathetic abdication of their responsibility. The idea that Mr. Harper is threatening elections or that an election is automatically involved is nonsense.

But the plan was to let the Senate do the dirty work:

The massive, 900-page piece of legislation now goes to the chamber of sober second thought, where Independent and Liberal senators are promising to give it a rougher ride.

That plan has earned the scorn of pundits as well:

Canadians spend much time debating which party would make the best government. Perhaps, in this era of minority parliaments, we should focus equally on who would do the best job of acting as official opposition.

Because it seems that Michael Ignatieff's Liberals certainly aren't up to the job.

The latest example of Liberal ineffectiveness is the party's contradictory approach to a massive omnibus bill working its way through the Commons.

On Tuesday, Liberal MP and finance critic Bob Rae was on CBC Radio suggesting that the unelected Senate might be better positioned than the elected Commons to give Bill C-9 the scrutiny it deserves.

That's an argument that doesn't make sense (the unelected Senate is always loath to defeat a Commons money bill). But to be fair to Rae, it's all he could say given the refusal of Liberal MPs to undertake the job they were elected to fill - that of official opposition.

Well, as seems typical for Liberal plans (scorned or otherwise), it fell apart, with 12 Liberal senators missing the vote:

Independent and Liberal Senators have failed in their effort to hive off sections of an omnibus budget bill that they say have little to do with budgetary matters.

Senator Lowell Murray, a Progressive Conservative, introduced a motion on Tuesday that would have seen Bill C-9 divided into five smaller bills. The Liberals, who supported the move, had hoped to have enough of their members in their seats to ensure that it was passed.

In the end, however, they were outnumbered by the Conservatives, who have a younger and more disciplined caucus that includes many senators appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the expressed purpose of ensuring that government bills are not lost in the Upper Chamber.

Until November, the Liberals and the independents combined will have a majority of one in the Upper Chamber. But they still could not muster the numbers to take on the Conservatives.

Here is the list of Liberal senators and their vote on the motion to split the budget bill:

George Baker no vote recorded
Tommy Banks yea
Catherine Callbeck yea
Larry W Campbell yea
Sharon Carstairs yea
Maria Chaput yea
Jane Marie Cordy yea
Jim Cowan yea
Romeo Dallaire no vote recorded
Dennis Dawson yea
Joseph Day yea
Pierre De Bane no vote recorded
Pervy Downe yea
Lillian Eva Dyck yea
Art Eggleton yea
Joyce Fairbairn no vote recorded
Francis Fox yea
Joan Fraser yea
George Furey yea
Mac Harb no vote recorded
Celine Hervieux-Payette yea
Libbe Hubley yea
Mobina Jaffer yea
Serge Joyal no vote recorded
Colin Kenny no vote recorded
Jean Lapointe no vote recorded
Rose-Marie Losier-Cool yea
Sandra Lovelace Nicholas yea
Frank Mahovlich yea
Paul Massicotte yea
Terry Mercer yea
Pana Merchant yea
Grant Mitchell yea
Wilfred Moore yea
Jim Munson yea
Lucie Pepin yea
Robert Peterson yea
Marie Poulin yea
Vivienne Poy no vote recorded
Pierrette Ringuette yea
Fernand Robichaud yea
William Rompkey yea
Nick Sibbeston yea
David P Smith yea
Peter Stollery yea
Claudette Tardif no vote recorded
Charlie Watt no vote recorded
Rod Zimmer no vote recorded
Raymond Lavigne (suspended while facing criminal charges)


So Raymond Lavigne has an excuse.

But what of George Baker, Romeo Dallaire, Pierre De Bane, Joyce Fairbairn, Mac Harb, Serge Joyal, Colin Kenny, Jean Lapointe, Vivienne Poy, Claudette Tardiff, Charlie Watt, and Rod Zimmer?

I shouldn't be complaining, but I'll do it on behalf of Liberals who are too embarrassed to do it themselves.  Why isn't your senate caucus as disciplined as the Conservative caucus?  Why aren't they working as a team, backing up the Commons caucus who can't afford to trigger an election?

Why is it that every Conservative caucus member showed up for the Senate vote, and the Liberals were shy a dozen?

I know that Senate reform is a Conservative platform, but I don't know why Liberals don't support it.  If your Senators were elected, the fear of facing the voters might make them a bit more disciplined.  Certainly fear of facing Michael Ignatieff isn't enough.

 

[GAP]

But what of George Baker, Romeo Dallaire, Pierre De Bane, Joyce Fairbairn, Mac Harb, Serge Joyal, Colin Kenny, Jean Lapointe, Vivienne Poy, Claudette Tardiff, Charlie Watt, and Rod Zimmer?

Some of the most rabid (if a senator can be rabid?) Liberal senators stumping the circuits, especially Baker.....hypocrisy knows no bounds...

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is not often that I agree almost unreservedly with Jeffrey Simpson, but in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, he has it about right:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/welcome-david-johnston-and-thanks-michalle-jean/article1735806/

Welcome, David Johnston. And thanks, Michaël Jean

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Friday's Globe and Mail
Friday, Oct. 01, 2010 12:12AM EDT

On this day, when David Johnston becomes the new Governor-General, Canadians can thank recent prime ministers for their outstanding appointments to that office.

No slight is intended to previous occupants of the post or to prime ministers who appointed them in signalling for special merit Jean Chrétien’s selection of Adrienne Clarkson, Paul Martin’s choice of Michaëlle Jean and, now, Stephen Harper’s pick of Mr. Johnston.

