Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[McG]

This proposal is still generating discussion.

Conservative Deepak Obhrai expands assault on Tory MP’s Reform Act to opposition inboxes
Laura Stone 
Global News
12 February 2014

OTTAWA – Tory MP Deepak Obhrai has expanded his email critique of fellow Conservative Michael Chong’s Reform Act to the inboxes of opposition MPs.

Obhrai, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, said he reached out to both the NDP and Liberals about the bill, which would give party caucuses more power including the ability to vote out their leader.

The Calgary East MP already wrote to Parliamentarians in his own caucus earlier this month imploring them to reject the bill.

In an interview, Obhrai said he felt compelled to write to the opposition because the bill applies to all political parties.

“I thought my views should be shared with my colleagues in the House of Commons as to the impact it will have on all political parties, and henceforth it is important that everybody knows my point of view,” he said.

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus called the move “bizarre” and said it points to infighting in the Conservative caucus.

“It’s very surprising,” Angus said.

“A backbencher’s right to bring a private members’ bill, bring it for a vote. This is what we do….this is a bill that’s worthy of merit and it’s worthy of study.”

Obhrai said his criticism is based on his own experience seeking the Reform party nomination. Obhrai said the local riding association tried to make all supporters carry citizenship cards, a rule that would have had a “devastating impact” if it weren’t for national party guidelines.

“This bill, in my view, is a direct attack on the rights of grassroots Canadians,” his email reads.

“Under this bill, Elections Canada would have the power to become involved in the caucus of a political party.”

The bill, which has garnered support from Conservative backbenchers, proposes that MPs could call a leadership review with 15 per cent support. It would also allow a majority of caucus to eject a leader and takes away the requirement for a party leader to sign nomination papers.

Chong wouldn’t comment on Obhrai’s actions but said the current voting system does not accurately reflect the number of visible monitories in Canadian society.

“The Reform Act will ensure that we move towards a House of Commons that is more reflective of the new Canada,” he said.

He said he anticipates the bill will be debated in May and voted upon for the first time in early June.

Both Liberal and NDP offices confirmed they received Obhrai’s note.

Dear Colleague:

During my long political career, I have faced numerous political battles. From nominations to leadership campaigns to general elections. The most important lesson I have learned is to seek and respect the support of our party’s grassroots. Respecting and listening to the views of the membership of our party, and in fact the general public, is the nectar of political life.

During my extensive travels, I have also seen disastrous consequences when this important principle is ignored. That is why, today, I am writing to you about a Private Members’ Bill being proposed by our colleague Michael Chong, C-559 (Reform Act, 2013). This bill, in my view, is a direct attack on the rights of grassroots Canadians.

Under this bill, Elections Canada would have the power to become involved in the caucus of a political party; the bill would give Elections Canada the mandate to force by-laws on parties to allow just 15 percent of the caucus to launch a leadership review; it would allow Members of Parliament to kick out a leader who was voted in by large numbers of the party’s membership; and it would completely ignore the views of the loyal membership.

During the last leadership race, Conservative Party of Canada members from all across the country voted for a leader. Yet, under Bill C-559, party members who do not have a sitting MP would have no vote on removing a leader. As C-559 is written, only a selected group of individuals would have any control or ability to influence a leadership decision.

During our recent convention in Calgary, Mr. Chong’s EDA presented something similar to this bill, and it was defeated –because this proposal overrules the desires of the grassroots.

Yes, some Commonwealth countries do have this rule but it is important to note that it is entrenched in the party’s rules, with the approval of its general membership. Not in government law. There is no country in the world I am aware of that has a law that tells parties how to remove a leader. Also, Bill C-559 would create a two-tiered political system as there is no province in Canada that has this kind of undemocratic provision.

Clause 7(3) of this bill says a party must satisfy the Chief Electoral Officer that the party is following the new rules. So, under Bill C-559 we would have a government agency with the power to regulate what happens in a caucus. Elections Canada bureaucrats could attend caucus meetings, administer votes and punish the caucus leadership if they fail to follow their interpretation of the law.

