The NDP, The Quebec Question and 50% + 1

Much has been made of Jack Layton's "controversial" comments on a possible Quebec sovereignty referendum.

The fact is that it is a very rational and defensible position. Based on the closest precedent, the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation, Quebec has followed the same rules, keep on holding referendums hoping to get the result you want with 50% + 1 required for passage. After all, otherwise we have a minority deciding Quebec's constitutional status.

That position, however, has it's problems. Other constitutional precedents require greater than 50% + 1 to make constitutional changes. As well, if support is that close the results of a referendum can vary from day to day.

That is why I tend to support requiring something like 60% support for such changes in constitutional arrangements, to ensure that the new constitutional arrangement will have continuing support. However that position also has it's flaws because in the case of, for example, a clear and continuous 55% support for sovereignty, the minority that opposes the change in status would effectively decide the fate of Quebec.

That is why the real focus needs to be on maintaining strong support for federalism in Quebec, support that has just recently been very effectively expressed by the people of Quebec in choosing a federalist social democratic party over a sovereignist one. We need to work on building and strengthening a strong federalist consensus in Quebec.

This will not be done by "giving Quebec whatever it wants" but by giving Quebec respect and building a strong Canadian community. This starts with recognizing Quebec's nationhood and it's right to decide it's own fate. Can we have a country within a country. It seems to work well enough for England, Scotland and Wales, within a unitary state. When have you ever heard Scots refer to themselves as "United Kingdomers" but their loyalty to both their country of Scotland and their nation state of the United Kingdom does not seem to be in conflict.

We have the best opportunity ever to set aside separatism in Quebec and build a strong Canada that includes Quebec. Quebec has spoken in the election and chosen federalism. All we have to do is work with the Quebecois to build a strong united Canada with them.

Abolishing The Senate - An Easy Solution

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton has called for a national referendum on the abolition of the Senate, while others, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper want to reform it, while the expert think abolition is unlikely.

Certainly at a time when politicians and political institutions are perhaps at their lowest in public respect, the Senate is the least respected institution and Senators the least respected politicians.

Politically, abolishing the Senate is an easy solution.

The real question is not whether Senators are doing a good job or whether the institution as it is constituted now is useful. The real question is whether our federal government requires two legislative chambers, a bicameral system, when the provinces function fine without them. Do we need a “chamber of sober second thought”.

In many ways the provinces deal with jurisdictions of a more administrative nature, such as health care, education and transportation infrastructure, while the federal Parliament is the one that reflects Canadian values.

Although health care administration is under provincial jurisdiction it was when the federal Parliament adopted Medicare as a national program that it became the most sacred of all Canadian values, along with national social programs.

As I type this I cannot help but think of the major role the New Democratic Party has played in establishing Canada’s national values, from inventing Medicare in Saskatchewan to opposing capital punishment, which recent polls indicate has become entrenched as a basic Canadian value.

As with the capital punishment decision, it is the federal Parliament that decides what we as a society consider to be right or wrong, in its responsibility for the Criminal Code. It decides who our friends and enemies are and what Canadians are willing to fight and die for, in it’s responsibility for foreign and military policy. It decides who we let immigrate into the country and become Canadians. It decides, on behalf of all Canadians, what our responsibilities are in the world in protecting and promoting equality, human rights and a sustainable environment. It is the level of government that ensures Canadian values are entrenched in our laws and public policies.

The Fifth Column proposes, for purposes of discussion, that we consider establishing a New Chamber with a more focused role.

That role would be to ensure that legislation complies with Canadian values, and in particular, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The New Chamber would also retain the “sober second thought” role of identifying flaws and unintended effects in legislation before it is passed, and sending it back to the House of Commons, basically saying “did you really want to do that”.

The New Chamber would be different. It would not be appointed. It would not be elected. It would be selected randomly from the population similar to the jury selection process. It would not be made up of politicians and it would not be divided by party allegiances. It would be an attempt to represent the people directly, rather than indirectly through elected representatives.

The New Chamber would not initiate legislation. That would be the role of the politicians that we elect on the basis of their policies and personal character. It would, as previously stated, provide an oversight role in ensuring that legislation complies with Canadian values and it would undertake studies on matters of public interest and policies and present non-partisan reports to the House of Commons for consideration.

This proposal would definitely not be an easy solution.

I Don't Want to Blog about The Election

It's the end of Ontario Election Week and what is there to say. No surprises in the election, and that was no surprise. The biggest disappointment being that only about half of eligible voters voted. The other big disappointment being, that even though everyone predicted it, I still believed the people would see beyond the lies and fears and reform the electoral system. But that was not to be. One can only wonder if the predictability of it all had something to do with the low turnout.

The People Have Spoken

The 2007 Ontario election results are in. There will be no analysis in this post as yesterday was the day for the people to speak and today is a day to reflect on it.

Election Results from TVOntario
PARTY.....%Votes...%Seats
Liberal......42..........66
PC............32..........24
NDP..........17...........9
Green.........8...........0

Though these results may look skewed to some of us, the people appear to be quite happy with these kinds of results.

REFERENDUM...%Support
FPTP.......................63
MMP........................37

Be Sure To Vote Today

If you live in Ontario be sure to vote today. You can vote in the Ontario election if you are:

* 18 years of age or older,
* a Canadian citizen, and
* a resident of the electoral district in Ontario

If you are on the voters list you must provide proof of identity to vote.

If you are not on the voters list you can still vote by providing proof of identity and proof of residence.

For more details on these requirements and a list of acceptable identification documents see the Elections Ontario Website.

Be sure to vote in the referendum. It will be the most important vote you cast in this election.

The Big Lie About MMP

The Big lie about MMP is that candidates on "the list" are somehow selected differently, and less democratically, than local candidates.

Referendum Ontario, the agency responsible for the referendum states:

‘List Members’ are candidates from any registered political party. Before an election each political party prepares an ordered list of candidates they would like considered as ‘List Members’.

These lists, and the way they are created, would be made public well in advance of any election in a Mixed Member Proportional system.

Is this different than the way local candidates are chosen. In fact, according to the Ontario Election Act, local candidates are chosen by the political parties and "endorsed" by the party leaders.

The Ontario Elections Act states:

Ballots

Names of candidates

34. (2) The names of the candidates shall be shown on the ballot in accordance with the following rules:

5. The official name of the registered party that endorses the candidate shall be shown after his or her name if,

i. a statement of endorsement signed by the party leader is filed as described in section 28.1, and

Endorsement by Party Leader

Statement of endorsement

28.1 If a candidate is endorsed by a political party that is registered or has applied for registration with the Chief Electoral Officer under the Election Finances Act, a statement of endorsement signed by the party leader may be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer, on or before the close of nominations. 2007, c. 15, s. 17.

In fact, while most local candidates are selected through party nomination votes, the Party leaders can hand pick candidates, and have done so in the past.

The law (and proposed law) is in fact no different as far as the selection of local and list candidates. It is up to the parties to use democratic selection methods and up to the voters to judge them on the methods they use.

Vote for MMP

While it may not have been my first choice I want to state that I unequivocally support voting for MMP in the Ontario referendum.

After the Citizens Assembly process that we have gone through, if we do not support electoral reform now we may be stuck with the current system forever. On the other hand, because this will be a new system, I believe MMP will be open to fine tuning, such as improving the party list selection process.

It seems that 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 government they will get a minority 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.

I am voting for MMP because voters will get what they vote for.