As Ms. Jean leaves Rideau Hall, she has earned the country’s heartfelt appreciation for a job superbly done.

When appointed, many Canadians outside Quebec said, “Michaëlle Who?” Yes, she had been a television presenter of note on Radio-Canada, but even a lot of Quebeckers don’t watch the kind of up-market shows for which she used to play host, let alone an English-speaking audience inside and beyond the province.

“What’s she ever really done?” was the sort of snide question asked at the time of her installation. The optics were good – Haitian immigrant, bilingual, good with words – but what qualifications did she possess? And that filmmaker husband of hers, Jean-Daniel Lafond, hadn’t he swum around with the nationalist/separatist crowd in Montreal?

From Day 1, when she spoke so brilliantly at her installation, in particular about reconciling the “two solitudes” of Canada, she was a star – not just because she carried herself so well and spoke so eloquently and precisely in both languages, but because her generosity of spirit, curiosity of mind and capacity to relate to people in any setting soon became the hallmark of her time in office.

When she met the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, she showed a rare empathy for their pain. When she travelled abroad, she related as an internationally minded person to people in other situations, speaking different languages. When she went to the Arctic, she ate seal meat; when she met the poor, she was never condescending; when she gathered women’s groups to Rideau Hall, she was one of them; when she handed out honours or met diplomats, she spoke to the occasion with fitting words.

And when she was called on to make the most important decision of her tenure – prorogation, as demanded by Mr. Harper – she made the constitutionally correct decision, whatever the political fallout.

She had a special concern for Haiti, the country of her birth, the country devastated by a terrible earthquake in January. She will now be a special United Nations envoy for Haiti, a task for which she will be well-prepared. Canada can thank Mr. Harper for working behind the scenes to assist her in securing this assignment.

Just as Ms. Jean stepped into the large shoes of Adrienne Clarkson, who brought intelligence, creativity and panache to Rideau Hall, so David Johnston will find following Ms. Jean no easy task.

Obviously, he cannot be her, and will not even try, but he has his own marvellous talents well-suited to this role.

Mr. Johnston is a scholar, lawyer, athlete and university administrator of distinction and duration, having been president of both McGill and Waterloo. He speaks French, knows how to handle public events, has always demonstrated fair-mindedness, never puts on airs, is inherently friendly and, should the knowledge be needed in a pinch, studied and taught constitutional law.

As Canadians get to know Mr. Johnston better, they’ll like what they see and hear, just as they did with Ms. Jean. They’ll see in him, as they did in his predecessors, admirable virtues and a desire to serve the country.

These latest governors-general, distinguished Canadians all, reflect many of the best elements of the national experience and, as such, illustrate how much better off we’d be without the British monarchy, a point to be driven home when the day comes that Prince Charles and Camilla move into Buckingham Palace.

Sadly, Canadians are not ready to see Clarkson-Jean-Johnston and people of that ilk as head of state. It would appear that, in due course, we shall have Charles and his sons and their heirs until, well, who knows when?

But we can be thankful for Ms. Clarkson and Ms. Jean and those who preceded them, and we can say with confidence: Welcome, Mr. Johnston.

The office of Governor General may well become more and more presidential, in a European manner, if we are, indeed, stuck with a generation or so of minority governments. The GG may have to select prime ministers and invite them to form governments based on his/her (the GG’s) assessment of which leader might be able to form a stable government that can command the confidence of parliament. If that’s the case then Mr. Johnston might well be the gold standard.

But that begs a question: if the office is to be more and more political, albeit non-partisan, then how do we, how should we select our own GG? And if we are going to have a more political GG then is it not more appropriate that (s)he be a real Canadian, a resident of Canada with a good, personal feel for Canada and not a British implant? (Yes, yes; I know that HM and HRH are, legally, Canadians, but for all of her GREAST work as our head of state there is no doubt that, first and foremost HM is the Queen of the United Kingdom – that’s where she is, regularly, consulted by her real prime minister.)

 

[Neill McKay]

But that begs a question: if the office is to be more and more political,

I don't see any reason to think that it will be.  Even in a minority government, it's generally clear who the PM should be according to the conventions of our parliamentary system.

And if we are going to have a more political GG then is it not more appropriate that (s)he be a real Canadian, a resident of Canada with a good, personal feel for Canada and not a British implant?

Every GG in my lifetime has been a "real" Canadian, resident here, despite the fact that some have been immigrants.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't see any reason to think that it will be.  Even in a minority government, it's generally clear who the PM should be according to the conventions of our parliamentary system.

Every GG in my lifetime has been a "real" Canadian, resident here, despite the fact that some have been immigrants.

Last point first: sorry, I pressed post without double checking. I really wanted to talk about the de jure head of state, not the GG who is the de facto head of state. Despite my enormous affection and respect for HM the Queen and her office, I think it is time that we patriated our head of state - finding some sensible way to select an eminent person to 'wear' the Crown of Canada; that eminent Canadian must be, in my opinion, one of us - and, as I mentioned, I understand that the royals are, legally, Canadians but no one really believe that.

First point: consider this scenario, please - we have a budget early next year and the government loses the budget motion and we go to the polls. The results are something like this:

BQ -      55
Cons - 127
Libs -  100
NDP -    25
Others -  3

So, obviously, the GG calls upon the Conservative leader to form a government.

The Conservatives bring down a budget which, once again, fails to win parliament's confidence.

