The Bill That Couldn't Happen Here

Back when I worked for the House of Commons, every time an Omnibus Bill was proposed (and the usual discussions and negotiations around splitting it were occurring) we would joke about the ultimate Omnibus Bill - An Act for the Government of Canada, with everything a government wanted to do in one bill. Of course, we never believed it would ever happen in our democratic system. But that is essentially what Bill C-38 is about.

Omnibus bills were always controversial, but in comparison to Bill C-38, always focused. They might, for example, amend several crime and justice related acts in one bill or several pieces of environmental legislation in one bill. But they were still controversial and often divided into more reasonable groupings of legislation by means of multi-party co-operation. Yes there used to be such a thing, even during majority governments.

Budgets themselves would always result in numerous bills, usually an Income Tax bill, a bill related to other tax measures, and specific bills for specific policy measures included in the budget. It is unprecedented to include everything mentioned in a budget, and some things not mentioned in it, in a budget bill. It is unprecedented not only because no government thought they could get away with it but because all previous governments knew it was inappropriate and undemocratic.

This was back in the days when governments did not believe that democracy involved 40% of the people electing a dictator who would virtually govern by decree for four years, but when governments believed in Parliamentary democracy.

This was back in the days of the Progressive Conservative Party when government and opposition Members of Parliament may have differed on what the thought were the best policies for the country but respected each other because they all wanted what they believed was best for Canada. This was back when all political leaders believed in Canada and we did not have a Prime Minister who wanted to make this country something that Canadians would not recognize.

Minority Governments for Dummies (and Tory PMs)

• the voters elect the House of Commons to govern
  
• the leader of the current government (the government before the election) has the right to meet the House and attempt to gain its confidence, however usually the party with the most seats gets the first opportunity to be Prime Minister and lead the government
  
• responsible government requires that the Prime Minister maintains the confidence of the House of Commons to govern
  
• a minority government cannot survive if it attempts to govern as if it had a majority
  
• a Prime Minister cannot bully the House of Commons into supporting him by threatening an election if he doesn't get his way
  
• there is always a Prime Minister in waiting willing to attempt to gain and maintain the confidence of the House if the Prime Minister cannot or is not not willing to
  
• a government is legitimate, and only legitimate, if it has the confidence of the House of Commons
  
• minority governments can work if a Prime Minister recognizes it is the House of Commons that was elected to govern, not him by divine right
  
• minority governments can implement, and have implemented, important measures including Old Age Pensions, Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan
  

Minority Governments in Canada | Mapleleafweb.com

The Coalition is Dead - Someone Tell Stephen Harper

The idea of a coalition government is dead for the simple reason that it is not in Michael Ignatieff's political interest to enter into a coalition that would require him to share power. Although it is in his political interest not to contradict Stephen Harper's coalition fear mongering but to leave the impression he is opposed to a coalition because of it's supposed illegitimacy.

Of course, if coalitions were illegitimate the governments of most western democracies, including that of the United Kingdom that our government is modelled on, would be illegitimate.

It is clearly to the political advantage of the Liberals to reject a coalition and try to leave the impression that the only way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the Liberals. That is not true of course. Strategically speaking the best way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the candidate in your constituency that has the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.

If the Conservatives do not receive a majority, but receive another minority and face the House of Commons and attempt to govern as if they had a majority (as they have in the previous Parliament) they will face certain defeat, either on their Throne Speech or Budget, leaving the Governor General bound by precedent to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition if he believes he can form a government. Michael Ignatieff would most certainly reply yes, and as long as his government acted responsibly, presenting measures that a majority of the House of Commons could support, he would be able to govern.

The situation was different when the last coalition proposal was put together because the constitutional precedents become less clear and certain the longer a government is in power and it was deemed advisable to present the Governor General with a very clear indication that a stable government was possible because, despite Stephen Harper's irrational ravings, coalition governments are much more stable than minority governments.

So despite Stephen Harper's desperate fear mongering (over something there is no reason to fear) the Liberals will not enter into a coalition simply because it is not in their political interest to do so.

