icman

If the issue was that reasonable, the CPC wouldn't fear putting it forward with their stamp on it and letting the Legislature do its magic.

Sorry Scriblet. He IS in caucus. Caucus is the group of elected officials belonging to a particular party. I think you are referring to Cabinet, which is the group of Ministers appointed by the PM to run the executive. There are only 2 ways for Trost to be out of the Conservative caucus... 1)leave the Conservative party (voluntarily or otherwise), or 2) lose his seat.

The issue is not as black and white as your statement makes it out to be. At some point, a fetus is a person. The SCC said that a fetus has no legal status as a person, making the moment of birth the determining moment. That was a lob back at Parliament to make a decision if they wanted to about the legal status of a fetus at whatever point during development, but the Legislature has declined to go there. But is there a physiological difference between a fetus 2 minutes from birth and one two minutes old still attached via the umbilical cord? Birth is an arbitrary legal definition of when a person becomes a person that has nothing to do with fetal development. I would suggest that a woman has choices over their body, but perhaps they shouldn't be so cavalier with that choice as to change their mind at the 11th hour. This issue is so divided, I have yet to find a forum where reasonable discussion can take place about it without it being overridden by terrifying, wild-eyed zealots on both sides.

Obviously you need two parties for competition but that is enough. It's not obvious at all. Why have competition if all views are represented equally by both parties? Your view suggests that competition is NOT necessary. If competition is necessary, it's competition between competing views. And that implies that not all views are shared by all parties. And that implies the need for as many parties as is necessary to represent all Canadian views. New parties don't pop up because some disaffected power broker wants their own show, exacly the same as the old show with a different name. New parties pop up because the old ones don't address what's important to a substantial group of people - so those people create a new party which represents their views. They are a single issue party no matter how they dress up their platform - all they really care about is GHGs. It is clear you have spent NO time whatsoever to finding out more about the GPC. You really should stop trying to speak for them and what they care about. Go to their web site, and be illuminated. This PM will likely lose her job over it. Please explain what happened, or put a link to a site explaining what happened. She would not have done what you say unless she believed in the carbon tax, Australians were not so unified in opposition against the carbon tax, or she had no choice. That she had no choice is not credible without a detailed explanation. I am saying I can live with FPTP even if it goes against my views because the pendulum will eventually switch. You are right, the pendulum will switch. But how many resources are will you waste undoing what a previous party has done so that you can erect your own edifice, only to have that torn down when the next party takes over? Wouldn't you rather take some extra time, even a couple of years if necessary, to arrive at a generally accepted forward move (and this is only on the controversial stuff), so that when action is taken, it is something that will last because most Canadians supported the compromise? There are some moves that cannot be easily undone by the swinging of the pendulum. Look at NAFTA. We would have a very hard time getting out of it if we wanted to, and a significant number of people in Canada DO want to. Certainly it was not negotiated very advantageously for Canada, and part of that was due to the lack of consultation on the part of Mulrooney's government. Of course, they had a majority, and could do whatever they wanted, in spite of significant opposition in the voting public. Also, your choice of words "I can live with it" suggests that there might be a more palatable option for you than FPTP. I urge you to consider the full range of PR systems (currently in practice somewhere or not) and see if one is acceptable before condemning the whole exercise.

Your argument suggests that we should have a single party (or no parties), as all views will be represented by that party. I'm sorry, but that is a narrow view, prejudiced against anyone who has views that differ from yours. And it's simply incorrect. The GPC, for example, has a broad, principle-based platform that covers all areas of national interest - they aren't just a bunch of enviro-freaks anymore. And the environment is important to many people in Canada, within the "big-tent" parties and without. But which "big-tent" party is taking that on? None! They think it's the third-rail, and so are avoiding the issue. There are many issues that are important to large numbers of Canadians which don't get discussed at the national level during campaigns because the parties either don't differ on the issue, or they think its contraversial and don't want to touch it. How did the GPA manage to FORCE the PM to implement a carbon tax with only 2 seats in the Senate? If that was so strongly against the wishes of the majority of Australians, the PM would have said no-freakin-way. A PM would never give up a broadly opposed concession to a small party to push 50/50 legislation through the Senate. You are only characterizing the issue this way because you are one of the people who feel very strongly opposed to the notion of carbon taxes. So, you'd like Unions to rule the country rather than consider changes to how we manage taxes to protect future resources and human health?

