Tories Stall Parliament

[scribblet]

The Conservatives are having to resort to opposition like stall tactics in order to stop the opposition from setting the legislative agenda. Their efforts to kill the gun registry, pass crime bills and introduce an environmental plan are being stopped at the pass.

The Opposition parties are putting through private member's bills on the environment, and a ban on scab labour. In fact, a A CPC MP had to resort to delivering a monologue on parliamentary procedure to prevent a committee from proceeding with a Liberal-sponsored bill that would force the government to go through with the Kyoto accord.

The amendments include a doubling of political donation limits to $2,000 from Bill C-2's initial limit of $1,000. The current limit is $5,400. Remember, as Baird said, this is an "un-elected" Senate, which is attempting to stop legislation and revamping the bill. If the Senate does succeed it will be a big part of a CPC campaign.

Note that the plan to impose term limits on Canadian senators has been endorsed in principle by the special committee on Senate reform.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives are having to resort to opposition like stall tactics in order to stop the opposition from setting the legislative agenda. Their efforts to kill the gun registry, pass crime bills and introduce an environmental plan are being stopped at the pass.

The Opposition parties are putting through private member's bills on the environment, and a ban on scab labour. In fact, a A CPC MP had to resort to delivering a monologue on parliamentary procedure to prevent a committee from proceeding with a Liberal-sponsored bill that would force the government to go through with the Kyoto accord.

The amendments include a doubling of political donation limits to $2,000 from Bill C-2's initial limit of $1,000. The current limit is $5,400. Remember, as Baird said, this is an "un-elected" Senate, which is attempting to stop legislation and revamping the bill. If the Senate does succeed it will be a big part of a CPC campaign.

Note that the plan to impose term limits on Canadian senators has been endorsed in principle by the special committee on Senate reform.

It is not only the Opposition parties. Conservative Senators have also added amendments to legislation.

And term limits for Senators wouldn't help speed up Parliament. Nor would elections.

What would speed up Parliament is abolishing the Senate.

[MightyAC]

It is not only the Opposition parties. Conservative Senators have also added amendments to legislation.

And term limits for Senators wouldn't help speed up Parliament. Nor would elections.

What would speed up Parliament is abolishing the Senate.

Right now I’m glad we have a Senate as safety net because the representation we get in the house doesn’t match how we vote. If we had a form of PR and the government did match how we vote then I’d be in favour of abolishing the Senate completely.

[jdobbin]

Right now I’m glad we have a Senate as safety net because the representation we get in the house doesn’t match how we vote. If we had a form of PR and the government did match how we vote then I’d be in favour of abolishing the Senate completely.

We've had proportional representation in Canada before. It didn't work very well in Manitoba. It was quite unfair to urban areas and was eventually abolished itself. If they could come up with a formula that was not unfair to urban or rural areas and didn't bog down the government in ever collapsing coalitions, I'd be in favour of it. Every time it has been put to a vote in Canada, it has been defeated.

[MightyAC]

Right now I’m glad we have a Senate as safety net because the representation we get in the house doesn’t match how we vote. If we had a form of PR and the government did match how we vote then I’d be in favour of abolishing the Senate completely.

We've had proportional representation in Canada before. It didn't work very well in Manitoba. It was quite unfair to urban areas and was eventually abolished itself. If they could come up with a formula that was not unfair to urban or rural areas and didn't bog down the government in every collapsing coalitions, I'd be in favour of it. Every time it has been put to a vote in Canada, it has been defeated.

Mixed Member PR is not unfair to urban areas. MPs are still elected from ridings; obviously there are more ridings in more heavily populated areas. In fact, I'm not aware of a PR system that is unfair to more heavily populated areas. Since every vote actually counts in a PR system, areas with more population have more say.

Also, a vote in parliament against PR doesn't mean that PR is wrong....it is never in the interest of the governing party to turf the system that got it there. As the old southern saying goes “Dance with the one what brung ya”. Chrétien was all for PR until he won 3 majority governments without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Harper was for it until he could almost taste a false majority of his own.