Democracy Election

While thousands worldwide sacrifice their lives for the right to free elections Canadians complain about having one.

That is not to say there are no reasons for some Canadians not to want an election. Certainly if you support the Reformatories you have it pretty good right now. With a minority in the House of Commons (and an even smaller minority of public support) they have control of the government with a majority opposition that lets them govern as if they have a majority. On the other hand if you voted for the opposition parties you twice elected a majority of Members of Parliament (representing a majority of the public) that has refused to exercise the democratic power the people gave them and lets the Reformatories govern as if they represented the majority. So what is the point of doing it again.

If there is going to be another election it must be about democracy and bringing the government back under the control of the majority of the House of Commons and establishing a more democratic electoral and governing process.

If the opposition parties are going to force can election they must pledge to form a government that represents a majority of the House of Commons and a majority of voters.

Why are they so scared to say that. Just because Stephen Harper thinks the concept of the majority of the legislature governing, as it does in the vast majority of western democratic countries, is illegitimate does not mean the opposition parties should accept that absurdity. Coalition is not a dirty word. Political parties and Members of Parliament actually co-operating to provide a democratic majority government is a good thing. It is certainly better and more democratic than the current tyranny of the minority that currently governs this country.

Perhaps the voters are collectively smarter than we give them credit for and have discovered that the concentration of power in any one party, no matter who it may be, may actually be bad for democracy. If the people want power to be spread amongst many parties rather than concentrated within one that is their democratic right and it is the responsibility of the political parties to co-operate and provide the people with the government they have chosen.

But we need more than just regime change.

I call upon all political parties and candidates that consider themselves to be progressive (and that can include Members of parties that have removed progressive from their name) to pledge to join together after the election in a democratic coalition pledged to improve democracy in Canada.

The number one priority of such a government should be to establish a more democratic electoral and governing process in Canada.

The first thing such a government should do is initiate the Parliamentary processes, including public consultations, to consider and implement the following measures, along with others that they decide are necessary, to improve democracy in Canada:

- eliminate the use of government advertising for promoting government polices and restrict it to information on how to access government programs and benefits

- ensure the independence of all Officers of Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer

- ensure and increase the House of Commons right to and ability to access government information, including provisions for access to confidential and classified information on an in camera basis

- establish a fixed election date every four years with the House being dissolved earlier only when a government cannot be formed that has the support of a majority of the House of Commons (to be effective after the next election)

- strengthen measures to ensure the fairness of elections so that financial resources, rather than individual capabilities and policies, do not determine the outcome of elections

- reform the electoral process into a more representative and democratic process where the number of seats a party has represents the number of votes they receive nation wide, while retaining constituency representation, paying particular attention to the systems of proportional representation used in western European countries

Following the implementation of these measures the government should then resign to allow a new election to be held under the new more democratic and representative electoral process and such an election should include a referendum on whether voters want the Senate to be abolished or reformed.

Establishing real democracy in Canada only takes, what sometimes seems to be the rarest of all things, political will. Do we, as politicians, voters, and a nation, have it.

Democracy Under Attack

Democracy is clearly under attack in Canada by those who always claim to be it's defenders, and led by the man who would be dictator.

Stephen Harper wants all the trappings of Presidential Power without the checks and balances of the separation of powers in the American system, nor the inconveniences of accountability to Parliament in our system of responsible government.

Pierre Trudeau is reported to have said that Members of Parliament are nobodies off Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper would have them be nobodies on Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper believes that the Prime Minister's Office should be the seat of all power, not Parliament.

His contempt for Parliament has been shown by his multiple prorogations to avoid facing it, his government's withholding information from and lying to the House of Commons and it's committees, its cabinet ministers doctoring official documents from public servants, and the list goes on. Indeed his government is the first in Canadian history to be formally found in Contempt of Parliament.

But Stephen Harper not only has contempt for Parliament, but contempt for the voters and the courts. His attitude to his party being found guilty of violating the laws designed to ensure that we have fair elections is to dismiss it as unimportant and simply a difference of opinion on minor regulations. Of course Stephen Harper believes the market should rule everything and that voting should be like shopping - whoever has the most money to wage the best marketing campaign, whether deceptive or not (or fought with the taxpayers money using government advertising), should get the most customers votes.

