Categories: Canada

Politics of fear

ANDREW COYNE: No wonder nothing gets done in Ottawa. Everyone is scared.

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, March 15, 2010 6:00am - 187 Comments

But Conservatives are lionhearts next to the opposition. Recall again Parliament’s last act before it was prorogued. It was to pass an extraordinary motion ordering the government to hand over all papers related to the Afghan detainees affair, citing Parliament’s “undisputed privileges” under the Constitution, “including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested.” The motion could not have been clearer; neither could the stakes. Either the government of the day is obliged to bend to the will of Parliament, or it is not. Either we live in a parliamentary system—in a democracy—or not.

And so, the government having thumbed its nose at Parliament in the most forceful way, one should naturally expect opposition MPs to back up these stirring words with actions. As Maclean’s went to press, a week after Parliament’s return, they had done nothing, other than to repeat their demand. “Stop, or we’ll shout ‘stop’ again.”

To be sure, the Liberal MP Derek Lee, who as it happens has particular expertise on this subject (see his seminal 1999 work, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records) has been pressing the issue. Lee has been seeking leave from the Speaker to raise a question of privilege, which if granted would allow him to put forward a motion finding the government in contempt of Parliament, and instructing the sergeant-at-arms to seize the documents in question.

(By the time this appears, he may even have done so. It will depend on whether the government shows any inclination to hand over the papers on its own, for example in the terms of reference given to former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci, whom it has asked to advise it on the matter. At press time these remained murky.)

But it’s far from clear whether, if it does come to a vote, his party will back him. You can tell when the opposition isn’t serious about an issue: they get hysterical about it. A media report quoting a lefty prof’s uncorroborated claims about the documents’ contents set them baying like hounds one day. Another report, revealing that—horrors—Canadian intelligence officers had questioned Afghan prisoners (isn’t that what we hire them for? to gather intelligence?), led to even more exaggerated outbursts, as if this in itself proved complicity in torture.

No. There is only one way to resolve this question, and that is for the appropriate authority to have a look at the documents. The appropriate authority in this case is Parliament, “the grand inquest of the nation.” MPs needn’t speculate about the contents of the documents; they have the power to demand them, if only they will use it. If they are serious, they will do so, with whatever special arrangements are needed to allay national security concerns.

But: the opposition is full of buts. Maybe it’s a trap. Maybe the government will declare this a confidence motion. Maybe we’ll be forced into an election we’re not ready for. There are a thousand reasons not to act, and the opposition shows every sign of looking for one. As the government fears the public, so the opposition fears the government.

It’s a funny thing. Minority parliaments are supposed to be unstable. Yet such is the pusillanimity on both sides that this one looks set to run and run. So long as he doesn’t actually do anything, Harper can govern as long as he likes.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: Budget, Canada, conservatives, govenment, Nancy Ruth, O Canada, Ottawa, Parliament, stephen haper, Throne Speech

More by Andrew Coyne

peter

Perhaps a moot point, but by law, parliament is NOT supreme. In fact the law IS. The Constitution/Canada Act/BNA/Charter and appended legacy documents and traditions are the law. if parliament and/or the pmo/pco don't like it there is an ammending formula. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Our rights are protected FROM government by the the LAW. It is delusional to posit we need protection from what our entire system of goverenance was designed to protect us from…arbitrary government imposition on our lives and a tyranny of the financial/academic elite.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Releasing the document to Parliament is in no way covered by the Charter. It is the Charter that is supreme to Parliament. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

peter

different issue, I should have been more clear. This issue you are addressing is only a symptom, not the disease. BUT, if there is any chance that any serving soldier could be exposed to any theoretical risk whatsoever by disclosing the "documents" (and I'm cetain there is) I support the CPC position. many spooks from many lands would be reading them at the same time as the committee.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Wow! You're arguing that these Top Secret level cleared committee members are traitors, you realize? You really should take that evidence to the Minister of Justice right away!

