From My Blagh, on yesterday’s announcement by the prime minister to inject democracy into the Senate. Some argue the House of Commons needs it first!
REFORM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FIRST
by Robert McClelland
So PMS wants to reform the Senate to make it more democratic. Talk about putting your democratic cart before your democratic horse.
How about reforming the institution that actually governs the nation? 22% of the Canadian voters (Green and New Democratic) are shamefully under-represented with their electoral choices holding a mere 9.5% of the seats in the House of Commons.
How about fixing the undemocratic process of appointing committee chairs?
“It is oddly incongruous for Mr. Harper to position himself as a champion of parliamentary reform when in government he has reverted to the same sort of high-handed tactics that he once condemned Liberal governments for using. For example, rather than permit chairs of standing committees to be freely elected by members, something he advocated while in opposition as essential for ‘reining in the powe rof the Prime Minister,’ Mr. Harper undermined the reform by choosing his own candidates for the jobs, candidates whom Conservative MPs then dutifully elected.’â€
Or how about putting an end to the politicization of committees and begin allowing independent MPs to sit in them?
(From garth.ca) “But, they’ve kicked me off the committee. Yeah, that, too.
This is a tad more profound than it might appear, since House of Commons committees are intended to be all-party affairs, and one of the only places where MPs from all political backgrounds get together to try and do constructive things. The fact I have been removed – the only MP on one side of the table with a financial and economic background, government experience and cabinet experience (facing two hugely experienced former Liberal cabmins and a very able colleague, plus a Bloc economist and an impressive NDP expert) – hints at the Harper Administration agenda.
This government has actually had a PMO senior staffer in national caucus recently instructing MPs on how to politicize the committees and turn them into instruments of government policy. Tory MPs are instructed to meet before committee meetings to plan strategy to help ministers, and to be assigned questions to ask witnesses. Attendance at these meetings is mandatory, and recorded.”
If PMS were truly concerned about our democracy he’d make the undemocratic imbalances in the body that actually governs our nation a priority rather than go looking for them in an institution that has become mostly symbolic. But he’s not, so he won’t and will instead choose to continue the partisan gamesmanship that has supplanted good governance in the realm of conservatism.
Globe editorial: Mr Harper, first fix the Commons
44 comments ↓
Wow. I like this post.
I’d throw in a dash of federal recall legislation while we’re at it.
David Emmerson’s duplicity is an injustice to the voters of vancouver-kingsway. Likewise I’m sure there’s some support for a recall Belinda campaign in her riding.
Before PMSH mucks with the senate (I still can’t find a good example of WHY we need senatorial reform), he should clean up his own back yard.
Perhaps Steve will next appoint himself Emperor like Napolean did.
Hey Garth, Is this Conservative strategy just about power? I know Harper is tired of having to go along with the minority situation. But has the PMO got a grander strategy? I smell something fishy.
Kevin M, Recall is a good idea but it does not seem to work. I think it is required to get 60% of registered voters to sign the recall. Garth could probably let us know how hard the door knocking is. If a recall was done in Belinda Stronachs riding I would be surprised if it went ahead. Se was voted back in with her new party less then a year later so she seems to have enough support there. The hardest thing of recall is who organizes it? It should be done non-partisan or it would look like sour grapes on the losing party.
Roberts idea of PR seems good idea but PR would have to have set election dates. I believe Italy has PR thus always having a minority government and an election every couple of years at least. Set election dates would greatly help this idea as I don’t think the public likes to have elections too often. Our country is bad enough if it turns out to be an election in May as Garth seems to be likely. That will give us an election 3 in 3 years. I minority governments should all use the time wisely with all party and members input so they can work together.The taxpayers should foot the bill for an election every 4 years and if the MPs want one sooner they can put their money where their non confidence vote is and pay for it themselves.
Sounds like the platform of the Reform Party.
Where were you during that time, Garth?
Geoffrey L,
Shhhh! Don’t give Steve any ideas…especially one like that!
It is definitely time to throw the bums out of office. Anything that harper does seems to bring on a big road block for the average Joe/Jane citizen. the latest fiasco is the passport application scenario. People have to wait several hours in line before a prescreener views the form and then there is another wait in line for several hours to process the darn thing. The cpc are able to create the chaos but have no insight into handling the chaos.
I will never vote for the cpc bums again, and the feeling by people in the line was mutual.