But then again, Stephen Harper does not believe that the Members of Parliament elected by the people should choose who forms the government. He seems to honestly believe there is something undemocratic about the majority of elected Members of Parliament forming a government and that only a government of the largest minority is legitimate, seemingly unaware of the principles of our Parliamentary system or the practices of the overwhelming majority of democratic countries in the world.

But the problem goes beyond the Reformatories and Stephen Harper. Unlike the vast majority of democratic countries in the world our electoral system results in a House of Commons that rarely, if ever, reflects the way the population as a whole votes in terms of party representation.

Unlike most countries in the world that have proportional representation systems Canadian elections usually result in one party having a majority of seats in the House of Commons without receiving a majority of votes in the election. This is praised because it is seen to be more efficient to have power concentrated in one party. Most other democratic countries of the world seem to manage fine with coalition governments that actually reflect how the people voted and require the different parties to co-operate and reflect the wishes of the voters.

Our system however does not just concentrate power in the hands of the party with the largest number of seats (in some cases the party with the most seats may receive less total votes than another party) but tends to concentrate power in the hands of the Prime Minister, as we have seen too well with the current Canadian regime.

This attack on democracy goes beyond contempt for Parliament and the voters - but extends to a contempt for the whole idea of government, the whole idea of the people acting collectively for their collective interests.

The Reformatories, and right wingers everywhere, like to spout the rhetoric of the evils of big government and the evils of taxation. They do not believe that the people should act collectively or spend their money collectively. They have very good reasons for being against government. When citizens act and spend through their governments they act on a one person one vote basis. When citizens act and spend individually they, in effect, act on a one dollar one vote basis, thus concentrating power in those with the most wealth.

That is the reason right wingers do not like government - because it takes power away from the wealthy and transfers it to the people.

The People Get It - Harper Hates Democracy

Well perhaps this is a bit of an overstatement. Perhaps it's more that he just finds it an annoying irritant and inconvenience that prevents him from acting as Supreme Exalted Ruler.

The Tories might not get it, but the people do, as evidenced by their reactions both in cyberspace and in public spaces, not to mention polling results.

Well the people may not understand all the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure and the difference between prorogation and the House simply not sitting they finally have clued into what is behind it all - behind Harper's prorogation to avoid confidence motions and his prorogation to avoid being held accountable for his government's policy on torture and all his actions since the election.

Stephen Harper has no respect for the House of Commons, no respect for Parliament and no respect for democracy. No wonder he has no comprehension of the fact that a minority government has to earn the confidence of the House of Commons in order to govern legitimately.

No one elected him dictator. He has no right to bully the majority of the House of Commons into supporting him.

Indeed it is the majority of the House of Commons that has the right, and responsibility, to govern. Now if only they would act accordingly. The people are ready for democracy.

Prorogation - The Best Thing Stephen Harper Ever Did for Canadian Democracy

If you believe that Stephen Harper's prorogations are part of the normal Parliamentary process then read this.

If you believe nobody cares then go here (over 200,000 members and counting).

So why is prorogation the best thing Stephen Harper ever did for Canadian democracy.

Because he may have finally awakened the Canadian public to the role of Parliament and the fact that our Parliamentary democracy is based on the concept of Parliamentary supremacy and the requirement for the government to have the support and confidence of the House of Commons to govern legitimately.

Pierre Trudeau is reported (July 25, 1969) to have said that Members of Parliament are nobodies when they are off Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper seems to believe that they are nobodies when they are sitting in the House of Commons.

In December 2008 Stephen Harper suspended Canadian democracy and through a clever PR campaign managed to convince the Canadian people that a government led by the leader of the party with the most seats (but a minority of seats) in the House was more democratic than a party led by a leader who had the support and confidence of a majority of Members of the House of Commons. It was a situation that left those of us that understood how Parliamentary democracy works shaking our heads.