The PM goes to the GG and asks for another general election.

Now is when the GG becomes presidential. His (the GG's) primary duty is to ensure that Canada has a government that has the confidence of parliament. Generally, but not absolutely, its is also the GG's duty, to follow the advice of his PM, but he (the GG) is not the PM's slave.

In this case, given that the Liberals + the NDP + the Independents/Others have a workable minority he (the GG) can, maybe should, call on them to try to govern Canada - it is his constitutional right, even duty to do that.

Now, let's suppose that the Lib/NDP coalition brings down a budget that still cannot secure parliament's approval (perhaps because the BQ has a vested interest in making Canada fail). The Liberal PM asks for a general election but it is still less than one year since the last one. The GG could decide to haul the Conservative and Liberal leaders into Rideau Hall and ask them to craft a majority coalition - that would be a very European presidential thing to do. It would also be constitutionally legal and, maybe, proper too.

That's what I meant by being presidential.


Edit: grammar  :-[

 

[GAP]

Ohhhh.....that would quickly put paid to the incestuous  catfighting presently going on, or......hmmmmm....I dunno....might work.....

 

[a_majoor]

Ohhhh.....that would quickly put paid to the incestuous  catfighting presently going on, or......hmmmmm....I dunno....might work.....

The ghost of Viscount Byng of Vimy would like to have a little chat with you........

 

[a_majoor]

Americans do it right, again:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/states-with-lower-taxes-smaller-government-fewer-unions-seeing-the-most-population-growth/

States With Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Fewer Unions Seeing The Most Population Growth
Rob Port  •  December 21, 2010
Share |

New census numbers are out, and it would seem as though people are voting against higher taxes and bigger government with their feet.
An updated study by Americans for Tax Reform compared states gaining and losing Congressional seats in the decennial reapportionment process and found that states gaining seats had significantly lower taxes, less government spending, and were more likely to have “Right to Work” laws in place. Because reapportionment is based on population migration, this is further proof that fiscally conservative public policy spurs economic growth, creates jobs, and attracts population growth.

The Census Bureau announced today that eight states will gain at least one Congressional seat. Texas will gain four seats and Florida will gain two. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington will gain one seat each. The biggest losers will be New York and Ohio – both will lose two seats – while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will lose one seat each.

The average top personal income tax rate among gainers is 116 percent lower than among losers. The total state and local tax burden is nearly one-third lower, as is per capita government spending. In eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union. (Interpolation, I think they mean taxes in the losing states is 116% higher than the gaining states)

You can read the full report from Americans for Tax Reform here.

The fact that States can gain seats as population grows and shifts is a no brainer, but the fact that States can lose seats in the Congress i interesting. We are froze in time, Provinces which lose population never lose seats in Parliament. Reapportation like this would make Parliament more representative of real shifts in demographic and economic power.

 

[GAP]

I love this one....I think I will email the link to Jack Layton..............

Oregon Raises Taxes On The Rich, Collects Less Revenues
Rob Port  •  December 21, 2010
Article Link

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 02: People attend a rally outside of the office of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to protest an extension of tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans on December 2, 2010 in New York City. The protest, which was organized by MorveOn.org, called the tax cuts millionaire bailouts and vowed to pressure Democratic senators to oppose the cuts, which Congress is currently considering extending. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

It’s almost like higher levels of tax burden inhibit economic activity and development or something, but that can’t be true. According to liberalism, bigger government means more prosperity, right?

Right?

    Oregon raised its income tax on the richest 2% of its residents last year to fix its budget hole, but now the state treasury admits it collected nearly one-third less revenue than the bean counters projected. …

    Instead of $180 million collected last year from the new tax, the state received $130 million. The Eugene Register-Guard newspaper reports that after the tax was raised “income tax and other revenue collections began plunging so steeply that any gains from the two measures seemed trivial.”

    One reason revenues are so low is that about one-quarter of the rich tax filers seem to have gone missing. The state expected 38,000 Oregonians to pay the higher tax, but only 28,000 did. … These numbers are in line with a Cascade Policy Institute study, based on interstate migration patterns, predicting that the tax surcharge would lead to 80,000 fewer wealthy tax filers in Oregon over the next decade.

The rule of thumb is that when you tax something you get less of it. Oregon taxed rich people, so the rich people left.

The moral of the story is, you cannot solve debt problems by taxing the rich. Everyone should pay taxes, all taxes should be low and the government should be small.
end

 

[Neill McKay]

Americans do it right, again:

Correlation doesn't imply a causal relationship.

 

[a_majoor]

A new political party. Based on the interview, I suspect the founder has developed the "mechanics" of a 21rst century political party, but since there are no "core" issues around which members would gather, this is an empty shell. Worst case scenario, the party is infiltrated by "leftists" who dominate and "guide" the discussions within the Online party, making it a rather irrelevant clone of the NDP. OTOH, current parties can look at the structure and see how they can adapt it to their needs (not taking the Online Party over, but creating a CPC/Liberal/NDP online organization) Part 1:

http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-interview-with-michael-nicula.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwVPTZ+%28The+Blog+of+Walker%29

My interview with Michael Nicula, the founder of the Online Party of Canada - director's cut

A little while ago, I had the real pleasure of conducting an interview with the founder of the Online Party of Canada, Michael Nicula.