Yes, there was that prick of an MP, who it was I can't remember, who refused requests from a constituent because that constituent had a party sign for a different party on his lawn during the campaign. I am sorry, but once you attain the position of MP, you are responsible for representing all your constituents, and helping all your constituents. Your riding is a block of people, and they voted for you in the aggregate. That principle is illustrated by the fact that voting is an anonymous exercise. As MP, you represent ALL your constituents, using your views in Parliament because your district voted you into power based on those views. But you don't get to pick and choose WHO within that district you will represent. You represent them all in the aggregate according to your advertized principles. This should be kindergarten-level civics knowledge, but there are still lots of people who don't have a problem with MPs being selective in who they will aid within their riding. I get that people closest to the MP during campaigns and such will get more attention - that is human nature and unavoidable, even if its not strictly ethical. But to refuse service to a constituent because you think they might have voted for a different candidate? Sick and twisted.

Well, take any 5 contiguous ridings and combine them into one super riding. Candidates are nominated by parties or can be independent, and parties can put forward multiple candidates. You could even allow them to put forward as many canadidates as there are available seats (in this example, that's 5). Candidates are listed on the ballot with their party affiliation, as they are now. Voters vote for the candidates using any PR voting method (Single Transferable Vote comes to mind. A ranked list and point system also comes to mind). The top 5 candidates go to Ottawa for that riding. In this system, there are no more seats in Ottawa than now, and the candidates are as beholden to the constituents in their districts as they are now - the only difference is that the district is 5 times larger. I am actually not familiar with "non-partisan democracy". Does that mean no parties? I think parties developed as a way to consolidate power outside of Parliament into the hands of people not beholden to constituents. However, in Canada that's not really true, because all the parties have internal elections for leadership positions. Powerful folk exert their influence no matter the venue, and elections are our ONLY imperfect stopgap for that problem. Today, though, parties allow a shortcut for the voter to understand the views of their representatives. The party platform is more or less the individual platform. In a complicated world, this simplifies the decision-making process for the voter, and allows the voter to be more easily informed on how their representative of choice is likely to represent them in Parliament. With under 60% voter turnout to federal elections, I am not sure how removing parties would play, considering that it makes it even more difficult for the voter to inform themselves about their representative choices. It would level the playing field with regard to candidate campaign funding. But again, it would also make it harder to manage public disclosure of campaign financing (who's influencing who.)

Elizabeth May running in a difficult district is not the justification for PR, so please, its not necessary for you to repeat that. ;-) The justification for PR is simply to create a Parliament that is reasonably in line with Canadian voters, Elizabeth May's difficulties notwithstanding. (Note that Jack is in favour of PR too, and brought it up at the English debate even though PR would halve his representation in Ottawa.) I suppose I can say this only of myself, but if the GPC (my party of choice) won a majority tomorrow based on 45% of the popular vote, I'd still want PR in place so that the 8% of Canadians who are fascist-leaning CPC supporters would have a voice in Parliament instead of getting sidelined and angry and feeling like they have no say in what goes on. Look at Alberta! Their main complaint over the last 50 years (until Harper) has been that Ottawa ignores their wants and needs, that the rest of Canada shits on them at the same time as they benefit from Alberta oil, and that they should have a voice when they provide so much to Canada. Albertans as a group have long been supremely resentful of Ontario and Quebec and the disproportionate amount of power that accretes to those regions in federal politics. (I know this first hand - I lived in Edmonton for a time. Albertans are wonderful people, but the claws come out when you start talking about Eastern Canada and Ottawa.) PR would put Wild Rose in the House, and if 30% of some regional group of 450,000 people in Alberta wants a Wild Rose rep, they should get it. You haven't addressed the underlying issue of FPTP, which is that if there are 4 national parties, one party could get 100% of the seats in Parliament with only 26% of the popular vote. A stretch to imagine, but it is possible under our system. That's a broken system.