The bill would also ban parties from having nation-wide rules for nomination and, according to Clause 3, nominations would be held according to rules established by the association.

Based on my own experience in my first Reform nomination, this provision would have prevented me from running. At the time, the local association wanted their “preferred white candidate” to win and, as such, barred me from running. It was the national office that ensured the nomination was open and transparent, and that it was the membership who decided who their candidate would be. Of the seven candidates that ran, I was chosen by the grassroots despite the fact that the association urged I not be considered.

This bill tries to correct a perceived flaw but it should not be at the expense of disenfranchising the membership. They must have a say in how their party is to be run. Colleague, there is always room for improvement and, with wide input, especially from membership, ideas can come forward that will strengthen democracy. Therefore, I suggest that all EDAs be consulted and their views sought – my EDA has informed me that they oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

Hon. Deepak Obhrai, PC, MP

http://globalnews.ca/news/1145708/conservative-deepak-obhrai-expands-assault-on-tory-mps-reform-act-to-opposition-inboxes/

 

[pbi]

And Lawrence Martin, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, reminds us of a bit of the history of the “elected dictatorship” that is the defining characteristic of a majority government in a Westminster based system:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/decades-ago-we-should-have-listened-to-joe/article16314768/#dashboard/follows/

There was a time, in my lifetime ~ think about the Pipeline Debate of 1956 ~ when what Prime Minister Harper does, what Prime Ministers Chrétien, Mulroney and Trudeau did, would have destroyed their political fortunes. No longer, we have evolved, our politics have evolved in parallel with a highly Americanized, TV based, celebrity obsessed popular culture that aims to pacify us with social, economic and political "snacks," junk food, rather than nourish us with the roast beef and green vegetables of good, sound public policy.

:goodpost:

My feeling exactly. This is coupled with the frequent resort to characterizing anybody who questions the GoC as being somehow "un-Canadian" or "un-patriotic", or of somehow supporting the evil that the measure of the day is supposedly meant to deal with.  The end result of this sort of thing is to demonize debate, which IMHO is at the heart of our entire Parliamentary process.

The last thing I want to see in this country is that sort of "You Hate  America!!"  rubbish that gets thrown around by some loudmouths in the US political arena.

That said, I think it is past time that our system was overhauled to bring in much greater levels of accountability and visibility which seem to characterize the letter of the US Federal political system, if not always the spirit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two elements from the Justice Nadon fiasco may point to problems for Senate reform:

"Quebec’s distinctive character must be reflected in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and nothing short of unanimous agreement of the provinces can change that principle, the country’s highest court has ruled."

And

"But the court’s credibility has not suffered, legal observers say. Far from it, they say. It was enhanced by a historic ruling that will take its place alongside the 1998 secession ruling on what it would take to break up Canada. It was a history lesson on the compromise between French and English that is Canada: “The eligibility requirements for appointments from Quebec are the result of the historic bargain that gave birth to the Court in 1875.”"

Source: The Globe and Mail

The Supremes have, loudly and clearly, affirmed that they, not the prime minister, will rule on what is or is not Constitutional.

The ruling that says that the appointment process cannot be changed without the unanimous agreement of the provinces might signal how the Supremes will rule on Senate Reform. If they do then I expect that:

    1. Any honest, well intentioned reform proposal will be doomed to failure because there will always be at least one province that will hold it hostage ~ wanting to "trade rights for fish" as Pierre Trudeau so aptly put it; and

    2. Abolition will also be impossible, for the same reason.

Question: How, then, to move Canadian democracy out of the 19th and into the 21st century, where appointed legislatures are relics of our colonial past?

Answer:    Only a full scale Constitutional Congress, essentially a repeat of Charlottetown and Quebec City in 1864, will suffice. < shudder >

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps you mean Charlottetown and Meech Lake?

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/the-charlottetown-accord/

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/meech-lake-accord/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nope. I really meant 1864. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were, in fact, fairly tightly focused. If the Supremes say that Senate reform must have unanimous approval then I suspect that the necessary Constitutional conference or convention or congress will have to be nearly open ended. I doubt that most provinces will want to rearrange the national legislature without addressing several, maybe many, other issues, too.