Oh wait.. you don't have any evidence? You're just using your posterior as your communication device again? My mistake.

kcm

Never underestimate the power of paranoia.
peter

Do I think any politician would jeapordize national security and the safety of our soldiers for temporary political advantage? Absolutely. BTW "the nobodies 50 feet from the Hill" are not given top security clearance. Ministers and staffers are on an as needed basis. NO ONE outside DND or Foreign Affairs (and pmo pco) has any need to know any of this. The pandering to populist- ill- informed-ignorant-partisan sentiment through a brain dead media by the LPC and NDP on this file has been a disgrace. (I don't tread french so I'll leave the Bloc out), but that said do you seriously think BQ Mps are loyal to Canada? If you do it explains much.
Gary

Never mind the brain dead media! There are plenty here, most notibly the two you are trying to school with your post above as per classified documents on a need to know basis!
peter

Von Mises dubbed their malady the Fourier Complex, after the french socilaist…better we all live in poverty together than allow any to shine. But, cautioned that laboring for freedom was a lonley but noble task.
kcm

Right, we're talking about accountability, so we must be socialists. I got the link right away.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

So.. if you don't trust any of the elected politicians, why do you trust the PMO PCO staff?
Could it be because you're a hypocrite?
kcm

No-one is talking about letting all the mps see sensitive info; and leaking national security info has serious consequences – or certainly should have.
I want the bloc gone as much as you, but whether you like it or not bloc members are still currently Canadians. When has one bloc or Quebec born mp even been accused of betraying this countrie's secrets, let alone convicted for it? You might want to remember Quebecer's have fought and died in Afghanistan too!

orval

The Charter guarantees equality before the law. This means that if Canadians cannot see certain information because it is illegal to release under the Security of Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act, this means that Canadians who happen to MPs also cannot see it. Parliamentary privilege does NOT overcome the law of the land, period. MPs have an advantage over Canadians in that they can change the law, but unless they do so,the law applies to them as it applies to everyone else.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Under that reasoning, nothing can be secret ever. Brilliant.

orval

sorry wrong. A House of Commons resolution is not law. To become law, a bill has to be debated and passed in both the House of Commons and the Senate, and then be given Royal Assent by the GG. An amendment to any existing Act has to go through the same process. So if the House wants to exempt itself from the Security of Information Act, it has a ways to go….

When people talk about the will of Parliament, they often overlook the fact that Parliament has three components – The Crown; the Senate and the House of Commons. All three have to consent before a bill becomes law.
kcm

http://noprorogue.whyweprotest.net/showthread.php…

a little background reading might be in order.
kcm

This is particularly interesting.

Constitutional Principles

"In Canada, the Constitution is the supreme law and any law that is inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. In other words, the Constitution trumps any law passed by the federal (or provincial) government. The Constitution includes the Charter of Rights as well as other rights that are specifically written in the text of the Constitution. There are also unwritten rules, or constitutional principles, which are also part of the Constitution and would also trump federal laws, such as the Canada Evidence Act.

BJB

Parliament determines law. It can rescind or amend any law it wishes, or introduce new laws, which is what it regularly does as the legislative branch of government. That said, the judiciary reviews the laws Parliament enacts to ensure their constitutionality. One checks the other in terms of law. I believe you mean to say that the Constitution is supreme. However, even then, the "notwithstanding" clause can be, and has been, invoked by legislators to subvert it (e.g. Quebec's language law). The more important issue, I believe, is not whether the "law" trumps all else but whether the executive branch of government in our democracy is accountable to Parliament and the courts. The Harper administration seems to be arguing that it knows best and the rest of us should simply accept that.

peter

Don't forget the Stautory Instruments Act and the joint committee of the House and Senate, Scrutiny of Regulations. Since federal overreach has become the fashion S-regs is more a paper tiger that fails its mission every day than a the power house it should be in a nation that professes concern for the rule of law…but this is certainly not a Conservative only failing.

BJB

It seems MPs believe that Canadians don't want an election. That provides a convenient cover for the politicians' real fear, which is loosing an election. Voter turnout in the last four elections was roughly 60%, with the exception of 2006 when the participation rate was closer to 65% (source: Elections Canada). The 40% of eligible voters who have not participated in recent national elections are grossly skewing opinion surveys on whether Canadians want another election now. Given actual voter turnout since 2000, it hardly seems surprising that pollsters are finding that Canadians generally prefer not to have an election. But why allow this to paralyze our democracy? Let the present Parliament be dissolved now so that the majority who actually cast ballots may exercise their franchise again and force MPs to confront their fears! The supremacy of Parliament over the executive seems an excellent issue to focus our minds and theirs.
Randall

Thwim…Contrarily I believe Quebecers most certainly would instantly side with a Quebec-defending Bloc if they were to have decided to exercise more heft in the coalition agreement. Look how the threesome turtle every day in the HoC instead of forcing an election.

And it you really believe "they were explicitly swearing to not use the veto", then you probably also believe that Ignatieff actually never signed the coalition letter to the GG.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Uh.. you do remember the press conference? With all three opposition leaders there. You remember them all signing a document? Do you remember, perhaps, what was in that document? Oh wait.. I'm sorry.. in order to remember something you would have actually had to look into it first.. what was I thinking.. that you might actually look into something you're talking about? My mistake.