Yeah, the campaign for PR in Ontario was done so poorly, was so outrageously bad, that I truly believe that the groups called upon to organize the campaign were managed by people who actually WANTED PR to tank. The ads on TV seemed designed to make PR look like a fraud. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw those ads on TV. Uninformative and confusing at best, deliberate misinformation at worst. No-one who had any idea of what PR is and can be was involved in putting that campaign together, or putting the study together. It is clear to me that the whole thing was put together by the sitting Liberals and their influence peddlers to discredit PR to the Ontario population, in a way that allows them to now say - "We already looked into that in 2008, and Ontarioans decided that they didn't want PR." As if Ontarioans could make an informed decision based on the (mis)information campaign. I'm still pissed off about that whole debacle. You should look at the GPC's website someday. They have always pushed PR as part of their social justice platform - not just since they started to get media attention and had a shot at putting MPs in Parliament. And as of the debates when Jack openned the PR door again (bless his heart), adoption of PR will halve his party's presence in Ottawa. So he can hardly be called out as oppourtunistically supporting PR.

Molly, there are many ways to execute Proportional Representation, and many of them keep the candidates beholden to their constituents in their riding. However, as my colleague pointed out to me, most candidates are currently beholden to their parties more than their constituents, because most people vote for the party and not for the local candidate anyway. How many people did you see come out to the all-candidates debates in your riding of ~65,000 eligible voters? Rare is the person who takes the candidate's record and personal message into consideration when marking their ballot (in other words, would consider voting for a different party than they normally do if the local candidate for their party sucked). Rarer still is the person who votes only on their local candidate without regard to the party they represent.

You are right. It's not cheap. But compared to every other item in the federal budget, it's chump change - and a worthy investment if it will create a government that best represents the wants and needs of the most Canadians. This Canadian phenomena of 4 elections in 7 years is a result of minority governments, but it is not a property of minority governments per se. Whether due to the adoption of Proportional Representation, or simply a significant divide among the electorate, any switch from predominantly majority governments to predominantly minority governments was inevitably going to spawn a period of lots of elections, because parties accustomed to majority governments don't work and play nice with others. Parties jockeying for majorities don't compromise. The Conservatives in this case are a prime example. They are the worst at blocking committees, playing the opposition parties off against one another to push unpopular legislation, and negative campaigning outside of elections cycles. (That is not to say that the Liberals smell like roses - I am sure that the Libs would do the same things if they were in the same position, but they aren't and haven't been in a long time, so the CPC takes the hit for now.) All in the name of seeking a majority. Once the electorate and the Parliament get accustomed to minority governments, and the electorate starts to get pissed off because Parliament is always deadlocked, MPs will get the message and start to cooperate. Cooperating parties is the mainstay of most Parliamentary democracies around the globe. Cooperating MPs get more done that stays done than even majority government do. But that change takes time - for the parties to learn to cooperate and for the electorate to figure out that they need to hold their MPs responsible for not cooperating. Canada is not becoming more and more monolithic. It is becoming more and more diverse. The GPC won't be the last national party with a new spin, and the Wild Rose won't be the last regional party that gains enough traction in one corner of Canada to steal a seat in the House. So majority governments will never again be the rule. They will be the exception. I say, move to PR now, bite the bullet, and get the pain over sooner.

No, I don't. That's why I elect a representative. THEY have to compromise with the other representatives. And PR does not make a perfect candidate for every voter, but it does introduce more views to governing, and that can only be for the good. Unless you believe that bad action sooner is better than good action later, because any bad action can be reversed. Me, I disagree with that notion, because it takes longer and more resources to correct a bad action than to take the time to do it right the first time, even if taking that time tries peoples' patience. If your objection to PR is anything other than "My party will lose influence" or "I just hate change", then I am not understanding you. And I would like to understand.