 

[a_majoor]

Question: How, then, to move Canadian democracy out of the 19th and into the 21st century, where appointed legislatures are relics of our colonial past?

Answer:    Only a full scale Constitutional Congress, essentially a repeat of Charlottetown and Quebec City in 1864, will suffice. < shudder >

History tells us there is another answer, but no one will like it (and many of us saw it first hand in places like former Yugoslavia....)

Sadly, when there is no room or appetite for change among the elites, or those who profit from the current arrangement, forces for change will continue to build underground like the movement of the continental plates that create earthquakes. The shift from the Laurentian consensus to the Western, suburban model of the "New Canada" is providing the moving force for change; how that pressure will be harnessed or released will be one of the stories that future historians will tell about Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nope. I really meant 1864. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were, in fact, fairly tightly focused. If the Supremes say that Senate reform must have unanimous approval then I suspect that the necessary Constitutional conference or convention or congress will have to be nearly open ended. I doubt that most provinces will want to rearrange the national legislature without addressing several, maybe many, other issues, too.

If Bytown and its offspring couldn't get it together on Meech or Charlottetown 2, or even Trudeau's 1982 debacle,  I still stand by my earlier comment.

 

[a_majoor]

The writers of the 1982 Constitution Act and the Supremes were operating under the assumption that changes to the act should be next to impossible; and the Trudopean vision of Canada preserved in amber. This sort of attitude overlooks or ignores the fact that society changes, either internally (i.e. demographics) or externally (the introduction of new technologies, for example).

What is missing is a means to make incremental changes to allow for these shifts to be accommodated. Even provisions like the appointment of judges is essentially predicated on the ratio of Quebecois to the rest of the Canadian population, yet in just a generation from the partition of the constitution, demographics have upended the rational.  And of course who in 1982 could have predicted the changes things like the Internet would make, or the price of oil wold rise to the extent that the Western provinces would be holding the upper hand in the economy? (Walter Russel Mead's book God and Gold makes a similar argument about the inherent flexibility of the British and US political systems to make incremental changes over 300 years as conditions changed).

My guess is that as time passes, we will see more and more "informal" changes being cobbled together to accommodate the changing political landscape, and hopefully the Supremes will see fit to allow some "give" so external forces don't torque the system entirely out of shape.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps if they open the Constitution for this, while it's open they can re-instate property rights.


Sorry, just had a little dizzy spell there for a moment and wasn't thinking clearly. :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Greg Weston, in an article that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News looks at the fallout from the (likely, in my opinion) situation if the Supremes tell Prime Minister Harper that Senate Reform is all but impossible without a full blown Constitutional convention:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/if-supreme-court-nixes-senate-reform-is-referendum-next-1.2620016

If Supreme Court nixes Senate reform, is referendum next?
High noon for Senate reform as top court to decide Friday if Ottawa can go it alone

By Greg Weston, CBC News

Posted: Apr 24, 2014

Now well into its second century of political futility, Senate reform is about to reach another historic milestone Friday when the Supreme Court rules on the Harper government's power to overhaul the upper chamber.

The answer may well be that it can't.

Unless the high court is in a mood to deliver shock and awe, history and a legion of experts suggest the noble cause of Senate reform will probably continue down the same long road that so far has gone largely from here to where we are.

In a nutshell, Stephen Harper's government is hoping to fulfill its longstanding promise to either fix or abolish the Senate without having to drag the country through a protracted constitutional battle with the provinces.

Polls show that reform is a mission popular with Canadians repulsed by the recent Senate spending scandals and long angered by the image of the red chamber as a patronage pasture for party hacks.

Unfortunately for the government and others who support cleaning up the Red Trough, or draining it forever, the Supreme Court is unlikely to give a simple yeah or nay.

The decision will be complicated, answering 14 separate constitutional questions posed by the government.