D Mitchell

All politicos have proven that agreements and promises are as solid as wet noodles.

Chretian and GST
Mckay and Orchard
Trudeau and Wage and Price Freeze

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Name one the Bloc has broken.

denis p

A previous poster had it right. The MSM is so full of itself, Andrew included, that they can't understand why Canadians are luke warm at best to the totally media inspired, prorogation and detainee "outrage". The MSM keep looking at the politically brain dead in the GTA, and assume all Canadians think that way. Well Andrew, the fact is, nobody's "afraid", except perhaps Conservative politicians are afraid of the MSM, because they know from experience, the MSM is NOT friendly to Conservatives. Just watch the CBC, CTV and read the Star and Globe and Mail. Jaffer is taking more heat than Ruby Dalhai, and he's not even an MP anymore. Would you say a speeding ticket is worse than someone who tramples on human rights? According to the MSM, it depends on which party you're from. Pathetic really!

Patchouli

well you may complain about the msm but your grasp on the Dhalla and Jaffer stories show you don't actually read it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Not true at all.

The media tried to insinuate that the judge was influenced due to having a former Conservative MP Jaffer as defendant. But is was the prosecution (ie the Ontario government) that dropped all teh charges except for the speeding ticket. The judge had only one choice, convict him of the speeding or not, and he convicted him of the speeding ticket.

The media reporting on that story was absolutely horrendously biased.

FVerhoeven

MSM was biased because it cared not for reporting in earnest. Also, why could the general public not see through this sculpted media affair? Are the comprehension shills of the average voter so low now that being able to set things straight on one's own account is not longer possible? And we want to improve the state of our democracy?? Tough assignment.

(Note: please wach the exchange between John Tory and Warren Kinsella during CTV's Question Period yesterday. John Tory could not get his message across to the likes of Oliver, and the average viewer could not see this????)

Tom in Calgary

Of course Harper & co are fearful. I am terrified at the very real prospect of a Liberal/NDP coalition government and what they would do to this country. I think the modesty of the government’s fiscal conservatism needs to be considered in this context. It's easy to say that they are power hungry and will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. I wonder if the reality might be that it is more about doing what is necessary to prevent the alternatives.

Perhaps I am naive. With Harper I have always had the sense that being PM was a means to a policy end, where as with Paul Martin it seemed as if becoming PM was the end to his means. I feel Ignatieff is another Martin in this respect.

kcm

Keeping the other guy out, that'll work for what ails parliament. It seems to work nicely for the conservative base though.
JoeC

You are aware that we had a Liberal-NDP coalition before, right (with a less pragmatic/more left wing NDP leader than Layton? Do you know what that got us? National Health Care. The nation did not implode, nor did the economy.

I can't believe people just buy the coalition bogeyman crap that the CPC have put forward. It's called parliamentary democracy. Coalitions are part of the deal. If you don't like it, I think you may prefer politics south of the border.

Randall

Keep repeating the deceit enough times and you still believe people will finally swallow this guff.

Enough Canadians intuitively knew that the coalition actually did include the 49 Bloc MP's. They would never have sat back and been compliant and not use a veto or whatever. Have we ever ever seen Quebec politicians NOT seize their rightful desserts. The NDP has only around 37 federal seats (Liberals 77) and could no more hold back the Bloc for the quoted 18 months than I could.

The required number of seats to gain the government did include the Bloc and no amount of repeating your mantra will convince enough people that the Bloc would have sat by and simply watched and voted as Liberals and NDP dictated. It is simply a fiction.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Except the Bloc didn't have a veto. In fact, they were explicitly swearing to not use the "veto" that they normally have in minority governments — a vote of non-confidence.

What you're saying then, is that the Bloc, despite a signed, public agreement with the two parties who are most friendly to them anyway, would at the drop of a hat, violate these agreements to plunge our country directly into an election where they'd not only have to fight against the Liberals and NDPs who would quite rightfully claim that obviously Quebecers could not believe the Bloc, but against the Conservatives, who would be saying the same thing and that they were the answer to Quebecs problems.