Since then Stephen Harper has continued to treat Parliament as if it does not matter and with his latest attack on Parliamentary democracy the people have finally seen the light.

Let us step back a bit and talk about the concept of prorogation. There is nothing wrong with prorogation in itself, the problem is how Stephen Harper (with the collusion of the Governor General) is using it. Saying the Liberals prorogued in the past is meaningless. Prorogation is a normal part of the Parliamentary process.

The normal scenario is that a government is elected. They set forward their program in a Throne Speech. the House of Commons passes most of their legislative program over a period of 12-24 months. Historically the length of time required has increased from sessions around a year in length to sessions normally about eighteen months to two years in some cases. It really depends on how well a government can manage it's legislative program. The House of Commons is then prorogued and a new session starts with a new Throne Speech within days.

Prorogation has nothing to do with the House not sitting. The House routinely recesses for over two months during the summer but they remain in session so they can easily be recalled to deal with emergencies and matters of public interest. Indeed often a government finishes its legislative program at the summer break, but they do not prorogue, they return for a day in September or October and prorogue and the new session starts within days.

That is because, up until Stephen Harper (with one exception and he was forced to resign when Parliament resumed), all governments understood that prorogation was not intended to be used to shut down Parliament. That is because, up until Stephen Harper, Canadian governments understood and respected the concept of Parliamentary supremacy. They actually understood and respected the system of Parliamentary government.

Unfortunately, under the current government, we have a Prime Minister, and may I add a Queen's Representative, who do not respect the principle that when there is a conflict between the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, the House of Commons must prevail. Stephen Harper thinks that when that happens Parliament should be shut down.

Fortunately, the people have finally seen the light and my hope is that Stephen Harper's attempt to take their democracy away from them will get them thinking more about the Canadian democratic process.

For Parliamentary democracy to be truly democratic the House of Commons should reflect how Canadians voted. While there are many factors that go into how people vote, including the individual candidates qualifications, abilities and values, the biggest factors are the policies, programs and philosophies of the parties running in the election. The representation in the House of Commons should reflect these factors. For Parliament to be truly democratic the percentage of seats each party receives should reflect the number of votes each party receives, normally referred to as the popular vote.

Our current single member constituency "first past the post" system does not do this.

However there is a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) that allows voters to not only vote for the local Member of Parliament of their choice but also elect a House of Commons whose membership reflects the percentage of votes each party receives in the election.

Indeed, the main criticism of MMP is that we will not get majority governments unless the voters give one party a majority of the votes. That is right, under MMP if voters vote for a minority or coalition government they will get a minority or coalition government. That is the main criticism of MMP - that voters will get what they vote for. That seems to be a rather strange criticism of a democratic process.

It is time to shut down Stephen Harper and it is time to reform our electoral process. It is time for the people to speak.

Statement of Democratic Principles

With an election looming the Fifth Column calls on all federal political parties and party leaders to adopt the following:

Statement of Democratic Principles

The Canadian people have the right to elect Members of Parliament of their choosing and the House of Commons of their choice.

The House of Commons elected by the Canadian people has the right to govern.

A government that has the support and confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons is legitimate, and indeed a government requires the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons to be legitimate.

The letter and spirit of fixed election date legislation must be respected and that an early election should only be held when it is not possible to form a government that has the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons.

And further, that party representation in the House of Commons should reflect the popular vote and that a process should begin immediately following the election to amend the electoral process to ensure that.

Finally, we all pledge to inform the Governor General that we have adopted and support this Declaration of Democratic Principles.

As The Fifth Column is a small player in the blogosphere, if any of the larger players want to promote this please feel free to take the ball and run with it.

House of Commons Online Voting Records – The Back Story

I would like to thank The Enlightened Savage for drawing my attention to this article from Canwest News Service.

Unfortunately there is some missing and misleading information in the article which states:

OTTAWA - The House of Commons is developing a system to put every MP’s voting record on the web, shining light for the first time on information that has long been buried deep within House of Commons records.