At the risk of over-simplification, those questions deal with three basic issues: Can the federal government set term limits for senators who now get to sit until age 75; appoint only those first chosen by provincially-sponsored Senate elections; and abolish the Senate altogether.

On each issue, the court will decide whether Parliament alone has the authority to make these kinds of changes, or whether it needs agreement from some or all of the provinces.

So far, experts say the odds favour the high court coming down on the side of the feds having to get provincial agreement on most of the 14 questions before it.

If that happens, the next big question on Senate reform may be whether the prime minister and his Conservative government are prepared to call a referendum on the issue during the next federal election, barely 18 months from now.

Not another Meech Lake

A referendum may be the only option left if the government is determined to move this file forward.

Experts say federal-provincial negotiations aimed at reforming or killing the Senate are almost beyond a last resort with this prime minister — and perhaps others for years to come.

University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane told the CBC's Alison Crawford that the government's reference to the Supreme Court is precisely "an attempt to avoid the kind of mega-constitutional politics that we saw…with things like the Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accord" in the 1980s and '90s.

"This is not a government that is particularly interested in…sitting down with the premiers and hashing out an agreement."

Conservative strategists say there are perfectly good reasons to avoid reopening the Constitution.

"Once you open that door," says one former PMO staffer, "it's inevitable there will be a stampede of special interests trying to improve their constitutional lot, and that's probably the last thing most Canadians want right now."

Macfarlane points out that one of those likely to take advantage of any federal-provincial constitutional confab would be Quebec, back for another attempt to have a distinct society enshrined in the law of the land.

After more than a century of largely failed federal-provincial attempts to overhaul the Senate, the Harper government knows its own chances of reaching a deal for negotiated changes before the next election are slim to nil.

The government's own minister for democratic reform, Pierre Poilievre, admits: "We are not interested in having a big constitutional distraction."

Most Canadians would surely agree.

A dangerous gamble

So, if the Supreme Court rules the feds don't have the authority to give the Senate a makeover without provincial agreement, would the Harper government simply call a referendum on the issue?

Conservative strategists say, on the face of it, a referendum on Senate reform in the next election could provide a useful distraction from a government suffering nine years of wear and tear, and all the voter fatigue that goes with it.

As one Conservative insider says, in theory "the prime minister could say, 'Well, we're going to go over the heads of the courts and directly to the people on this.'"

In reality, a referendum would be a dangerous political gamble.

First, Harper and his government have spent nine years building their political brand around the economy. And unless the country's finances are completely in the tank by the next election, why would the Conservatives want to distract voters to focus on Senate reform?

Second, flogging Senate reform to voters could be a tough sell for a prime minister and government that have spent nine years failing to make good on their promises to change the upper chamber.

Third, if the Supreme Court rules that the federal government can't make changes to the Senate without the provinces, even a national referendum doesn't change that fact. It could all be a wasted exercise.

One Conservative insider says that no matter what the Supreme Court ruling is on Friday, "the government will find a happy face to put on the decision.

"Maybe they will simply throw up their hands and say, 'Well, we tried our best, you've heard the court, so let's just move on to other things.'"

All things considered, the government might call that a happy ending.

I agree with Greg Weston's ultimate point: I think that, in the face of a rejection, by the top court, of Prime Minister Harper's preferred option, he can go to the relatively small number of Canadians who actually care about Senate Reform and say, "I tried my best, but my hands are tied."

Which takes me back to my stealth option:

    1. Appoint only those who submit a signed, undated letter of resignation; and

    2. Delay appointing any unelected senator ~ I'm absolutely, 100% certain that several provinces would run to the courts if he did that but I'm not so sure that the courts would rule against him.*

Eventually he and his successors, get either:

    1. An elected senate; or

    2. De facto, no senate at all.

_____
* The Constitution says:

§17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. (So, a Senate must exist, I guess.)
§21 The Senate shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, consist of One Hundred and five Members, who shall be styled Senators. (So, the senate must have senators, too.)
§24 The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator. (So, "from time to time" senators must be "summoned (appointed). But it's not clear what "from time to time actually means.)