Or in shorter form, they'd commit political suicide to.. what.. be spiteful? Please.

kcm

Not only that but if the bloc reneged [unlikely for all the reasons you give] there would have been nothing to stop the libs and the cons voting together in any CM. The level of wilful ignorance of our system truly apalls me.
sbt

I doubt you're really that naive. The Bloc agreeing to give up it's "veto" is about as solid as Harper's fixed election date. All the Bloc would have to do is pick something they don't like that the Liberals and the NDP do, say it's bad for Quebec and break away from the coalition. It's more likely that the Liberals and the NDP would face a backlash in Quebec under those conditions since the Bloc would obviously pick an issue that's to their advantage. We've seen the Bloc support both Liberals and Conservatives in the past. What makes you think they'd be more loyal to the Liberals or NDP? They don't care who governs as long as they get the best deal for Quebec.

Out There

And I am terrified of the (hopefully not so real) prospect of a Conservative majority government and what it would do to this country.

Which is why Canadian politics is in gridlock – a significant percentage of the electorate thinks the way you do, and another significant percentage thinks the way I do, and neither of us is ever likely to change his mind.
Sam the Canadian

Imagine a Liberal-NDP coalition government led by Dion with the mandate to fully enact the "Green Shift" leading up to Copenhagen. Canadian Democratic Nationalism would be sold down the river and replaced with growing degrees of subservience to the United Nations Global Socialist agenda. We like our leaders to be grounded and sensible, not "big idea" flakes who'd trade our country for a handful of beans. Stephen Harper is the PM because there are a lot of Canadians who like our Country the way it is. The left is so worried that S. Harper is "changing" Canada. Personally, I'm more worried about what a coalition would do. (as the great Lynyrd Skynyrd once said, "Proroguement doesn't bother me…Did the coalition bother you, now tell the truth")

Out There

My guess is that both the Liberals and Conservatives realize that another election would lead to yet another Conservative minority.

At this point, there's virtually nothing that the Liberals can do to sway the 35% or so of the electorate who have hitched their wagons to the Conservative star. The only hope the Liberals have is that the Conservatives will do something so egregiously awful and non-conservative that some of their base is willing to defect to the opposition.

And Harper has made the same calculations, and so is laying low.
kcm

"Parliamentary Privilege

As is well explained in the legal opinions of the Law Clerk & Parliamentary Counsel (see below), the constitutional nature of the House of Commons and its parliamentary privileges is part of the unwritten part of the Constitution – but has the same weight as other aspects of the Constitution, such as the Charter of Rights. The Law Clerk refers to a recent Supreme Court of Canada case describing the constitutional role of the House of Commons as the “Grand Inquest of the Nation” and to hold government to account. That Law Clerk’s opinion states that “there is no legal authority” to support the view of the Department of Justice that government officials can withhold information from a House Committee based on the Canada Evidence Act. The constitutional nature of the House and its committee and its parliamentary privileges trumps the Canada Evidence Act, not the other way around. There is a clear hierarchy of laws in Canada – respecting the supremacy of the Constitution is consistent with another constitutional principle: the rule of law"

orval

The SCC ruled in House of Commons v. Vaid that Parliament is not "an enclave shielded from the ordinary law of the land." Parliamentary privilege functions to provide a necessary immunity for legislators to do their work. The role of the courts is to ensure that the claim of privilege does not immunize from the ordinary law the consequences of conduct by Parliament that exceeds the necessary scope of the privilege being asserted.

The SCC set out a 2-step test of "necessary immunity"

(1) does the claimed privilege exist? and
(2) if so, is the privilege so closely and directly connected with the fulfillment of Parliament's function as a legislative body, including its ability to hold the government to account, that outside interference would undermine Parliament's and its members' autonomy to do their work with dignity and efficiency.

So, the presumption here is that Parliament IS subject to the operation of the Security of Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act, UNLESS, the Court determines that Parliamentary privilege exists to overcome the legal need to keep some information secret, and that the scope of this privilege does not exceed the doctrine of "necessary immunity".

Retired Justice Iacobucci is an advisor ("second opinion") to the Minister of Justice on Dept of Justice's determination that certain information must be redacted. If opposition parties think that all information must be released to them, even info for which its release is illegal, then the court will ultimately have to determine the matter.

kcm

i'd have to do some more research before i attempted an answer [ why don't const. experts ever visit these boards?] I can say that when the evidence act was before parliament Nicholson explictly assured the house it would not impair parliamentary privilege.

orval

The Attorney-General said the following on 10 December2009:

"The decision to redact documents is not taken lightly and reflects the absolute need to protect sensitive information. Pursuant to section 38 [CEA], officials redacted the documents. Copies of these edited documents were later provided to the Special Committee on the Canadian mission to Afghanistan.