A tight, edited version of my chat with Michael can be read at the Libertas Post: The Libertas Post Interview – Michael Nicula, founder of the Online Party of Canada:
As part of our effort to track new political trends and movements, Libertas Post recently interviewed Michael Nicula, founder of the Online Party of Canada. As its name implies, the OPC is an exclusively Internet-based organization at present.

Nicula’s unique vision mixes high-tech tools with electoral populism. Essentially, party members get to create the party’s platform. Whether this leads to meaningful change or mob rules, we’ll leave to your judgment.
Check it out.

For those who are interested, my whole discussion with Michael Nicula, the director's cut if you will, follows below:

1) So let's start this off with the most basic question imaginable: what is the Online Party of Canada?

The Online Party of Canada is an organization I created out of nothing, with a clear purpose in mind: to offer a radically different political platform starting from scratch ( rather than incremental improvements to a system that has too many flaws ). Sometimes it's better to start with a clean slate. The goal is to combine technology (internet-based collaboration and voting) with 'lessons learned' from centuries of political disappointments. Anything that can be done better, we will propose a better way.

2) Would you represent a majority opinion on any issue? By that I mean, is there anything that the OPC absolutely won't budge on?

We can't even say that we will compromise in certain circumstances. That would open the door to 'exceptions' and would compromise the idea. Answer is NO.

3) Can you give us some background on yourself? How did you end up as the founder and leader of the OPC?

I founded this political movement out of passion for politics. I am committed to spend my free time and energy to build this organization. I've been active in politics for over 15 years, however, this is my first attempt in Canada. Brief resume: My University degree (graduate) is in Architecture. I never practiced as an architect, but I've learned a lot about Urban Development, City Planning. Then I've got an Executive MBA from the University of Washington and I completed a rigorous Certified Management Accounting program in Ontario.

I've also completed a special training program as a Technician in Nuclear Technologies (CANDU) and I have been very successful in school competitions in Physics. After University graduation, I needed some money so I got myself Certified in Business Software Applications, such as SAP R/3, Oracle, Peoplesoft. I've been working as a Consultant, Business Software for more than 15 years now. My specialty is Human Resources and Payroll systems. Short biography: Born in October 1970 in Eastern Europe to a Hungarian mother and Romanian father. I grew up in southern part of Romania, Transylvania and Bucharest. I got married in 1993 and had a daughter 3 years later, then I moved to Canada and settled in Toronto. I love this city and this country dearly. I enjoy travel - not any kind of travel but adventure and discovery travel. I've been to places like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, India, China, Bhutan, Tanzania, Amazonia, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyanas, New Zealand, New Caledonia. All around Europe of course, North America. The most interesting place so far was North Korea - I visited in 2009 and I'd love to go back; such an eye-opening experience and I think most governments and media are offering a very distorted picture of what's really happening there.

[ You can see many of Michael Nicula's travel photos here, at his Picasa Web Album account. ]

I play football (or soccer as it's called here in North-America) and I do it with passion. My daughter Maria is my biggest achievement. I love her and I want to help building a better future for her and her young generation. 




4) What initially led to the idea to get the OPC up and running? Was there an event that galvanized you into forming your own political party? Have you done any political activism before this?

I've heard for decades now, from people all over the world, how unhappy everyone is with the political leadership. Politicians are known as incompetent and corrupt. Politics has a really bad reputation, being perceived as the art of deceiving people and getting away with it. Believe me, I've experienced it myself - as soon as I told my friends that I intend to be active in politics, they distanced themselves. Then I asked myself why is that? The answer I found is that the way the political system is built is causing a disconnect between the voters and the elected officials. There are two components missing from the system: Competence - no way to ensure that the people we entrust with managing multi-billion dollar budgets have the skills and experience to handle the job Accountability - there's no way to hold the elected officials accountable. They can basically lie all the way, behave in spite of those who elected them, make decisions contrary to what the voters want. Their only worry is to get re-elected, which is relatively easy for an incumbent given the lack of interest and general disgust of the electors ( thinking if we don't re-elect this person, there will be another crook...whatever we do, we're screwed ). So I put some thinking into building a system where along with the basic principles of democracy, competence and accountability are enshrined and governing principles. You're asking yourself how is it possible that we live in a presumably democratic country, however, on major issues pretty much all polls agree the Canadians want to go one way and the government acts the other way, for generations.. Some people say you don't want the 'stupid' voters to decide on 'complex' issues because they don't understand the intricacies...I am a beleiver in the wisdom of the voters as a large group. The politicians have been proven wrong too many times, I don't buy the argument that they're smarter than the voters who elected them.

 

[a_majoor]

Part 2

5) What is it that the Online Party of Canada is hoping to accomplish? Are you in place more to send a message to other parties as a sort of 'protest' party? Do you have ambitions to sit in parliament? What ambitions do you have provincially or municipally?

OPC is here to become a political force of change. We need to play by the existing rules in order to get seated, then we'll do all we can to change the system at its core to make it more functional. We would ask Canadians if there's any sense in keeping the current form of government - Constitutional Monarchy. Do we really need this layer of leadership - the Queen, General Governor, Lieutenants etc. Do we really need the Senate, what is its role in a democratic society where the decisions are made by the people. Do we need 3 levels of Government ( Federal and Local make sense, but why do we need Provincial governments? ) Yes we have big ambitions - Parliament and every public office is our target. Don't quite understand the disconnect between Local, Provincial and Federal politics...how come even the big parties have different political agendas and behaviour at these three levels - shows the partisanship nature of the current politics.. There are too many wrong things in politics as we know it, that need to be changed. Small improvements won't do, we need sweeping changes. We're counting on the Internet media, social networking, bloggers...to get Canadians on board and swell the membership of OPC and then let them drive it wherever they want to go. 6) What advantage do you think the OPC could have over larger, more conventional, parties? Do you think its focus on things like social networking will give it access to some untapped political markets, maybe reduce advertising costs, make the party lighter on its feet, etc.?