There's a whole big section (§23) on qualification and several sections (§30 and 31) on how senators may resign or be fired., but, generally, the prime minister (actually "the Governor General, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada," to be precise, which simply means the prime minister) is, pretty much, the master of how he decides to choose senators.

 

[Privateer]

* The Constitution says:

§17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. (So, a Senate must exist, I guess.)
§21 The Senate shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, consist of One Hundred and five Members, who shall be styled Senators. (So, the senate must have senators, too.)
§24 The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator. (So, "from time to time" senators must be "summoned (appointed). But it's not clear what "from time to time actually means.)

There's a whole big section (§23) on qualification and several sections (§30 and 31) on how senators may resign or be fired., but, generally, the prime minister (actually "the Governor General, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada," to be precise, which simply means the prime minister) is, pretty much, the master of how he decides to choose senators.

It gets more complicated than that, because the constitution consists of more than just the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982.  For example, the Newfoundland Act, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22, an act of the United Kingdom, contains the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, which provide that Newfoundland is entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members.  Presumably, if the Governor General failed to make the necessary appointments to fill this constitutional requirement, Newfoundland could take legal action to compel the GG to do so.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Essentially, and as expected, the SCC has ruled against the Government on almost every single point. The decision is here.

So: Prime Minister Harper cannot reform the Senate without reopening the Constitution and Mr Mulcair cannot, in good conscience, promise to abolish it.

What next?

In my opinion: nothing.

Prime Minister Harper will say, to people like me,, "I tried, but the Supremes say that I cannot do it, not, at least without a Constitutional imbroglio that none of us wants."

 

[Kirkhill]

The Supremes have essentially bolstered Harper's western flank.  Triple E was always a western thing, part of the "west wants in agenda" - and it resonated across party lines west of the Lakehead.  Further resonance will be felt in the North amongst the territories.

The East (Quebec and the Maritimes especially) need/want the Senate status quo because otherwise they would become as insignificant as the Yukon and Nunavut politically but without the wealth.

Add in the Pipelines discussion - where headway is being made in BC and Irving is being bribed in the Maritimes  (refining and ships on both coasts) and the battlefield in the next election in Ontario.  And we're back to 905 vs 416 - Ethnic Conservatives vs Champagne Socialists.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Gordon Gibson, long time Blue Liberal and Fraser Institute fellow (and that's about as blue as one can get), opines that there are ways - but not Justin Trudeau's way - to reform the Senate in ways that the Supremes have not closed off in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-senate-lives-on-with-all-of-its-powers-so-now-what/article18459108/#dashboard/follows/

The Senate lives on with all of its powers. So now what?

GORDON GIBSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, May. 05 2014

It isn’t over until it is over and it is finally over. The idea of significant Senate reform is dead in our time courtesy of the Supreme Court reference decision. Gone. Kaput. Vanished. Forget about it.

Some diehards won’t give up. They suggest de facto abolition by prime ministers simply refusing to make appointments until the Red Chamber dies with the passing of the last senator, nothing left but the grin of the Cheshire Cat. Constitutional idiocy. When the number of senators drops below a quorum, Parliament (of which the Senate is a necessary part) stops. The wheels fall off. No more budgets, bills, no any of the fine things that our political masters contrive to better our lives.

Some propose variants whereby prime ministers appoint only an equal number from each province to arrange for the famous Triple-E Senate. Any significant evidence of this would see lawsuits by deprived provinces demanding the prime minster do his duty. Good political theatre perhaps, bad policy.

Even Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s no doubt well meant, but foolish scheme to depoliticize the Senate might founder upon any well defined scheme of appointment, a necessary part of his plan. This could again require provincial assent. More importantly, it would lead to a powerful Senate with no democratic connection to the elected caucuses, a horror show waiting for the curtain to rise.

Other diehards will seek significant reform schemes that the provinces and feds would support in a major consensus. Good luck with that. A child born next year might see this by the end of his or her life, but most of us will concern ourselves with more immediate matters such as the effects of climate change 50 years hence.