While voting records of elected officials in other countries are often easily accessible, the House of Commons currently provides no comprehensive records of how MPs vote on bills and motions in Parliament.

The information can only be found by searching through thousands of pages of Hansard, the official record of the House of Commons debates, and extracting the listings for results of each individual vote, a process that would be extremely time-consuming.

What is true about the article is that there is not yet a user friendly online way to directly access House of Commons voting records. However, for at least ten years, an automated voting records system has been in place and MPs voting records have been provided on request. The system, which certainly has it's faults, has been developed and improved over the years but cannot be accessed directly by users. The main clients of the service have been Members of Parliament's offices and the media, so it is surprising that the Canwest article ignored this fact.

And even before this, the results of every vote were readily available in the Journals of the House of Commons, though not in a database format.

But what is most important is the question of the usefulness of such a system and the type of information it should provide.

We first of all have to acknowledge the very strong party system in Canadian federal politics and the House of Commons. Well over 90 per cent of the time MPs are going to vote with their parties. So if you want to get useful information from a voting records system you need to be able to track how the parties voted and identify the anomalies when MPs did not vote with their parties.

If I was designing the system, as well as having the ability to generate individual Members of Parliament's voting records, I would also design it to be able to automatically generate the following information. There are probably other standard things to track that could be added to this list.

- percentage of votes won by the government

- percentage of times each party voted with the government

- MPs that voted against their own party, and the votes where they did

- comparisons by party of MPs voting against their party by percentage

-ability to track votes by subject

-ability to track the rare occasions when a vote is declared a “free vote”

There is a whole other factor that comes into play as well – the fact that huge numbers of votes on amendments, particularly at report stage, can skew the statistical results. It would be useful to be able to exclude these votes from the results on certain occasions and just analyze the results for the main votes on each stage of bills and motions..

The system should also provide the ability for users to write their own queries.

We can only hope that this online voting records system will be comprehensive enough to be useful and provide more information than could simply be determined by knowing which party each Member of Parliament belongs to.

The most important factor in such a system, though, will be the users knowledge and understanding of the Parliamentary system and ability to actually understand what the results of a query on of the system actually means.

Some Things Are More Important Than Humour

Parliamentary Democracy Explained

Harper In His Own Words: On Agreements with the BQ, Plus …

Thanks to some other bloggers' posts, Harper's past positions have come back to haunt him. I have pulled the relevant information together here:

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons
fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give
you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising
your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

Sources: Excited Delirium
Macleans.ca



Source: Impolitical

And in breaking news, we have another reason Harper shut down Parliament to avoid being defeated.

Final Words - Frustrated and Disheartened

Stephen Harper is the schoolyard bully who picks on the smaller kids and when they join together to fight back he cries – that's not fair you're only allowed to fight me one at a time. And the Canadian schoolyard is cheering him on.


Is My Country Gone

In all the years I have watched Canadian politics I have never seen anything like this and I have been watching Canadian politics for fifty years. When I was in high school I had the daily Hansard delivered to my home and read them everyday. After that I earned my degree in Political Science and spent over thirty years working for the House of Commons, reading, analyzing and indexing the House of Commons Debates.

The first election I took an interest in was when I was eight years old cheering for John Diefenbaker. I think I can be forgiven for cheering for a Tory due to my young age, but Diefenbaker captured the imagination of all Canadians. John Diefenbaker was a Parliamentarian and truly a House of Commons man. He must be rolling over in his grave as his successor as Tory leader colludes with the Governor General to overrule the will of the House of Commons.

The last ime I had to write about something like this was almost 40 years ago when Pierre Trudeau suspended the civil liberties of all Canadians. But at least Trudeau had the support of a majority of the House of Commons, with the notable exception of .Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party. Today it is Stephen Harper suspending the democratic rights of all Canadians. How ironic that Harper is following in the footsteps of his arch rival.

This is not to say that there are not precedents for what Harper is doing, just not in Canada.

1629 King Charles I in England
1799 Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936 Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
1975 Indira Gandhi in India
1999 Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Stephen Harper in Canada

Is the Governor General to Blame

I am reluctant to blame Governor General Michaëlle Jean for acceding to Stephen Harper's request for fear of stirring up Republican sentiments and because we do not know what lies Stephen Harper told her or what threats he may have made.