Further to the PR discussion, Wild Bill, You mention fringe parties. Sure, there are fringe parties with ideas that mainstream people simply revile. I don't know how happy I would be to have the Fascist party garner a seat in the house through PR. (Mind you, the corporatists that have taken over the CPC are pretty close. ;-) ) But on the other hand, if 10% of the population voted for the Fascist party, or the Communist party, or the Marijuana party, shouldn't they have a say? And who are you to say that they should not? There are arguments to be made against PR, that I don't have the rigour to argue effectively (perhaps why I believe in PR). For example, one objection could be that parties that are newer, or with lower popularity, should have a higher barrier to entry so that they can't end up holding the balance of power in Parliament, and PR makes it easier for fringe parties to get into positions of relative power. That's an interesting argument that deserves some thought. Unfortunately, what is a fringe party, and who decides that except through a popular vote? And to be completely honest, my problem is not that one or two representatives who will NEVER realistically hold the balance of power might have a wacky worldview. I have more of a problem with huge issues that AREN'T discussed in government because the major parties don't differ (or worse, and more likely, because the issue is controversial and the powerful parties don't it to divide their voters), but 40% or more of the population wants those issues to be revisited, and they NEVER WILL BE so long as the traditional parties have a stranglehold on power. At the end of the day, for a population to be "self-governing", it's views as a whole must be represented effectively by the people we send to govern on our behalf. So, I say, until the House begins to move toward resembling the popular vote (done in a way that preserves local candidates supported by local populations), Canada is NOT self-governing.

Wild Bill, I think, from your post, that you are not fully informed on the various methods of implementing PR. Some of them favour a national vote where parties choose representatives from a national pool. Personally, I think that is a horrible method, as not only are regional views not represented, but voters don't really know who they are voting for. However, that is not the only PR system. There are many which preserve local candidates, who voters elect personally. Single transferable vote is one. There are many variations. This would still require campaigning by candidates to garner votes, and in fact, would make campaigning in individual ridings more important for every canadidate. Most importantly, candidates represent local regions and must campaign in their regions, thereby being accountable to the local voters, which should solve your concerns on that front. As for how the traditional parties would be eviscerated, I would have thought that would be obvious. (You should think twice before being an a--hole. I do math just fine. Perhaps its YOU who needs a remedial course.) CPC is polling at 36%, but has 45% of the House seats. If they poll between 40% and 50%, they will get anywhere between 55% and 85% of the House seats. That is true for any parties polling at those numbers - Chretien would never have had the overwhelming majority he had in his last government if PR was in place. I'm sorry, but 45% of the popular vote should not garner 75% of the seats in Parliament. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives expect that level of power in the House. All those pricks can talk about is "when I get my Majority", and the governing of Canada goes to hell in the meanwhile. Any party that relies on 45% of the popular vote to get 75% of the say in government is eviscerated by PR. PR would turn the CPC and the Liberals into different parties that they are today because it would change the nature of what they fight over, what they expect, and what they need to do to succeed. FPTP is an absurd method of choosing representation in multi-party systems, and becomes ever more absurd as the number of parties with support over 8% rises. If this were a two party system, then the popular vote and the House would be roughly in line, most of the time, and there could be few complaints about representative democracy. But we don't have a 2-party system, and nor should we. Canada has diverse regions and diverse people, and to think that two parties could possibly represent that is a ridiculous notion. In a multi-party, FPTP system, the team with 5% more votes will get 20% more power, or even more, and that's simply not right.

Yeah, and that alone makes Harper a complete moron when it comes to actual governing (as opposed to the back-stabbing scrum politics, at which he excels). Of course, we can add all the other horrible decisions he's made over the past 6 years. I still don't get why people with any brains vote for his team.

Dancer, The argument for PR is a very, VERY simple one. 'We have some 20 million (or so?) eligible voters in Canada. If our democracy is "representative" like we say it is, then the makeup of the House should be, roughly but not exactly, proportional to the popular vote. If it isn't, then you can't say that it is very representative of Canadian views, and that casts doubt on just how representative our system is in general. Guess what, the House looks absolutely nothing like the popular vote. Perhaps if we want to continue calling our electoral system "representative democracy", then we should fix this.' Such an observation is valid, prima facie, and cannot be dimissed by anyone with a brain solely as "whining loser-speak". Mind you... supporters of traditional parties, who would be eviscerated by PR, of course will say nothing in favour of a new system which will reduce their stranglehold on power.