THROW THE CPC BUMS OUT ASAP.
Geoffrey:
He doesn’t have to – as long as he can command a majority in the house he has more power.
Napolean ended up being sent to the island of Elba….for PMSH maybe Baffin!
I wouldn’t mind it if I didn’t know Robert as a troll! The man will argue anything to get attention to himself…
I will endorse elected Senators when Stephen Harper endorses elected, not appointed, Cabinet members. (Fortier)
Can he not see the hypocrisy?
On another subject…Afghanistan…PMSH says the opposition arties are playing politics when they want to debate the mission saying that, “We should back our soldiers when they’re doing the job we sent them to do.”
There are two parts to the PM’s statement. First, do the opposition parties support our troops in Afghanistan. A resounding Yes!
But the real issue is about the second part of his statement, do the opposition parties support the mission we have sent them to do? The Bloc and NDP would answer NO, Liberals maybe!
Of course PMSH’s vision being myopic and black and white can’t distiguish between the two issues. Therefore PMSH is guilty of doing what he accuses the opposition of doing, playing politics with our soldiers in Afghanistan.
I didn’t hear any complaints when the Liberals were in power for 13 years. Not it’s all PMSH’s fault. Get real guys.
Gilles,i got my passport a month ago and experienced no waits of several hours as you stated.Found it quite easy actually.I knew what to bring and was in and out fairly quickly.
You also stated you waited in line twice several hours.I know of no passport office in my area open 14 hours a day.Perhaps you are exagerating a little,no?
Harper’s attempt to reform the Senate is nothing more than proving he has tried to fulfil an election promise. He knows there will be an election at least by spring, and he needs to list all the great things he has done to fulfil those promises.
But we (the voters) won’t forget the ONE BIG LIE OF HIS PROMISE NOT TO TOUCH INCOME TRUSTS.
Do the application on line,then print it and get it signed.They have special lines for those who have already input the data.
The process is fast and pleasant-they way one hopes all government services could be.
Interesting to see the ideological shift here. When Garth was a conservative eeeeveryone was bleeding blue. Now we get articles by renowned dipper trolls being hailed as the word of God (oops, sorry I forgot this is the home of the Illuminati… can’t be mentioning the G word). Pathetic.
Yes! PMSH wants to give us the single transferable vote for the meaningless chamber, but has no interest in proportional representation for the House of Commons. What a hypocrit!
“From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated in a release.
What is the accountability in government for this?
http://imaginesask.ca/Platform.pdf
Security for seniors
The Liberal track record for Canadian seniors is a sad story of unfair taxation, poor government services, and now an inexcusable policy blunder that has destroyed the retirement savings of Canadians invested in income trusts.
It is time for a government that respects those who have spent their lives raising families, saving for their retirement, and building this country.
The plan
A Conservative government will:
• Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them.
I have come to realize the appeal and the attraction that this blog has for some people. Garth makes people FEEL like they are empowered, and that they are the bosses, the masters, and the powerful ones, and the elected ones are beholden to us. They are our lackeys, or servile followers. They take all of the abuse from opposing views, and we insist that they listen to us, all of us (assuming that “all” and “us” are one and the same).
The problem comes when an MP has to make a decision, and his constituency is divided, some people are going to then feel that he does not represent them, and all of these talk about more “power to the people” becomes only empty talk to them, and they feel betrayed.
I am amazed at how much talk like recall legislation, which sounds so simple, and makes the voter feel empowered that he can just yank the chain on his MP when he or she displeases him.
Folks, get real. That is an old Reform idea that has run its course, and it will never happen.
What amazes me is that while these ideas were being touted by the old Reform Party back in 1993, Garth was a Cabinet minister in the PC government opposing Reform’s platform.
Truly politics makes for strange bedfellows.
I can tell you one thing for certain. As pleasing as these ideas are to voters who would like to fancy themselves as powerful and dominant, they will never get anywhere, and you are only setting yourself up for more disappointment unless you can build teamwork and coalitions with those who share your views, and this takes a more co-operative, positive approach than name-calling people that you don’t like.