But we do know she has acted in a manner that no representative of the Queen should, by explicitly going against the clearly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected House of Commons. And she did that to allow the government to avoid it's constitutional accountability to the House of Commons, by avoiding a vote of confidence. And she did that on the advice of an illegitimate Prime Minister whom she knew had lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

This must not be allowed to happen again. To deal with the specific prorogation decision the House of Commons Act should be amended to prevent the Prime Minister from requesting a prorogation longer than a week so that prorogation is only used to end a session to allow a government to introduce a new Throne Speech, and not used to shut down Parliament. To deal with the larger issue of the Governor General's constitutional decision making powers, I agree with other bloggers' advice, that this power be delegated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is truly independent and knowledgeable and experienced with ruling on matters of constitutional law.

Stephen Harper is to Blame For This Political Crisis

Stephen Harper ignored the fact that he had a majority in his first term and, with the collusion of the Liberals, governed as if he had a majority. Then he broke his own fixed election dates law, with the collusion of the Governor General, to attempt to win a majority. He then failed, attempted to ignore his minority status again, and when the democratically elected majority in the House of Commons calls him on it and is about to defeat him and present a democratically elected alternative coalition government, he shuts down Parliament, again with the collusion of the Governor General.

He engages in a campaign of lies, that even CBC commentators have to inform their viewers of the truth every time he speaks. He goes as far as to question the legitimacy of democratically elected Members of Parliament from Quebec and uses rhetoric best designed to create a national unity crisis. Indeed he uses rhetoric that experts and commentators believe will increase support for the Part Québecois in the Quebec election.

And for this his public support increases. And I cry for my Canada.

Stephen Harper's Lies and the Truth About Parliamentary Democracy and the Coalition

Stephen Harper would like to believe that he was elected all powerful President of Canada and he would like us to believe that somehow the people of Canada voted for him to be Prime Minister. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper where the residents of Calgary Southwest. The rest of us voted for individual Members of Parliament just as the residents of Calgary Southwest did.

Yes, we voted knowing that if the Conservative Party won a majority of seats Stephen Harper would become Prime Minister and if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority, he would be given the first opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons.

But the most basic principle of Parliamentary Democracy is that the government is responsible to the legislature and can only govern while it retains the confidence of the legislature. The normal constitutional practice when a government loses the confidence of the legislature depends on how long the government has been in power. If it is late in the term of the government an election is usually called. If it is early in the term of the government the opposition is usually given an opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the legislature.

Stephen Harper and his Tory talking points repeat over and over again the lie that the Bloc Québecois is part of the Progressive Coalition. That is a blatant lie. The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is also an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

The Conservatives argue that we should not change Prime Ministers without an election. That might be true if we elected Prime Ministers, but we do not. Take the case of Kim Campbell who became Prime Minister between elections. On June 13, 1993, Kim Campbell was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. As the leader of the party in power in the House of Commons, Kim Campbell automatically became Prime Minister. That is how Parliamentary Democracy works.

The Conservatives argue that only the party with the most seats should be allowed to form a government. What would they say if the seats won by the four federalist parties were more evenly divided leading to the Bloc Québecois having the most seats. Would Stephen Harper and the Tories argue that the federalist parties should not be allowed to form a coalition. I think not.

Where Do We Go From Here

The Tories talking points are reminiscent of their policy approach of simple solutions to complicated questions – inflamed rhetoric and outright lies instead of fact and logic. Add a massive establishment media propaganda campaign to the mix and a large number of people are falling for it.

But Harper may have outsmarted himself. His campaign may be at its peak the day before the scheduled non-confidence vote would have taken place. Though Harper is hoping the “time-out” will give the Progressive Coalition time to fall apart, I believe he misjudges the coalition. It looks like prorogation will actually give the coalition time to replace Stéphane Dion, who, while he may be a competent leader, is clearly a poor communicator. And more importantly it will give the coalition time to educate the public about the real threat to democracy posed by Stephen Harper and his actions.