I believe you are quite correct, ToadBrother. I was just pointing out M. Dancer's debating error.

There is no such thing as "government caucus". There is caucus. Each party has a caucus, and it is all of the party members who hold seats in the legislature. The CPC is not "the Government". The CPC caucus is not "the Government". The CPC is the party that FORMED "the Government" from the representatives within their caucus (and from outside too - the Minister of whatever that is a Senator, for example). The Government is Cabinet, which is all the Minsters. I suppose you could extend "the Government" beyond specifically the Cabinet by including the staff of the Ministries, but all the Ministries and their staff are led by the Ministers in Cabinet*. The House is the House. *Technically there is a small difference between the Ministry and Cabinet, but it is subtle, and ignored by the media, the common person, and most MPs who aren't Ministers.

I thought you'd make this mistake. The link you chose shows that the entire apparatus is considered Government - the House, the Senate, the SCC, etc. In that case, the Bloc is already in government, so your efforts to prevent separatists from getting into goverment by preventing a coalition that includes the Bloc are meaningless.

In Canada, "Government" = "Cabinet". The rest is the House of Commons.

Further... Now, jurisprudence experts are even harder to develop and train than English-French translators that also speak legaleze. So, I am not suggesting that using translators is not a good idea, only that using English-French translators is not enough. The translators need to be English/French/English-Legaleze/French-Legaleze translators.

Mastery of English is less important than the mastery of legaleze when reading and writing legal documents and considering legal arguments. I am not sure if you've done much reading of legal documents or, worse, legislation and legal decisions, but I am confident that an Anglo judge can read an English legal paper much better than the best English-French translator if that translator does not also have a lot of legal language training. As a result, a Franco judge trying to read an English legal paper will be much better served by learning English than by employing a translator. The reverse will also definately be true. Top-notch translators for judges will not succeed if they are not also legal experts.

They didn't vote for cabinet membership of any kind, so what the voters want to happen in cabinet is only represented by their vote for MPs. When I read your previous words, I heard "The Canadian People's votes showed that they didn't want the Bloc in Cabinet." And that ain't so. The people's votes say nothing about who they want or don't want in Cabinet. Cabinet choices are not on the ballot.

You forget that there is no democratic system in the world that votes on the makeup of "The Government". In ours and Australia's and New Zealand's and the UK's, cabinet is selected by the PM. In the US, cabinet is selected by the President. So your contention that the electorate didn't vote for a Bloc member to sit in cabinet is just so much BS. The electorate also didn't vote for a PM. Or the Speaker of the House. Or the Deputy PM. Or any of the other cabinet members. The PM selects the cabinet however he or she sees fit to best accomplish their goals. It is up to the PM to make those selections based on many, many factors, including competence in the relative field, but also on their acceptability to the House, and to the general public. If it was such a hot-button issue, as you claim, then Lib supporters and NDP supporters would be freaking out en-masse, and they aren't.

Technically, you are right. A "Coalition Government" means that cabinet is made up using members from different parties. But the issue is this. Harper is saying "Coalition = Bad". His more intelligent supporters are saying, "No, he means that a Coalition Government with a separatist party included is bad." But a Bloc Minister has no more power AS A SEPARATIST than a Bloc MP. They still have to execute their Ministerial position with competence and in an upright manner or be canned. So it is a false fear. The CPC, right now, today, has to cooperate with the Bloc to pass bills if the Libs and the NDP are opposed. So the CPC Government is already working hand-in-hand with the SEPARATISTS (eek) on a daily basis. And HERE is where the separatists can exercise their separatist ideology - blocking bills and/or demanding changes to bills to benefit their pet causes. So, the CPC is already "in a coalition" - aka, working hand in hand with, and having to bestow favours upon - the separatist Bloc. It may not be a formal coalition government, but the Bloc are getting what they want from Harper anyway, so what is the big difference?