I have never supported recall legislation, and don’t now. It is far too clumsy to be effective and puts MPs into an even more constant state of electioneering and campaigning than the present flawed system. Most damning of it, however, is the consistent lack of response people show towards public policy issues, unless they momentarily grab the attention of headline writers and talk show hosts. Guys like me can send out 55,000 household surveys, and be blessed to get a 1% response rate. So, how am I supposed to use that as a basis for decision-making? Sure, public repsonse is critical, but until we devise ways to get really meaningful results, it will form a part of an MP’s action agenda, not all of it. The best defence we voters have is to choose local candidates wisely and well, instead of being bamboozled by the national media campaigns designed to put all the focus on national leaders, who we will never meet. When we stop falling for that crap, we might get a better Parliament. Just MHO. — Garth
Roberts idea of PR seems good idea but PR would have to have set election dates. I believe Italy has PR thus always having a minority government and an election every couple of years at least. Set election dates would greatly help this idea as I don’t think the public likes to have elections too often.
Actually, there are countries that have proportional representation and don’t have the problems that Italy does. This is because those countries, unlike Italy, have politicians that compromise and cooperate. I imagine you’d see the same thing here given time.
But we (the voters) won’t forget the ONE BIG LIE OF HIS PROMISE NOT TO TOUCH INCOME TRUSTS.
Why do people keep going on and on about this? I don’t think the reform party had much of a choice on this one. They could keep their promise and let Canada become a massive social experiment as a flood of companies become trusts, or they could break their promise and prevent something from happening that most other countries have already done. Let’s face it, people are always complaining about loopholes for the rich, well, trusts were one. It’s been closed. I’m glad.
If anything, the unfortunate part is that the Reform Party wasn’t qualified enough to foresee this eventuality. I suspect the Liberals did seeing as how they trial balooned taxing trusts.
I just can not believe that our new government turned down an offer from the ESA to build a Mars rover here in Canada with Canadian robotic technology.
What is with PMSH that he and his Industry minister would say “Thanks but no thanks” is this the Avro Arrow all over again. All our good young people going to the US because this New Conservative Party can not see what a great honour it would be for us to have our products roaming around Mars and possibly the moon.
If your blog had a way of automatically tagging each post with the party for whom the author voted, I’ll bet there wasn’t a single Conservative in this whole thread until now. Lost in a sea of red & orange!
Hi again,
I feel like a parrot for repeating myself but…
In my mind PR is the only democratic way of distributing seats. This article only confirms my point of view. However, using a mixed member proportional representation system would still allow for local representation and maybe grant a bit more security in terms of too many minority governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional_Representation
I’d be really interested what all of you guys in this “comment-forum” have to say about this. No offense, but some topics seem so insignificant to me, as long as there can’t be a consensus on a truly democratic basis. This is what needs to be tackled very first before worrying about anything else.
My wish is probably far from becoming reality, but in order to make for change the word has to be brought out. So all of you reading this, talk to people, talk to your MP, help creating a voice to fight this what I would almost call dictatorship and achieve a true democracy!
ttysl
Tobi
Garth,
Thanks for sharing your views on recall legislation. I really respect you telling us where you stand.
That said, I do disagree with you. Today is not the era of the reformers and most people don’t know who they are voting for; they only know the party.
This party system works well, as can be evidenced by the number of votes for party members and the amazing lack of votes for independant candidates.
I lived in Vancouver-Kingsway during the last election and while I wont say who I voted for, I did not know the candidate from jack. I marched down past the telus building and cast a ballot.
The winner in that riding was Mr David Emmerson; a devout liberal.
The facts of the matter after that are clear, he now sits on the other side of the isle.
The people who voted liberal in Vancouver-Kingsway now sit disenfranchised. They were lied to, told they were getting a certain package and got the polar opposite.
Emmerson was not elected because of any personal trait, he was elected because he ran as a liberal. Plain and simple.
There is overwhelming support in Vancouver-Kingsway now to recall Mr Emmerson from parliament as he does not represent his constitutency. Further, not only does he not represent the electorate, but he is actively helping their enemy — the CPC.
Many, likely a majority of voters in Vancouver-Kingsway who voted liberal would find it unconscienciable to support the type of social conservatism of the CPC. They are minorities, they are second generation Canadians and they have specific needs they felt only the liberal platform could address.
Recall legislation is the only way to ensure that politicians cannot actively lie to constituents on such a critical matter as if they are a liberal or conservative.
I urge you to reconsider the goals of recall legislation and work to make a fair system that will allow the people of Vancouver-Kingsway to actually be represented in the HoC.