You're right those three are the biggest advantages we're counting on. The problem is that the big media has this symbiosis going on with the established political structure ( advertising $$ and special access to political news in exchange for positive coverage ) and it's hard to penetrate. Social networking works fine but it has to be backed up by mainstream media. People pay attention to you on the web if they heard about you in the news. My Facebook ( and membership ) has peaked once an article about OPC was published by Postmedia papers. We need to find a way to break into big media - still working on that.

7) How far along is the party intrastructure? The OPC seems to have a pretty ambitious set of checks and balances set in place so that members can keep their candidates in check, fire them, or become candidates themselves. Is this infrastructure all in place at the moment? If not, how far along would you say that these processes are?
I am very happy and proud of the infrastructure - namely the website. We have all controls in place to ensure vote confidentiality and count, membership checks, specialists verification etc. In regards to Candidates' accountability: I hired a Bay street lawyer to come up with the most advanced process and I've got a document that we require Candidates to sign. The document is grounds for civil lawsuits, possibly class action, if a Candidate / Elected official goes 'rogue'. The politicians have made sure to keep themselves protected from voters' anger - there's no legal procedure to remove them. What we've got at OPC is the closest you can get to removing an elected official. My lawyer is confident this is solid. Needless to say, the traditional career politicians won't like it and I expect a lot of opposition to it.
8) How soon do you think it will be before the OPC can officially register with Elections Canada?

We're collecting membership forms through our lawyer's office who's also verifying the forms. Should be done in a few weeks.
9) How does one go about becoming a member of the Online Party of Canada?

Becoming a website user is quick and easy - need an e-mail address pretty much. That gives you a 'Guest' level status. Becoming a Member requires verification via a membership form ( hardcopy ) - you can download the form from the website, print, fill and mail to OPC or request a form be mailed to you ( along with a stamped return envelope for maximum convenience ). All you need to do is write your name, address and date of birth and sign the form before mailing it. It cannot get any easier than that.
10) To someone uninformed like me, there seems to be a rather obvious problem to achieving a majority of opinion on the OPC website: that someone will somehow find a way to game the system in their favor by registering more than one name to create multiple accounts - or something to that effect. What measures has the OPC taken to stop this kind of thing from happening? You said in your live-chat with The Mark that your website security is on par with any bank's. Do you stand by that assessment?

These are two separate questions. You can't register more than once in the system as a 'Member' because we're checking the membership forms. You can register as a Guest with multiple e-mail accounts, but the Guest votes are not binding. Also, the website has extra security features - flags IP addresses and computer IDs that are used with multiple accounts. Up to 5 would be normal, for members of a family, over 5 is suspicious. But then again, a lot of effort to register non-binding votes... Once you're a verified Member, your login is secured using SSL certificate encryption - same as the banks. I get a lot of questions about this but seriously, any IT security expert can tell you that it's actually more complicated to cheat a computer system than it is to cheat the current voter registration system. You can easily register and vote in multiple Electoral Districts...go to a few Voting centers [on] the election day, send multiple advance ballots. We're proposing in one of our Issues the creation of a National ID to replace all government issued cards and numbers: SIN, Driver's license, Health Card, Fishing license...as well as Voter registration. There's no need to have so many different numbers when you can really store all that info in a single magnetic strip. If you add biometric security features, all identity fraud issues would melt away. Until then, we're doing our best to verify Member identity within the limits of the current laws. The membership form contains a solemn declaration and we're counting on it. I personally believe it is not good enough but that's a legislative limitation and we're bound to it. As you saw on our website, we accept as Members people who cannot sign that declaration because they don't have the right to vote: landed immigrants, minors over 16, expats over 5 years. For those people we have a separate membership form that requires signatures from 2 professionals - doctor, lawyer etc. Same process for passport application. Again, I believe that's not strong enough, but it's the limit of the law. I'd rather have a National ID with biometric features ( fingerprint or palm map ). Lastly, I'm always listening to any ideas, if there's a better way to verify people within the law limits, we're adopting it immediately.

11) Something that also occurs to me is that the OPC might have a hard time establishing an elections platform, since majority opinion in the membership base could change on an issue mid-way through. Is there a plan in place to sort of 'cut off' the consultation process with the membership for any given period of time so the OPC can focus on promoting the issues it knows that its membership wants promoted? A sort of 'point of no return', at which point members won't be able to reverse their majority opinion on something for a given length of time so the OPC can mobilize itself around certain issues?