"While section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act may not apply directly to proceedings of a special committee, the values that inform that legislation, passed by Parliament, are consistent with the parliamentary convention that harmful information should not be disclosed in a parliamentary setting. Accordingly the process under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act serves as a useful surrogate to identify information that should not be disclosed to the special committee due to concerns related to national security, national defence or international relations."

The legal question is whether the Parliamentary Committee is a "proceeding" for which sec 38 applies. A "proceeding'" is defined at sec. 37 and "means a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information."

The Attorney General notes that since the Committee can compel the production of documents, it is a "proceeding" under the Canada Evidence Act. In the alternative, if it is ruled that the Committee is not a "proceeding," then the Attorney General relies on the convention that Parliament does not disclose information harmful to Canada and Canadian interests, a convention analogous to sec 38.

Given that Justice Iacobucci was on the SCC when it ruled in the Vaid case, which held that Parliament is presumed not to be above the law of the land, I would think it likely that he will advise the Dept of Justice that it was correct in redacting the documents prior to their submission to the Special Committee.

kcm

December 10, 2009: Law Clerk (R. R. Clark) Response to Department of Justice Letter – Explains Significance of Parliamentary Privilege: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/20091210-…dofjustice…

A completely different view of Common vsVaid.

Clark argues the DOJ has interpreted Vaid incorrectly. Parliamentary privilege is unaffected.

Rich

"The Prime Minister is afraid the public does not share his views, and so refuses to share his views with the public. His MPs are afraid of the Prime Minister etc.". I agree completely, and it's the PM's presidential communication style which is getting him in trouble! If you don't respond to all parliamentarians & journalists politely, rapidly, authoritatively, and credibly on important files, the lack of an adequate response becomes the story. Justly or not, the public expects nothing less. Our parliament has become a senseless, stalemated, & stagnant body of self-serving, egotistical antagonists whose only reason for being in Ottawa is their love of power, pensions & paycheques. They don't like the art of discussion; they can't cope with disagreement; & there is no public discourse or engagement anymore. Either toe the party line or you're an outcast, you're picking on us, or you're biased. Harpers' bunker mentality has his caucus feeling menaced , and any difference of opinion is counted as a kind of personal danger to his presidency. Meanwhile, all the other parties are on their own political jihads & Canadians are paying the price (& all their salaries). Pathetic!!!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"So long as he doesn’t actually do anything, Harper can govern as long as he likes."

If that's governing, this is commenting.
FVerhoeven

and how do you manage to get such lenghty piece inserted? When I try a longer piece, I keep getting the message that my piece is too long. Mmmm?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

nothing evil FVerhoeven (btw my mom is dutch and we know a bunch of Verhoevens. all great folks!).

i think the first step is to get an intense debate account (which has the added additional benefits of some editing and a track record of your contributions)!

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

I thought I had a intense debate account……but I may be mistaken…..I'm not such a savy techno-cat.____In any case, I pushed onto the intense debate button and I think I'm in now (which might please PhilCP…..I had a real laugh about it this morning, it's only 7 am here now)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Yup, you have one now.

Okay, in order to get longer posts. (ie, ones that allow us to talk about context and don't restrict us to the simplest of ideas) what you do is you type in your entire long message while signed into ID. When you hit submit it'll tell you it's too long. Select the bottom section of the message leaving only the top couple paragraphs or so, and cut it. Submit your much shortened and incomplete message. As soon as it's through, hit the edit button, drop down to the bottom of your message, and then paste in the rest of it.

Now when you hit submit, it won't bother checking the length, and it'll take it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

:) Ah!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Welcome!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

That's something you don't hear ever day…

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

uhm, i missed that on first read. but, ya, know, you definitely do not.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

LOL…I was actually only referring to the last phrase, but now that I reread the entire post it's making me cry!!

On that basis I don't think getting an ID account will help.

Perhaps FV is zero generation…my folks are zero generation from the old country, and their english is pretty good, but sometimes they do come up with some real manglations.

Herb

Great freeze-frame of the state of government in Canada. Poor Neandercons trying to blame anyone and anything but themselves.

Meanwhile, who is looking after the interests of the country? Well, there still is a public service …
FVerhoeven

Yet, any lobsided sense of individualtiy, (namely in the sense that the collective aspect within the whole has been discounted) does not feel an inherent sense for needing the "other" for completion, hence the other is not really acknowledged, hence the male-female sense of completion is no longer sensed. And so you will find the individualistic aspect of homosexuals strong, but the collective aspect weak.