For now they stand disenfranchised.
christopher hearns on 12.14.06 11:08 pm
I am sure that a lot of readers don’t want me to rehash why the Conservative government was wrong in taxing income trust distributions in seniors retirement/pension accounts, but I will just say that you have a very superficial analysis of the situation.
Please read:
https://www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr_1206.pdf
And I would be interested in what your analysis is then.
Interestingly, here is a “left analysis” of the income trust situation. For all the Dippers who think that income trust are for the “rich”.
“Income Trust Payback”
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/12/income-trust-payback.html
Judy Roberts on 12.14.06 11:17 pm
It would appear that Harper and company are anti-science, they just say “NO” to anything they don’t understand, then call it a “Liberal” thing. What a joke Canada must look to the rest of the world right now!
Apparently a lot of posters here have no idea how the PR system works in other countries.
To begin, in this countries, the concept of minority government does not exist. After the election, the PM presents the government and the program to the parliament and they are both voted (one vote for both). This is a confidence vote. In order for the partyu that received the most of teh votes to govern, it needs to create a governemnt coalition iwth other parties to gat the 50%+ votes in the parliament to be voted. It could lead to the scenario that, if the party with most votes (most MPs) can not create an governemnt alliance, the 2nd and 3rd party can join and form a government.
What actually happens is a backroom war on what cabinet portfolio each party gets.
It could also lead to the situation where a minor party can always be part of the governemnt, creating alliances on both sides. A hypotetical example could be NDP forming a government with Liberals and the next election forming a government with PC.
Also, any little disadisfaction from a minor party that is part of the government could cauise the government to fall and the prime minister to work on creating a new alliance, thuis time with another party that, until now, was part of the opposition.
Please read:
https://www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr_1206.pdf
And I would be interested in what your analysis is then.
My analysis is the same now as it was then. PWC’s suggestion to fix the system is to eliminate what they call double taxation, even when their analysis of studies conducted shows that Trusts are a source of tax loss.
As for this:
I am sure that a lot of readers don’t want me to rehash why the Conservative government was wrong in taxing income trust distributions in seniors retirement/pension accounts, but I will just say that you have a very superficial analysis of the situation.
You just threw together some talking points (the reference to seniors), and then made an attack on my knowledge base, suggesting it is superficial. Interestingly enough, Is suspect it’s superficial because I disagree with you.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the Reform Party chose to do what they did? Is it because their knowledge is likewise superficial? Or is it because they’re out to get us?
Geoffrey L’s comparision of Harper to Napolean is appropriate except that he has the wrong Napolean. Harper is more analogous with the Napolean of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ – the pig who ‘liberated’ the animals from the oppression of their farmer (the Liberals) but who then exercised complete control over their lives and exceeded the worst excesses of their previous ruler.
One of the key characteristics of a Presidential/Emperor/Totalian style of government is to build a cult around the personality of the leader. Have a look at the CPC website or even the GoC home page – it’s all about ‘PM Harper this’ and PM Harper that’, little to no mention of the rest of his government. His actions to control all communications and the performance of the Committees is just further evidence of his totalitarian approach.
As for vision? The vision is to replace the Liberals as the Natural Governing Party much as the US neocons aimed to ensure the perpetual election of a Republican Party that would do their bidding.
When are we Conservatives going to wake up and realise that our Party has also been hijacked? Napolean and his backers have to go before we lose all credibility with Canadians!
Interestingly, here is a “left analysis†of the income trust situation. For all the Dippers who think that income trust are for the “richâ€.
Eugene’s post was about Bernier’s decision to over-ride the CRTC on deregulating the local telephone industry. Did you even read it? All signs point to no.
I don’t agree with this. This is just another way for the NDP to supercede democracy. Voters elect MP’s based on the majority in the riding. Remember folks, this is the party who advocates having 2 members for each riding a man and a woman. Let’s not empower these leftwing nutbars any more than they should be under the banner of democracy.
Oh Jeez I thought you were talking about Napoleon Dynamite, the Geeky one
.
http://tinyurl.com/2g2h2
Smile People.
There are two key principles at play in the Capital Markets as there is in Politics:
1. Ethics – Honesty is paramount.
2. Political Risk – When politicians aren’t honest they lose the next election.
Robert McClelland on 12.15.06 3:53 pm
His analysis is saying that the government is giving preferential treatment to a few corporations.
