Here is a Question for you Jack

So here we are. The election is over, Ottawa has a new, but not necessarily better look to it and many of the 60% or so of Canadians who didn’t vote for the Blue Man Group are wondering what happened. More and more are asking themselves, “Isn’t it time we took a hard look at our electoral system.” The first-past-the post system just doesn’t cut it.

All that considered I think that Fair Vote Canada has a great suggestion for Jack Layton’s first Question in the new Parliament. They are nudging the new Leader of the Opposition to ask:

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, when the right was divided and we seemed to be faced with the prospect of “Liberal government forever”, the current prime minister, who was then out of elected office, co-authored and published with Tom Flanagan a remarkable article entitled “Our Benign Dictatorship”. In this thoughtful and well researched article, they decried the way that our first-past-the-post voting system creates one-party rule “beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system.” They said, and I quote, “For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities.”

They went on to decry the hugely distorted election results in the 1993 election, in which the Reform party won 52 seats with 19% of the votes, but the Progressive Conservatives, with 16% of the votes, won only two seats, while the Bloc Quebecois, with only 14% of the votes, won 54 seats and formed Her Majesty's “Loyal” Opposition.

“Imposing a first-past-the-post voting system upon a society with deep ethno linguistic and regional cleavages,” they said, “inevitably fragments Canadian conservatism,” adding that, ”Our system has similarly fragmented social democrats.”

They encouraged the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties to advocate electoral reform, and suggested the NDP would vote for it too.

“No one who cares seriously about ideas,” they said, “whether conservative, liberal or socialist, should be happy with the thought of prolonged one-party rule,” because, they pointed out, it leads to cronyism, corruption, cynicism and chaos.” The absence of effective competition,” they said, “is just as bad in politics as it is in economics.”

“Voters on the left,” they pointed out, “are as much entitled as voters on the right to effective representation.”

They went on to point out that, “In today’s democratic societies, organizations share power. Corporations, churches, universities, hospitals, even public sector bureaucracies make decisions through consultation, committees and consensus-building techniques. Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.”

They conclude by saying, “Many of Canada’s problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country,” and “Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada’s survival as a nation.”

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House couldn’t agree more with all of that, so my question to the Prime Minister is this: Now that you have won a majority government on the basis of having received less than forty percent of the votes cast in the election, do you still believe in proportional representation?

Then Fair Vote suggests that Jack follow up with the following supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, historically, up to 80% of votes cast for the NDP federally have been wasted votes—they did not help to elect anyone, and our party has always had about half as many seats in this place as we should have won based on the number of votes we received. That has changed, Mr. Speaker, and today, the New Democratic Party is actually slightly over-represented in this House.

But Mr. Speaker, we are willing to put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of our party, and we call on the governing party to do the same.

We do still support proportional representation, Mr. Speaker, and my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this: When will his government put forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act to give Canadians a modern, fair, proportional voting system, so that every Canadian can have a vote that makes a difference? When they do, Mr. Speaker, we will vote for it.

I don't know if Jack reads what Fair Vote writes about the issue but I hope he does. That question would get people's attention. Let him know this is a great idea.

Just Few Things I Noticed

IBB

I notice that Tony Clement was hinting yesterday that he might review the CRTC’s decision on Usage Based Billing. Then today it was reported that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, remember him, never one to let a minister take positive credit if he can take it himself,  may be announcing that his cabinet may review the regulator’s decision.

I view this, along with all the renewed stadium talk to be a sign the PMO thinks an election is probably around the corner

The Budget

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is trying to cozy up to the NDP in an effort to win support for his new budget. He is offering targeted help for low income seniors in his upcoming budget.  The New Democrats have been asking for increases to the Guaranteed Income Supplement  for seniors and Flaherty just might deliver.

I have always argued to my friends who are starting to feel that the New Democrats are like some toothless tiger, that a strong voice on the left helps to shift government decisions in a more humane direction.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are demanding that the government roll back $6 billion in scheduled corporate tax cuts this year and the Bloc wants an extra $5 billion spent on various things or else they won’t support the budget.

This one must create a quandary for Jack Layton and his buddies.  He probably holds the balance of power.  You have to ask. Is tossing a few crumbs to seniors worth supporting tax cuts to corporate fat cats? 

I don’t think so.

I say take the buggers down but, perhaps that is just me.

In the end they all may blink and allow this sorry excuse for a government continue.

Saskatchewan Crown Bargaining

A group of unions representing employees at Saskatchewan Crown Corporation  say that they are banding together in a “Common Front” so get more power at the bargaining table. This group of unions wonder why, in the mist of that “boom” Premier Brad Wall is always boasting about, they are supposed to be satisfied with wage increases which would be inadequate even during tough economic times?  

One has to ask, “How can this government expect the employees who took a real hit when times were tough, to continue to get battered at the bargaining table during times when the economy is supposed to be booming.

 

It is because a Saskaboom isn’t like a boom in other provinces. It’s  a phony kind of boom. Mostly hype, little substance. Remember Saskatchewan still so small, that Ikea won't even consider building a store here. Some boom.

A Saskaboom is when a few high profile corporations and industry get rich and the rest of us try to make ends meet with what we have.

Either that of the Sask Party are just mean spirited.

Oh, I guess that must be it.

The Conservatives are Spammers of the Worst Kind

 My MP is a homophobic, bush league, Parliamentary bench warmer who only speaks out after it has been cleared by the PMO staff. He is good at getting his picture taken handing over cheques, but little else.

He was particularly silent on the BHP takeover bid even when his old buddy Brad Wall was talking up a storm.  He claimed in the media that he was prevented by law from give his opinion on the matter but unfortunately the reporters forgot to ask him what law it was that prevented him from supporting his constituents position on the takeover.

Tom doesn't really care what urban voters think. He has never come to my door election time and in fact he is seldom seen in the Regina area spending his constituency time pandering to rural voters. Those guys would elect a dead horse if it wore a Conservative t-shirt. Some would suggest they already have.

What Tom Lukiwski is really good at is having his staff send us all the Canada Post equivalent of Spam.

The conservative government members are flooding the postal system with useless propaganda hoping that we will in turn do  the same by returning the whole thing with the expected a response supporting Stephen Harper. When they ask me, "WHO IS WORKING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CANADIANS (their caps not mine). I usually send it back with checks beside Micheal Ignatieff, Jack Layton, and Elizabeth May.

I find this stuff particularly offensive.

The latest rant I got from Tom Boy was all about how a Stephen Harper Government is so much better that the alternative which he sees as a "ragtag coalition".  The interesting thing is that neither Ignatieff, Layton nor Duceppe wants a coalition to many of us, a coalition government, by its very nature forced to work in co-operation with each other would be 500% better that the government we have. The Harper model is divisive.  Think about it. It thrives on setting one part of the country against another, rural versus urban, knuckle draggers against gun control advocates - you see what I mean. Harper is tearing this country apart and guys like Lukiwski are helping him do it.

Come on boys and girls. Next chance we get, let's dump these people before it is too late.

Say Good Bye to the Spotlight Candy

It has been a tough fight but it looks like Harper and his gang of thugs is going to lose in their bid to scrap the gun registry.

Once we are past that vote and fresh from a rare win perhaps the opposition will suggest some legislation to fix some of the shortcomings of the system.
It won't be pretty. The Conservative bully boys are already threatening those who have, after no doubt months of soul searching, decided to change their votes to support the registry.
It will be a big win for common sense. Now, it is up to Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe to throw the buggers out of office.
In the meantime, lets start charging people who up until now have refused to register their weapons.