What do you think Sam Davies? Could I be onto something?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

and btw i do not advocate an election on this in the least although i do support putting Lee's motion forward.

knick

"i guess what i am suggesting is more that people might say any one of a number of things in a poll, but i don't that those things necessarily actually are followed through when the reality materializes (ie an election is called)."

Agreed. I also suspect that a lot of people give answers that they think are the 'right' ones because they don't want to appear to be ignorant of the issues, especially if they are.

I think your point about Lee's motion is very relevant because it seems that it's still a distinct possibility. If the PM were to interpret it as a matter of confidence, then he would be responsible for forcing an election on this issue, and voters would have a very clear perception of what the election is about – the supremacy of all of our elected representatives over the representatives who form government.

I agree fully with your final comment.

http://www.onwardjames.com Edmund Onward James

"No wonder nothing gets done in Ottawa. Everyone is scared."

Much gets done in Ottawa, and more could be accomplished with a Conservative majority government. Mr. Coyne might like to read the following piece on my weblog…

Mansbridge, Gregg, Hébert & Coyne re Prime Minister Harper…
http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/mansbride…
Mickey Shea

I can't fault your logic, but I hope that you're wrong. There's nothing more depressing than believing we will be stuck with the status quo indefinitely. And even when Harper is not "actually doing anything" he still somehow manages to do a lot of damage. After inheriting several years of surpluses from the Liberals, "In just the next two years, all the debt repayment of the past eight years will be wiped out." http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_cont…

If Harper continues not actually doing anything for much longer, the country will be broke.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=353178758917 Michelle

[polldaddy 2940348 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2940348/ polldaddy][polldaddy 2940349 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2940349/ polldaddy] What would you vote?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=353178758917 Michelle

Oops, What will you vote? [polldaddy 2940367 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2940367/ polldaddy]
http://www.premieretreeservices.com/ tree pruning

Very well said Andrew. I really enjoyed reading this. Cheers!
http://www.premieresapconsultants.com/SRM_Consulting.html SAP SRM Consulting

Media sometimes exaggerate things in their own understanding. Most of the people believe it's true when it's not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

Iggy is done-. you heard it here first.
Merry Ellen Scully

I favour an election soon, too!
I'm only peripherally afraid.
Yes, and get'er done before G8-20.
Canada150 "thinkers" conference should include statespersons from all opposition parties past and present and the Opps should hammer out a feasible, transparent plan for a coalition government – once burned, don't be shy! Include Ed Broadbent, Stephen Lewis, et al those amazing people like Elizabeth May!

Chantal Hebert's Star article pre-prorogation, Dec 28, 2009 lays on the outline, I can't post it enough. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/742159…

Prepare, prepare, prepare! Make it clear to the voters how real representation is possible.

This could be Canadians chance to try on Proportional Representation without the entrammelment of constitutional amendment. This could be the voters chance to truly participate in political change, eschewing the swing vote Fail, and pointedly helping to form a functional Parliament and national democratic renewal.
J Teller

This fear you speak of, Andrew, shows us why your pet project on proportional representation will never work. Everyone is afraid of an election with the existing minority government. PR will only make matters worse.

What we need right now is a strong majority government and I'll event take a Liberal one if I have to – at least that way we can get some substantive direction for the country.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

PR won't make it worse, because PR would mean that minor swings in the electorate voting result in only minor changes in government, whereas right now a minor swing can change the entire makeup of government. So right now they're afraid to do anything because it might provoke a small swing which could be enough to give Conservatives a majority or knock them into the opposition seats.

Under PR, a government has room to maneuver without feeling it'll lose them everything.
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

I agree, but another coalition will never happen.I dont think Layton is well enough to even go there.
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

The liberal star. I didnt even want to read, or open the link.( lol)
FVerhoeven

Merry Ellen, Ms.Hebert expresses some common sense there. Of course, the Canadian political landscape has changed since the Conservatives have reunited and the BQ is fully participating within federal elections. But remember, both (the split within the Conservative party and the rise of the BQ) come out of the same time frame, and that particular time frame points in the direction that Canada itself, politically speaking, has changed and is changing.