As to the replacement of Dion as Progressive Coalition leader, there is a way to avoid circumventing the democratic Liberal Party leadership process. Let the coalition caucus select a leader for the coalition. It need not be either coalition party leader, or it may turn out to be one of them. The chosen coalition leader could serve till the coalition government ends, or be revisited after the Liberals select a new leader.

What we have learned most from this crisis is that Stephen Harper will do anything to cling to power and anything to stop the democratically elected Progressive Coalition from taking power.

The bully must not be rewarded. The coalition must not allow the Conservative government to continue with Harper as Prime Minister. The only way the Conservative government should be allowed to continue is if they replace Harper as Prime Minister and present a budget that meets the real needs of the Canadian people.

If that does not happen and the government is defeated Harper will then undoubtedly request a new election, and if the Governor General accedes to the request of her illegitimate Prime Minister, who lacks the confidence of the House of Commons, we will be into an election campaign.

If that happens I would propose an electoral accord between the Progressive Coalition partners, The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as the Green Party. The Bloc Québecois would not be part of this electoral accord because it is important that Quebeckers have a federalist alternative to the Tories. The Electoral Accord partners would run the candidate best able to defeat the Conservative candidate in each constituency based on historical and other factors agreeable to all parties.

Proportional Representation is the Real Solution

But the real long term solution to to Canada's electoral problems is to adopt an electoral process that allows every vote to count and elects a House of Commons that truly represents the will of the Canadian people. If such a system had been in place during the last election we would now have a ”coalition we deserved”, where the seats held by each party would have reflected their portion of the popular vote. Such a system would give us a government that most of the public are demanding now, one where the House of Commons must work together for the good of all Canadians.

Postscript

The irony of all ironies would be if the Conservative budget was opposed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party but passed with the support of the Bloc Québecois. Would Stephen Harper resign because a government requiring the support of the evil separatists is illegitimate. I think not.

Jack Laytons Finest Hour

Jack Layton being Prime Ministerial in front to the House of Commons Chamber. How
appropriate.

Read it here

Watch it here If you get an error message at the start close it and hit play

RANTS

Well I have just learned that I am going to have to spend 10 minutes of my life this evening listening to Stephen harper spout lies and garbage. But it is my duty as a blogger to keep informed and this will provide a chance for the Progressive Coalition to respond to the government's disinformation and propaganda campaign.

My rant follows, but first of all, Thank You Rick Mercer:



Perhaps this will go a long way in counteracting the Tory propaganda campaign of lies.

This is a time for Parliament to work together for the good of the country, not a time for the Prime Minister to use lies and deception to try and divide the country to rescue himself from his own political failure.

And thank you Ed Broadbent for calling the Prime Minister on his disgraceful attempt to create a climate of fear and disunity through lies and deception. It is refreshing to hear the truth from one of our country's real Elder Statesmen (not that I'm trying to call Ed old).

If only Canada's premier constitutional expert, Eugene Forsey was alive to explain the truth about the constitutional validity of the coalition. However when you look beyond the hand-picked so-called experts the media have chosen and ask real constitutional experts you will see that there is a consensus that the coalition building process that we are going through is Parliamentary democracy working exactly the way it is supposed to.

But I must say that I am extremely frustrated by the success of the Tories talking points and campaign of lies and deception. Clearly the Canadian people do not understand how a Parliamentary democracy works. I am even more frustrated by the ignorance shown by people who call themselves “Progressive Bloggers”.

But it is not surprising that the Tory campaign is working – it is based on emotion and the people are likely to be much more responsive to that than to our attempts to lecture them on Political Science. Perhaps this is where Rick's Rant will be successful where we are not. But we should not be deterred from dealing with the facts. Democracy is about freedom and the truth shall make us free.

Our European friends must be watching in amusement as we turn a normal part of Parliamentary democracy into a political crisis.

But indeed, it is not as if the constitutiona precedents, such as
this one are not there.

Read more from York University professor James Laxer, here and here.