I've got this question many times before. OPC has no platform or agenda. Whatever people want to discuss and vote on becomes 'de-facto' agenda. People change their mind all the time, it's natural and healthy. We've put in place the 'tolerance margin' to avoid 'wiggling' around 50.0001 / 49.9999 type of votes - we added 3%. That means, we establish a true majority at 53% and flip back at 47% - lots of room to wiggle. But if 53% of members think the official position is wrong, we act immediately. Note: the tolerance margin itself is an 'Issue' - members can vote it up or down. There's no cut-off from consultation - that idea is anti-democratic and opens the door for abuse. OPC promotes the issues, not the positions. We at OPC don't care what position will become 'official', it's up to the members to decide. We will continue to promote the issues our members think are important - judging bu the number of votes and comments - regardless of the official position changes. Example: War in Afghanistan. It is an important issue. OPC currently stands for immediate withdrawal. But even if the majority vote switches to 'status quo', we will still consider it an important issue. ( I don't know how logical this approach is...I think I have good logic, but I'm open to criticism. If proven wrong, I change my mind easily. )

12) We've gone into this before a little, but I just want to be thorough. The OPC has five different kinds of membership: guest, member, specialist, candidate, party official. Can you explain the differences between these forms of membership?

Guests: can vote and comment on certain issues. Their votes are not counted towards establishing the 'majority' - official position. Members: they can vote on any issue that pertains to their location. Certain issues are restricted to a Province, Municipality, Electoral District...but most issues are marked 'Federal'. Members are verified - membership form. They must be either Canadian citizens with the right to vote, or 'special' members - minors over 16, expats, landed immigrants. These 3 categories don't have voting rights under Canada law, but OPC internal admin is independent. Members can request upgrade to Specialist, Candidate, Official. Specialist: member who has proven qualifications, work experience etc in a certain domain. I envision that in the future each domain will auto-administer - accepting new requests. Candidates: members who want to run for public office. They must make their profile public and post Bio, Statement and Resume. We might ask them to take some university courses in preparation - depending on their credentials. I envision a vetting committee that will handle this process. We will ensure equal opportunity as well as competence - fine line there but I'm confident we can manage. In addition, ALL candidates must sign the 'Promissory Letter of Resignation' - we talked about it before. Officials: party staff. Vote counting: members', specialists', candidates' and officials' votes are equal and counted altogether. For information / reference purposes, we also present separately the votes of specialists, candidates, officials to show how each category has votes. Members can use this information as guidance when they vote on a topic they're not sure - either trust the specialists, follow leadership of the candidates and officials.

13) How many members does the Online Party of Canada currently have, and how many 'guest' users does the OPC website have?

I don't have the latest count, our lawyer is collecting the forms. I'll know more when I get home [ most of this interview was conducted while Michael Nicula was in New Caledonia.]

I hope we have more than enough to start the registration process.

14) Have disaffected former members of other parties - like the Liberal Party of Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada - been joining the OPC? In other words, do you get a sense that people who have given up on the other parties are starting to flock to the Online Party of Canada?

Yes, I was invited by a Conservative riding in Mississauga to discuss a possible switch and also have members from the Liberal party. We've been approached by two other registered political parties for a potential 'amalgamation'. The leader of a registered political party is also a member of OPC. I also have a Native Indian Tribe chief as a member. I'm not seeking to 'poach' and I'm not willing to compromise on the Governing principles' in order to accommodate political agendas.

15) Do you think that other parties are going to try to copy, at least in some way, the OPC's approach to online politics? Do you see Canadian politics moving toward the Internet?
I've been requested to share the technical setup and I offered it for free. I don't believe in patenting an idea. If someone wants to copy our model, I'd be happy to assist. My goal is not personal - I just want my country to function in a democratic system. Problem is - the OPC true model implies competence and accountability. Most traditional politicians are not competent and do not want to be held accountable. They're career politicians - if you kick them out of politics, most of them can't do anything else. They can't accept the OPC model because there's no career guarantee in it.

Think about the mayoral candidates in the recent Toronto elections. Two of them are high school graduates, no university degree, the third one has a diploma in geography. They're not 'prime' candidates for an office that handles hundreds of billions of dollars. These people dropped school to start a career in politics. You think they would sign a 'Promissory Letter of Resignation' giving them the sack if they don't keep their promises? I really don't think this model applies to traditional politics.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a useful reminder from Jeffrey Simpson that Prime Minister Harper’s options are limited on the Senate reform front:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/senate-reform-an-altered-state-of-affairs/article1422994/
my emphasis added

Essentially, as I have said, more than once, going back a long time, there is a way to do most of what Harper wants to do, within the constraints of the Supremes’ ’79 ruling:

1. The PM writes two letters:

a. The first to each provincial premier telling him/her than he intends, by convention, to limit the way he appoints senators. He will, effective whenever, appoint to the Senate of Canada only those who –

(1) Are constitutionally qualified (§23 of the BNA Act),

(2) Are elected by their province, usually in senatorial elections that are held in conjunction with a provincial general election and by a system that, broadly, reflects the outcome of that provincial general election, and

(3) Present him with a signed letter of resignation - effective the date of the next provincial general election, before being appointed, and

b. The second to each serving senator, asking for a signed letter of resignation, effective the date of the next provincial general election; and

2. The PM needs to explain – publicly - that he will not let provinces go unrepresented in the Senate but he will still demand, of those he appoints for his own, political, reasons, the same letter of resignation – thus, [de facto ensuring that senators are not appointed for life.

It will take a long time to achieve a fully elected Senate – not all serving senators will want to resign, some will hang on, in their sinecures, for 20 years or so but, eventually, appointed senators will understand that they are second class citizens compared to their elected counterparts and those who don’t bump into the age limit will resign out of frustration. Not all provinces will, initially, go along – but the hold outs will, eventually, understand that despite having enough senators they have ‘second class’ (unelected) representation and they, too, will sign on.