Ms.Heberts ideas are possibilites, certainly, but there are others. For instance, coming to grips with regional power shifts over the years, should also be taken into account. I firmly believe that part of Harper's problems to be understood is that he comes from the west. Canada is not yet willing to admit that yes, the west has grown up and has something to offer. The good old ways of Upper versus Lower Canada have disappeared although not all of the players are aware of this. Or why exactly is the CBC's At Issue panel filled with Torontonians, Ottawians, and Montrealers???? Does the west or east not count when it comes to points of view?? Would Andrew care to answer that one?
ex canuck

Ms Elizabeth May! Ye gods and little fishes! Consider what you are saying, Ms Scully. The participation of Ms May a certain way to trivialise what might be a useful conference.
Observant

Liberals will have their Canada150 "thinkers" conference in Montreal on March 26-28, promising to provide Ignatieff with a new Liberal policy platform that he can take to Canadians this summer… a Donolo summer bus tour to every corner of Canada. This will be a vast departure from Iggy's lifestyle of taking the summer off from teaching and politics.

The pressure will be on Ignatieff to pull the plug immediately, in April, and precipitate an election in April-May … rather than hesitate and struggle all summer to sell Canadians something that may be perceived as irrelevant to unreceptive Canadians. There is also the question of Iggy's personal credibility even though he is cloaked in Liberal drag.

A leader who cannot convincingly deliver the message to the voting masses is not a viable leader. Will Iggy enhance his leadership by touring Canada trying to sell Canadians on new Liberal policy … or will he tank as the CPC runs effective attack ads to trip him up?

I favour a snap election this April-May, before the G8-20 Summit conference … otherwise the Liberals will be perceived as being contradictory between their message and their actions. It's now or never for Iggy … believe it.
kcm

Ignorance is bliss eh!
kcm

Why do i have the feeling we need remedial civics for all Canadians, badly?
http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

What he said.
FVerhoeven

PR is not the answer. If you look at a host of other countries which use PR, many small splinter groups appear within the House. Have a look at other countries and how often they hold elections as a result of spinter parties. And besides the fact that these splinter groups hang on one or two issues, within Canada we could see many regional parties emerge, something like the BQ is now. Why would that improve our federal politics? We already have provincial politics.
Observant

In any next election, Harper will be asking Canadians to elect a majority Conservative gov't to implement the Budget and necessary cuts to gov't spending… all unhindered by the opposition parties. Charest asked Quebecers for the same thing and got his majority in 2009.

Canadians will get 4 years of electoral peace if they elect a majority gov't .. guaranteed. Ignatieff is not credible enough to ask for a Liberal majority gov't with him a PM of Canada. The only way Iggy can be PM is to form a pre-election coalition with the NDP and lead the coalition.

If the new Liberal policy platform is a NDP-approved platform, we may see a strategic voting coalition in the next election. That's the only way the Left can knock off Harper. However, Iggy may not be acceptable to the NDP as the next PM of Canada … they may want Layton as the coalition leader and next PM. Dion has failed and Iggy is unacceptable… so that only leaves Layton.
Gary

No, I'm sure he just has no time to wade through such rubbish on a daily basis. It really is painful to open anything emitted by that gang of wackjobs! Walkom, Travers et al really need to find real jobs!
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

You would know – baa baa
Gary

"Canada is not yet willing to admit that yes, the west has grown up and has something to offer"

You mean other than big money…….right?
kcm

Allen Gregg – born and educated in Edmonton.
Andrew coyne – raised in Winnipeg.
Chanta Hebert – not from toronto

Ignorance is bliss.
kcm

Hebert is a wackjob??
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

Nodding -yes.
kcm

what small spinter groups? Other than Israel which doesn't have a threshold for entry to parliament, most PR systems that i'm aware of set at least a 5% threshold.
FVerhoeven

Right, but you knew that already. I'm not sure though, if the members of the BQ know this. Seriously. I am not joking about this. I think members of the BQ do not know the west at all. Nor do they care to know. They know about the money part, of course. They see evidence of that every day.
FVerhoeven

Francien Verhoeven – born, raised and educated in The Netherlands

Does that mean that I have my pulse on the Dutch political dynamics? No. In order to understand the Dutch fully, I will need to live there. Because then you talk to the people, live with the people on a daily basis. Only then can one feel the true dynamics of a region.
FVerhoeven

Look, if Coyne, Hebert and Gregg have this earnest desire to improve the likes of our democracy, why would at least one of them not open up a permanent spot on At Issue for someone who lives in the East or West. You see, Harper may be accused of being all about personal power etc, but what about these three? Why can they not see that true representatives from all regions of this country are needed to put a weekly perspective forward. BTW, Mansbridge is in Toronto and his subjectivity is clear enough (look at his face when he taks about either the Libs or the Cons). Hebert is not from Toronto, I never said she was. She does, however, write for a Toronto newspaper and must talk to people in that region, no?