Anyway, my point is that under PR the mix of parties in the house match how Canadians actually vote so there would be no need for a senate. Right now a party can win a (false) majority even though only 35%-40% of the country voted for it. It doesn't seem right that a party should be amble to ram through bills despite the fact that they only have the support of 1/3 of the country. A senate can then theoretically act as a safety net. Whether they do or not is a different story. Anyway, for a party to win a majority under PR they would have to gain 50% + 1 of the vote and since the do in fact speak for the majority of the country I see no need for a senate.

[jdobbin]

Mixed Member PR is not unfair to urban areas. MPs are still elected from ridings; obviously there are more ridings in more heavily populated areas. In fact, I'm not aware of a PR system that is unfair to more heavily populated areas. Since every vote actually counts in a PR system, areas with more population have more say.

Also, a vote in parliament against PR doesn't mean that PR is wrong....it is never in the interest of the governing party to turf the system that got it there. As the old southern saying goes “Dance with the one what brung ya”. Chrétien was all for PR until he won 3 majority governments without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Harper was for it until he could almost taste a false majority of his own.

Anyway, my point is that under PR the mix of parties in the house match how Canadians actually vote so there would be no need for a senate. Right now a party can win a (false) majority even though only 35%-40% of the country voted for it. It doesn't seem right that a party should be amble to ram through bills despite the fact that they only have the support of 1/3 of the country. A senate can then theoretically act as a safety net. Whether they do or not is a different story. Anyway, for a party to win a majority under PR they would have to gain 50% + 1 of the vote and since the do in fact speak for the majority of the country I see no need for a senate.

This is how Manitoba's was set up.

1920

• A "proportional representation" system of voting was introduced in Winnipeg. The city was consolidated into a single constituency electing 10 members. Voters indicated their preferences by numbering the candidates' names on the ballot paper 1,2,3 etc. A complex method of counting these ballot papers was provided by amendments to The Elections Act.

Rural areas were kept as first past the post.

The system was so unfair to Winnipeg that it was abandoned in 1958.

1958

• Winnipeg was divided into 20 single-member constituencies. The system of referential or alternative voting was abandoned in favour of the first-past-the-post plurality system in all constituencies, rural and urban.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Proportional representation is wrong because it subverts democracy. What we really need is direct democracy. We need more democracy not less. We need representatives that must listen to the citizens and a means of removing them if they do not listen. We need to be able to elect a leader directly not through partisan means and parlimentary majority, the people must have a say in who leads them. We need the ability to ratify the decisions of government or reject legislation that the majority of citizens do not support.

Proportional representation does not address these issues which have far greater impact on our democracy than ensuring the partisan monopoly of representatives. The thing to be concerned with is the will of citizens and the support of democracy. Anything that detracts from the focus of citizens will or promoting that will through democratic means represents a detrimental impact to the best interest of citizens.

[Ricki Bobbi]

This is how Manitoba's was set up.

1920

• A "proportional representation" system of voting was introduced in Winnipeg. The city was consolidated into a single constituency electing 10 members. Voters indicated their preferences by numbering the candidates' names on the ballot paper 1,2,3 etc. A complex method of counting these ballot papers was provided by amendments to The Elections Act.

Rural areas were kept as first past the post.

The system was so unfair to Winnipeg that it was abandoned in 1958.

1958

• Winnipeg was divided into 20 single-member constituencies. The system of referential or alternative voting was abandoned in favour of the first-past-the-post plurality system in all constituencies, rural and urban.

How was it unfair to Winnipeg? Obviously they got ten more members in 1958, but could they have gotten the extra ten members and still have used the proportional representation system?

I am interested by the idea of PR and want to understand more about it.

Intuitively Mighty ACs argument makes sense to me.

[jdobbin]

The Hare System of Proportional Representation ensured the Winnipeg was under represented in the legislature.

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/nov97/wiseman.pdf

[Ricki Bobbi]

That article doesn't mention Winnipeg being under-represented in a PR system...