All pieces of the puzzle.. even left wing anarcho-socialists see what is going on here..
Namely BCE is paying no tax with their escape from becoming an income trust, simultaneously kyboshing Telus, their competition from becoming one and now they are receiving preferential treatment from the government to maintain their monopoly ..
The lack of clarity from the Canadian Department of Finance regarding the trust taxation rules is intended to restrict the ability of trusts to conduct their business and give a distinct advantage to corporations.. such as BCE..
Bell announces 2007 business outlook – Improving revenue and EBITDA growth in 2007 guidance
“Bell expects it will have no significant federal cash taxes through 2010, due to organizational simplification enabling accelerated use of Bell’s R&D tax credits.”
In other words, as a corporation BCE will pay no tax until after 2010! No wonder they didn’t want to convert to become an income trust!
Furthermore,
“Bell Globemedia Inc. is distancing itself from its former controlling shareholder, Bell Canada Enterprises Inc., with a name change, despite the phone giant successfully arguing a few months ago there had been no ownership change of the company.
Bell Globemedia Inc., which owns the CTV television network, The Globe and Mail and a number of specialty channels, will be known as CTVglobemedia Inc. as of the new year. The name change is a result of BCE reducing its holding in the company to 15% from 68.5%, the company said in a statement yesterday. The remaining shares are held by Woodbridge Co. Ltd. at 40%, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board at 25% and Torstar Corp. at 20%.
Despite BCE’s lowering its holding in Bell Globemedia by selling stakes to Woodbridge, Teachers and Torstar, the company argued there had been no transfer of ownership of Bell Globemedia and it should therefore be exempt from paying a transfer tax that benefits the country’s television-production industry. In July, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruled in favour of BCE and exempted the payment, which was calculated to be between $85-million and $130-million.”
In other words, even though BCE sold their majority stake in Bell Globemedia Inc., they somehow argued that there was no change in ownership so that they don’t have to pay tax!
So I ask you, who is the tax leakage here?
“Just out of curiosity, why do you think the Reform Party chose to do what they did? Is it because their knowledge is likewise superficial? Or is it because they’re out to get us?”
By christopher hearns on 12.15.06 11:54 am
I suspect all of the above, but they did this to somehow stay in power, even though it will backfire.
His analysis is saying that the government is giving preferential treatment to a few corporations.
Don’t forget the role of the heritage minister in this realm.
Charlie Angus’s three-point-plan
This descision isn’t going to help competition — which if you follow the industry was increasing competition from small VoIP companies who threatened to completely revitalize the marketplace.
It’s in fact designed to reduce competition, and make a more fair playing field for a handful of mega-corporations who were able to get their current advantage through years of goverment granted monopoly.
The CRTC said, no, we need to let the small VoIP industry establish itself in order to create a level playing field before letting the mega-corps leverage their decades of monopoly. Harper OVERRULED THEM; which basically never happens. Why?
Instead, these mega corps donated heavily to these ministers, especially the heritage minister, and as a result, they are getting a deregulation winfall when it doesnt offer any benefit to the consumer.
This set of politics will in-fact probably just raise your communications services cost across the board, while guaranteeing that the small VoIP startup can not compete by not stopping things like predatory QoS protection rackets. (Vonage vs Shaw CRTC complaint)
As usual it’s the small business owner, and the consumer who get screwed while the megacorps figure out how to not even pay taxes till 2010, padding their owners [and their boards] pockets.
It’s time to get rid of cash-and-carry government, and the Accountability Act, does little if nothing to stop this.
I’m wondering, how would proportional representation help independants? Wouldn’t this eliminate independants?
I find it very strange that Garth would support this but, he says so right at the beginning so he must.
Since he is such an expert on what Canadians should invest in, I recommend that Flaherty start teaching courses to seniors on technical analysis, day trading, and playing the options market. A lucrative career when he gets thrown out of office.
Better yet, Flaherty should subsidize seniors installing stock tickers and buy and sell buttons on wheel chairs, nursing home “call nurse” remotes, and hospital emergency wards, so that seniors can flip their stocks for capital gains to make ends meet, as Flaherty can’t stand giving them dividends anymore.
Geoffery L,
“I recommend that Flaherty start teaching courses to seniors on technical analysis, day trading, and playing the options market.”
Aren’t those called Casinos and betting parlours? LOL