As to the claim the opposition parties are doing this for political reasons – what political benefit do they have to gain. All the Liberals had to do to ensure they would again replace the Tories as the natural governing party is to let the Conservatives ignore the economic situation and continue to lead the country into hell in a hand basket. Just ask Bob Rae about the political benefits of taking over government just as the county is going into recession. The only reason for the coalition partners to take this political risk is to save the country from the mismanagement and ineptitude of the current government. Actually if only it was just that - what is much worse at this time of economic crisis is the government putting their own political benefit and survival above the concerns and needs of the Canadian people.

As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

And as to the most blatant lie of them all.

Democracy Links
Perhaps they could have avoided this it they had acted co-operatively from the start, but as I said before, it is too late for a Do Over.

While this whole situation is very frustrating, because so many Canadians have been taken in by the deceitful Tory propaganda campaign, when all is done I have no doubt that the Governor General will examine the facts and constitutional precedents and power will pass peacefully to the Progressive Coalition in accordance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy.

What Should Michaëlle Jean Do

The Governor General's duties are mostly ceremonial but she also has constitutional responsibilities, including ensuring there is always a Prime Minister.

I believe that the Governor General should not override the wishes of an elected government unless it is attempting to subvert the Constitution or the will of the House of Commons.

In the current political situation it is very clear that the government of the day is attempting to subvert the will of the majority of the House of Commons and the response of the Governor General should be to protect democracy.

The Truth About Parliamentary Democracy – Majority Rule

Since some people seem to be having trouble understanding how Parliamentary democracy works, let me explain it for them.

In our Parliamentary system we do not directly elect the Prime Minister and government but they are determined by the composition of the House of Commons. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper were the voters in his constituency and they voted for him as a Member of Parliament, not as Prime Minister.

The main principle of our Parliamentary system is that it is based on majority rule. The democratic legitimacy of a government is based on the fact that it has the support, or confidence, of the majority of the Members of the House of Commons. The main principle of our democracy is not “party with the most seats” rule but “majority” rule. Let us repeat that – majority rule.

Currently in Canada it appears that the Conservative government is about to lose the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons and a Progressive Coalition is going to be formed that will have the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons.

That is how our democratic process is supposed to work – by majority rule.

Stéphane You Have A Responsibility to The People of Canada

Canada is a Parliamentary democracy. As such, the government must retain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons in order to continue to govern. The government’s budgetary policy is always a matter of confidence.

The CBC reports that “The Liberal caucus will meet Wednesday to decide whether to abstain or vote in favour of the budget.”

The Liberal Party, as “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, have a responsibility to decide whether they support the government’s budgetary policy. Not caring is not an option. The choice is not whether they want, or are prepared for, an election. The choice is whether they support the budget, whether they have confidence in the government. It requires a Yes or No, answer, “We don’t know” will not do.

It is time for Stéphane Dion to prove once and for all whether the Conservative Party claims that “Stéphane Dion is not a leader” are true or false. The Liberal Party, and it’s leader, have a responsibility to the people of Canada to take a stand.

Hillier Sees Democracy as a Sign of Weakness

Debate is the basis of our Parliamentary democracy. Indeed, even the word “Parliament” is derived from the French “parler”.

parliament
c.1290, from O.Fr. parlement (11c.), originally "speaking, talk," from parler "to speak" (see parley); spelling altered c.1400 to conform with M.L. parliamentum. Anglo-L. parliamentum is attested from 1216. Parliamentarian originally (1644) was a designation of one of the sides in the Eng. Civil War; meaning "one versed in parliamentary procedure" dates from 1834.

We are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan for, amongst other things, democracy. Yet, as the CBC reports, the Chief of Defence Staff thinks that democracy in Canada is a sign of weakness in the “war for democracy” in Afghanistan.

Yet another reason why the Chief of Defence Staff should stick to his role in leading the military in implementing Canada’s defence policy rather than interfering in the political process and trying to influence policy. Unfortunately Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, as demonstrated on numerous occasions, have shown just as little regard for democracy as Hillier does.