Elected senators will, with public support, make themselves effective because they will be willing to challenge the will of the elected HoC – putting provincial interests, including Quebec’s interests, into play and giving the overrepresented “Old Canada” (everything East of the Ottawa River) even more undue influence in the parliament of Canada.

An elected Senate will complicate life for the PM – even a majority government (in the HoC) may not be able to command the loyalty of the Senate. Even worse, who is to say that a BC Liberal senator will join the federal Liberal caucus – many BC Liberals are, in fact, Conservatives. The Saskatchewan Party Senators may, well, caucus with the federal Tories and so on.

But it – Senate reform – can be done, within the limits imposed by the SCC, and Senate reform might, sooner rather than later, lead to constitutional convention that will, finally, deal with several aspects of the old (1867 thru 1982), rickety Constitution of Canada.

It’s  :deadhorse:  time again!

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail gives me an opportunity to revisit one of my pet projects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-house-that-stephen-harper-built/article1871123/singlepage/#articlecontent

The House that Stephen Harper built

JOHN IBBITSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Sunday, Jan. 16, 2011

The Senate has always been a House under a cloud.

The Fathers of Confederation cobbled it together in part to protect people like themselves against the rabble, which is why senators still have to meet a property qualification: “We must protect the rights of minorities, and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor,” as Sir John A. Macdonald put it.

Because its members are appointed, prime ministers since Confederation have stacked the Senate with party bagmen and loyalists, leaving it in perpetual disrepute: “Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper likes to offer that quote, and then point out that it was written in 1926.

However, it has turned out that Mr. Harper's idea of reform is to make the Senate more Conservative and more powerful. On his watch, the Tories have achieved a majority in the chamber for only the second time in 70 years. And they are using that majority to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, which the Senate was never meant to do.

If the Prime Minister gets his way, new legislation will make the Senate more powerful still, because its members will be elected to fixed terms. Some think this new Senate would be more legitimate and effective. Others fear it'd be a nightmare.

Whatever the Senate could become it is becoming already. The Other Place, as MPs like to call it, is actually starting to matter.

Rewriting the House rules

The House of sober second thought is not supposed to be powerful, though it has reared up before – most famously in 1988, when it refused to pass the U.S. free-trade deal until Brian Mulroney held an election on it.

But, centrally, its role “rests on obstruction. Rather than empower, it restrains government,” wrote University of Saskatchewan political scientist David Smith, one of Canada's leading authorities on the Senate.

It did, that is, until Stephen Harper and perpetual minority government arrived.

When Mr. Harper became Prime Minister in 2006, he promoted legislation that would limit senators' terms to eight years. He invited provinces to hold elections to fill senatorial vacancies and promised to appoint the winners.

But outside of Alberta, premiers had little appetite for sending senators to Ottawa who might compete with them as their provinces' voices. So in 2008 the Prime Minister began filling all available vacancies with good Conservatives, from the famous athlete Nancy Greene Raine to his former press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.

By last January, the Conservatives had a Senate plurality; in December, an absolute majority.

A brake or a bomb?

While all this was happening, Parliament evolved in strange ways, as minority governments became entrenched and a majority for either the Conservatives or the Liberals seemed out of reach.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois began passing legislation the government opposed, such as a plan to cut back on carbon-dioxide emissions; requiring all Supreme Court judges to be bilingual; providing tax credits for university graduates who work in certain regions; and offering restitution for Italian Canadians interned during the Second World War.

Imposing a caucus discipline to which the Senate is unaccustomed, the Conservatives used their majority to defeat the environment bill outright in an unusual snap vote. For other legislation, their preferred method is to defeat through delay. The bilingual Supreme Court bill, for one, languishes in debate and may never come to a vote.

“The majority in the Senate is prepared to use the legal powers that the Senate has” to block legislation from the House of Commons and to push legislation of its own, argues Jennifer Smith, a political scientist at Dalhousie University. “It's very important and it's likely to increase.”

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal says he and his colleagues are only doing their duty: “The government side in the Senate has a primary duty to the government's agenda.”

Creasing the Constitution

But for Liberal Senator Serge Joyal, who is viewed as an authority on the Senate's role within Parliament, these vetoes and filibusters send the Senate into uncharted territory. “If you use the majority for all kinds of political reasons ... you are doing something very serious to the constitutional framework of the country,” he maintains.

Prof. Smith sees the Harper government's actions as a prologue to a more radical future. “Because they have the idea that they are somehow heading toward an elected Senate,” vetoing opposition bills “partly enables them in their own minds to see this as legitimate, as, ‘This is what an elected Senate could look like.' ”

The Tories continue to push for reform. A bill before the Senate would limit terms to eight years, while the House is once again considering legislation that would invite provinces to hold elections to select Senate nominees, though it is unlikely to pass unless and until the Conservatives win their elusive majority.

For Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, electing senators would go a long way toward making the Upper House legitimate in the eyes of Canadians: “It makes no sense to have a parliamentary body that has remained virtually unchanged since Confederation.”

But Prof. Jennifer Smith is convinced that, apart from being unconstitutional, an elected Senate would cause more problems than it would solve – namely, U.S.-style legislative gridlock.

“They're not going to be elected to play second fiddle,” she maintains. “They will have a much more robust view of what their position is. ... It would disable governments when they needed to make tough decisions.”

Confederation's fine mess

The Senate is a problem that can't be fixed.