"Ignorance is bliss" you state but what about regional representation on our tax funded CBC? I live in the west and pay taxes too. I want our region's view heard as well.
FVerhoeven

ok, you're trolling, right?

But in any case, have a look at Dutch politics. The forth government has broken up in a time span of five years. They will go to the polls again on June 9. Now that will be an interesting election but not because of splinter groups.

Did you know that the Dutch population comes in at about 16 million and that there are 10 political parties represented in the House? BTW, the size of Holland fits into Alberta about 17 times, so can you imagine how many political parties Canada could end up with?

Have a look at New Zealand where they instituted partial PRm they have MP's as well as MMP's. Now there are the special interest group parties such as the Maori party (Natives of New Zealand) and the Green party (wanting no changes made to the NZ landscape.Period) and so forth. you think it will get easier with PR? Think again.
kcm

How is asking a question trolling? You don't like someone challenging your assertions you shouldn't make them. This is not your own assertion free zone.
I know next to nothing about Holland. Still, i suspect that there would be some cultural factors in play re., the political diversity – you'd need a lot more data/context then that to prove your point. I have a friend who's involved in the green party in NZ. He claims they like their system fine – but i don't know. What's more the single issue parties, such as the Maori party still have to find a way to compromise and work with others, and as an added bonus Maoris feel they truly have someone advocating for them who care – not just providing lip service. It seems to be brokerage politics outside of the big parties, rather than inside like here. I'm not at all sure if that would work here or not. I'd be interested to hear ACs perspective on this point.
kcm

You must be one of only half a dozen people in the country who think that – your clearly a genius. How bout you give a reason for why you disagree, Instead of voting down the person you're debating – that's real classy.
kcm

I 'd think a real western voice would be a fine idea. I'd be interested to hear who you think should speak for your west – i'm sure it would be my pick – i'm a westerner too!

" Or why exactly is the CBC's At Issue panel filled with Torontonians, Ottawians, and Montrealers????"

Seems pretty clear you couldn't be bothered to check your assertion – when two of the panelists actually grew up in the west i'd say they have at least some feeling for it – certainly not just smug eastern city folks as you implied.
Gary

She's the best of the worst is all I can muster. She gets it wrong……….alot!
I take it you are in agreement of the rest?
Bottom line…………..the paper is birdcage material!
FVerhoeven

I am safely assuming that Coyne, Gregg and Hebert are about my age. Like I said, I was born, raised and educated in The Netherlands and have not lived there for most of my adult life. The three mentioned above have not lived in the west since becoming adults. So no, they do not have an accurate view of the west. They think they have an accurate view of the west. In order to bring the western region into At Issue political debate we need to hear from someone who lives there.
How would Torontonians like it if someone from Edmonton would speak on their behalf? I know some people who were born in Toronto but live in Edmonton. You think they know as much about Toronto as Coyne?

I have some names of people I would like to see on At Issue. Lorne Gunther would be one. Gordon Gibson is another. But there are many, many western voices who could do the representation.
kcm

I'm a westerner so it isn't really my cup of tea. I try and take the articles as they come. Hebert i find very perceptive, particularly on Quebec. Delacourt has her good days. I wouldn't dimiss the paper entirely out of hand, any more than i would the NP.
kcm

Why can't you just admit you didn't check your facts and move on? Or say you did check, but you still hold your opinion, which may be valid. I have no idea how much AC has spent in Winnipeg as an adult. And i wouldn't be surprised if Gregg doesn't/hasn't spent a good deal of time in the west. But i take your point – they don't live there continually.

Lorne Gunter's a partisan idiot. Gibson i like. i don't share all his views, but i like how he thinks outside the box. some more please.
Gary

The BQ, they know alright!! They know that for the run of the mill Quebec resident, ignorance of the West is bliss. They are the downtrodden of Confederation, always on the wrong end of any deal, and are not afraid to tell all who will listen that they must leave to find their full potential. They have used this formula very well to extort money out of the ROC, and for whatever reason, Federal politicians (Harper is the latest to fall for the scam) seem all to willing to oblige. The Politics of fear thingy. Frankly, I could care less! LEAVE……..PLEASE! The only drawback to this Westerner is the ensuing land gulf between Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces that would make trade/travel more difficult and the fact that any tourism pamphlet would have to delete any reference to the "uniqueness" that Quebec is in a united Canada. The positives for the West in general and Alberta in particular is that there would be no more billions heading east (161 big B's since 1961) to pay for services that the run of the mill Albertan presently does not enjoy…………..even with all our petro dollars!