And yet the Senate lives on with all of its enormous powers. So now what? There are two routes only, namely “same old” in terms of appointees, or “better senators.”

The mad Emperor Caligula appointed his horse to the Roman Senate, presumably to show his contempt for that body or his regard for the equine. Canadian prime ministers have, from time to time appointed, only the rear part of the horse to our own Upper Chamber.

But surely Prime Minister Stephen Harper must stand at the pinnacle of responsibility for the addition of disgraceful names, of which we will learn more as the details of police investigations unfold. Now is an opportunity for him to be a great prime minister, if he can, to take a second look and set a new pattern. What might it look like?

First, a great prime minister might set as a personal target the naming of new senators in such a way as to gradually make that place a better mirror of Canada generally, in terms of linguistic, gender and ethnic balance. Nothing new about this trend. The Senate is already a better reflection in these terms than the House. But we have a way to go.

One dimension where the Senate should not reflect the country is in age. It is supposed to be a place of sober second thought. And wisdom, especially political wisdom, comes with age. I would put a higher age requirement – not in law but in aspiration – of 55. Retirement is at 75 and a 20-year term is long enough. One might go a step further and make senatorial pensions fully earned after 15 years, encouraging early departure by those feeling they have given what they can.

Second, a great prime minister might look at how Supreme Court judges are nominated. Judges, too, are appointed by the prime minister (in fact, if not law) but problems are few because most names on the potential lists have already been vetted by panels of the legal community in each province. (Where this is not the case, one can occasionally encounter a Marc Nadon-like embarrassment.)

Such a system should be set up for senators, with the PM undertaking that with few exceptions, appointees are to be chosen from a list advanced by local panels. These could include representation from the governing and opposition parties in the legislatures, municipalities, universities and so on. As with court nominations, these lists should be private and for the eyes of the PM only.

Finally, a revolutionary idea, give the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons a few appointments to make on his/her own call – every fourth one, say. The opposition in the Senate must be kept healthy as well, and opposition parties need strong members to be ready for their eventual day in office.

If Mr. Harper doesn’t like this kind of appointment reform, it sounds as though Mr. Trudeau might. This is a matter not to be overlooked at the next election.

I like the general thrust and tenor of Mr Gibson's ideas, but not all the details.

First: the very best way, the only democratic way to select senators is through elections. Right now one province, Alberta, elects senators and the prime minister - any and all prime ministers  - should encourage other provinces to follow suit. Prime Minister Harper should promise that he will appoint fairly elected senators, as vacancies occur, regardless of political affiliation.

Absent election, which should be run by provinces in conjunction with their own provincial general elections, it is a good idea to encourage provinces to submit, in confidence, lists of nominees to the prime minister. He should not agree to be bound by those lists - you can imagine that no PM would want to accept a list from, say, a PQ government in Quebec, but he should promise to consider it. The prime minister might, also, invite nominations from provincial organizations - the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, or the Council of Ontario Universities if he's considering appointing a distinguished, albeit Conservative leaning aboriginal leader from Saskatchewan or an educator from Ontario.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, from the Ontario Liberal Party's platform, released today, is, potentially, HUGE:

 

[PuckChaser]

Restoring trust in government that the Liberal party destroyed? Red herring platform piece to distract voters from real issues.

 

[a_majoor]

And looking at the toxic stew of civic politics in my home town of London, I can only imagine the petty bickering and back door dealing that will come with ranked ballots or any other variation of PR. I can certainly imagine the same happening in Toronto. YMMV depending on where you live and vote.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Courts?

Or Parliament?

This Cavalier cheerfully stands with Parliament against the Courts. 

I offer no apologies for conflating British and Canadian arguments.

 

[McG]

I see the Greens are proposing a one time coalition with the Luberals and NDP to win the next election and then introduce a change to preferential ballots.  I suspect the coalition would then promptly fall apart.

 

[ModlrMike]

Both Trudeau and Mulcair want the throne for themselves too badly to share.