Its mandate to protect the propertied class against the rabble is an anachronism. Its mandate to represent the regions within Parliament was hopelessly compromised when Atlantic Canada was allowed to have 30 senators and Western Canada was given only 24. And its unelected collection of patronage appointees makes any defender of democracy's blood boil.

But any substantial improvement would require constitutional reform, which is politically impossible.

Mr. Harper's proposal may or may not survive a court challenge. But if it does, an elected Senate will inevitably become more powerful.

There will be confrontations and possibly even paralysis. But the government of Canada will be more democratic.

Canada is rather like the bumblebee, which, according to an urban myth, scientists have proved cannot fly.

An elected Senate “does add a little bit of weight to the bumblebee and does make it theoretically less able to fly,” Mr. Segal observes. “But somehow the bumblebee doesn't know that and keeps on flying.”

John Ibbitson is The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief

First, on a matter of principle: I believe that a federal state must have a bicameral legislature: one chamber, which I would prefer to call the National Assembly because it is (should be) a body, an assembly, where everyone in the whole nation is represented on a (roughly) equal basis, and a Senate where the equal political partners in the federation, the provinces, are represented.

Second, also on a point of principle: no legislative chamber in a modern, liberal democracy should be appointed. All legislators must be elected by the people.

Third: I suspect that Prof. Jennifer Smith is both right and wrong:

1. She is surely correct when she says, “They're [elected senators] not going to be elected to play second fiddle … They will have a much more robust view of what their position is. ... It would disable governments when they needed to make tough decisions.” We should change “would disable governments” to “might disable,” but the risk of ending up with US style gridlock is real. Of course we understand that some of the very wise men who set up the US government thought gridlock is a good thing, it prevents government from being too radical, in any political direction; but

2. She is wrong, I think is suggesting that an alected Senate would be unconstitutional. The PM’s authority to recommend almost anyone to the Queen for appointment to the Senate is relatively unlimited. I can see nothing that would prevent any PM from adding some conventions to the process, like –

a. being elected, on some sort of PR system, during a provincial general election, and

b. submitting a letter of resignation, effective the next provincial general election, as a condition of appointment;

Fourth: while an equal Senate might be desirable it might not be practical. For one thing the size differential between ON and PEI is vast – far greater than in most federations. Perhaps we could have a constitutional amendment that would recognize five sets of provinces/territories:

1. Very large – ON and QC, for now – 24 seats each (48);
2. Large – AB and BC – 16 seats each (32);
3. Medium – MN, NB, NL, NS and SK – 10 seats each (50);
4. Small – PEI – 4 seats (4)
5. Very small – NV, NWT and YK – 1 seat each (3).

That would yield a 137 seat Senate of Canada – elected, probably effective and more equal than is now the case.

A few years ago I did a quick staff check on what an elected (my system) sebate might look like based on the (then) mix of Conservative, Liberal and NDP governments in the provinces. There was a Liberal plurality but only if one assumed that all provincial Liberals would caucus together.

I updated that and reassigned some provincial Liberals to other parties and gave the ADQ and Saskatchewan party candidates to the Tories and got this result for 2010:

Caucus
Conservative 34
Liberal           26
NDP               19
BQ                   9
Independent 17
Total           105

Anyway, food for thought, I hope.

 

[Redeye]

Because he heads a party with seats in the House of Commons, she does not.  If we open the debates to all parties, then we'll have the Marxist-Leninists, the Christian Heritage Party and all the others demanding equal time.

Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[vonGarvin]

Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.

It may not be a great system, but it's the best going system, bar none. 

With "first past the post", locals vote for "their man", as it were, to represent them in Ottawa.  Now, I haven't had pot since the mid 80's, so no, I'm not high, and I have no delusions; however, the alternate is for proportional representation to have Jack, Iggy, Stephen et al select their cronies to sit for us.

As well, those who oppose the FPTP come normally from the fringe ("loony left" or "radical right") or where-ever.  And their arguments only serve to illustrate how wacky their ideas are.  They say that "only the US, Canada, Australia" (etc) have the FPTP.  Great, use the most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on Earth as an example of why their systems don't work :

I'd much rather have a parliament with 3 or 4 parties, coalitions or not, rather than some whackjob from the Greens going on about hemp and veganism in Parliament, when there are more important issues to debate/discuss.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.

(Of course, I'd also like to see a Senate where the Senators are elected based on proportional share of votes in provincial elections, therefore making it a true house of the provinces, but baby steps...)

 

[PuckChaser]

I've always liked the idea that the House of Commons should be elected as is, and the senate is elected by percentage of popular vote throughout the country.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.

(Of course, I'd also like to see a Senate where the Senators are elected based on proportional share of votes in provincial elections, therefore making it a true house of the provinces, but baby steps...)

I'm with dapaterson on both issues.

I believe we want, indeed need to retain constituency representation so a 'simple,' pure proportional representation system is a non-starter. STV works for a single member constituency, effectively requiring that the elected member (eventually - which is actually very quick with automation) is the one who gets 50%+1 of the votes cast. I would be willing to consider multi-member constituencies - say five (larger) constituencies in Ottawa (rather than the current nine) each with two members (first and second place finishers) which makes it a bit more "proportional" - but I would be unwilling to go much further than that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The very real problems with proportional representation are single issue parties and lack of local representation.  While I am sure that the Greens are all very nice people, what is to stop some really nasty people from getting together and forming a party with racist (or worse) overtones?  If they get enough votes, they are in Parliament.  Now, at least they would have to convince at least a plurality voters in at least one riding to get a seat in Parliament.