Harper Building Democracy

[ToadBrother]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Looks like they'll have quite a few more years to put it into practice.

"Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

This is like your mayor announcing "From now on, when the red light is on, cars will have to stop!" Yes, it's a bright idea, but he didn't invent it, and reiterating it hardly makes him a genius, though it does make those who clap loudly look like ignorant fools.

I've just got to ask. Where the hell did you get your notions of how Parliament works?

Edited August 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

Maybe that's not how legislative committees have worked under the Harper regime, but let me assure that in Canada, and in pretty much all Westminster parliaments, this incredible "reform" is par for the course. I can't believe how gullible some of you Tory supporters are. It's bad enough that the Tories think some of us are mentally deficient enough not to recognize what's going on here, it's even more pathetic to watch their supporters eating it up.

Committee work is where the backbenchers have their say. There's no need to recreate what we already have, and if Harper hasn't been allowing his backbenchers, and backbenchers in general, the appropriate oversight as afforded under the committee system, then I don't think to praise him for suddenly turning the lights back on, but to condemn him for having turned them off in the first place.

You're confusing all-party working committees with these proposed internal party committees. Before a bill goes to the formal committee, it has to be developed by the government and especially in a minority government, the legislation is then scrutinized by the all-party committees. The original article that I posted speaks to getting backbenchers to more prominently - and formally - representing their constituents in building and debating legislation. Including Senators as part of the legislative building process may also head off some regional imbalance issues. All told, it has the capability of building legislation that has been more broadly critiqued before it goes to the all-party working committees. The approach has a lot of potential....since we'll be having minority governments for the foreseeable future, it behooves the ruling party to be as thorough and open as possible in developing legislation. Granted, that is a big leap for the Conservatives but more often than not, this Prime Minister learns what works and what doesn't work.....and eventually, he's adaptable. I think this announcement - which still has not appeared in print - will become a template for future governments of all stripes. It may have to be test-driven and tweaked...but it makes sense.

[Oleg Bach]

Harper has lost all sense of functional political reality. Depths in the ranks of party hack does not translate into democratic enhancement.

DEMOCRACY - consists of two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[ToadBrother]

You're confusing all-party working committees with these proposed internal party committees. Before a bill goes to the formal committee, it has to be developed by the government and especially in a minority government, the legislation is then scrutinized by the all-party committees. The original article that I posted speaks to getting backbenchers to more prominently - and formally - representing their constituents in building and debating legislation. Including Senators as part of the legislative building process may also head off some regional imbalance issues. All told, it has the capability of building legislation that has been more broadly critiqued before it goes to the all-party working committees. The approach has a lot of potential....since we'll be having minority governments for the foreseeable future, it behooves the ruling party to be as thorough and open as possible in developing legislation. Granted, that is a big leap for the Conservatives but more often than not, this Prime Minister learns what works and what doesn't work.....and eventually, he's adaptable. I think this announcement - which still has not appeared in print - will become a template for future governments of all stripes. It may have to be test-driven and tweaked...but it makes sense.

There have also long been caucus committees, but at any rate, unless Harper's actually advocating removing Cabinet's ultimate responsibility for Government legislation, this just looks like a bunch of nothing. And there's been nothing stopping involving the Senate in crafting legislation. Senators are Parliamentarians too. Heck, they can even be Cabinet Ministers, shockers and all!

Maybe the problem here is that Harper didn't know crap about the Westminster system. I'm looking on this whole announcement as a shocking demonstration of just how ignorant the Tory caucus is. I think it's pretty much making me decide in absolute terms where I'll be placing my vote next time around.

Edited August 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

'ignorant' -------------Ignorance is a choice - to ignore this and pay heed to that...I suppose once you have the highest position in Canada - you can pick and choose who and what your recognize and what you choose to not exist..or ignore.

[ToadBrother]

'ignorant' -------------Ignorance is a choice - to ignore this and pay heed to that...I suppose once you have the highest position in Canada - you can pick and choose who and what your recognize and what you choose to not exist..or ignore.

Well, you can certainly ignore traditional Parliamentary and quasi-Parliamentary structures, like legislative and caucus committees, but when you suddenly, after running the country for four and a half years, announce that you're forming bodies that actually have existed for a considerable length of time, and worse, have your toadies running around and telling us how it's all bold and new and democratic, well, color me unimpressed.

Harper and his ministers have shown nothing but contempt for Parliament and for Parliamentary committees. I can't speak to caucus or any committees that might stem from that, but I'm not looking at the last two years of prorogations, defiance of constitutional restraints on the executive that have existed for over three centuries and having the first thing that pop out of my head be "Harper is creating a more democratic institution."

[Topaz]

I have questions, do these people get more money for being on this committee and increase in pensions? Wouldn't it be easier to have someone in the PMO monitoring forums like this and read what we think? The saying, "If its too good to be true, it probably is", ring a bell? Since it always Harper to call an election, why not call an election and he can find out how Canadians feel?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Topaz

[ToadBrother]

I have questions, do these people get more money for being on this committee and increase in pensions? Wouldn't it be easier to have someone in the PMO monitoring forums like this and read what we think? The saying, "If its too good to be true, it probably is", ring a bell? Since it always Harper to call an election, why not call an election and he can find out how Canadians feel?

I think it would be useful for the Tories and their supporters to actually learn something about the institution they presently are in charge of. I can't believe this is news. It's like announcing it would be a great idea to have elections every four or five years.

[Moonlight Graham]

Seems like not a bad gesture. Give MPs, which people actually elect, some kind of voice in policy rather than just being a hand raising bot during votes. Gives at least the appearance of more democracy. That being said, I don't think it will have any real impact on policy.

Mostly agree. I think this is a good attempt to add more democracy to the Parliamentary system. Refreshing. I'm also skeptical of what kind of impact this will have on policy, but i'm optimistic it will have some kind of influence & it really can't hurt from what i can see.

[ToadBrother]

Mostly agree. I think this is a good attempt to add more democracy to the Parliamentary system. Refreshing. I'm also skeptical of what kind of impact this will have on policy, but i'm optimistic it will have some kind of influence & it really can't hurt from what i can see.

How is it anything at all? Caucuses already have their own committees, and are free to strike as many as they want. At the end of the day the Government decides what legislation gets on the order paper, and unless that's going to change, then this is nothing more than a reiteration of the way Parliament works anyways.

How is it that all you guys can suddenly drop so many bloody neurons? To reiterate; there are already legislative committees that deal with bills on the paper, caucuses throughout the Westminster system create committees, and often having standing committees for certain types of issues. Come on people, there's nothing to this.