I need to explain this tweet to followers on twitter. This is not an easy thing to do.
How do you explain to people outside the Canadian system that our tax dollars are the main means for a party formed for the break up of Canada? It’s easy enough to say “The Liberals are deeply in debt and can’t raise support since corporations and unions have been disallowed to contribute.” That would seem to justify their talks with the NDP to form a new coalition government.
But Stephen Harper blinked! He backed away from including that provision as a confidence vote. The crisis was averted… much to my chagrin.
However, I, like most Canadians we’re not aware of the long term meetings between the three elected opposition parties aimed at grabbing power when they were not elected to hold power.
Maybe I should explain are current state in Canadian politics… We have a first-past-the-post electoral system. That means, the person with the most votes in a riding gets elected. With three, sometimes four arguably viable national parties and another number of parties running in certain ridings - often the one with the most votes, doesn’t have the majority of votes.
This only matters for the rhetoric.
We’ve had a minority Liberal government that was corrupt and so was replaced with a minority Conservative government. That government called for another election when they had a shot at getting a majority. This was just before the current world economic crisis. Did they know it was coming? Probably. Don’t care.
They screwed up by running on their record and not on their vision for the future. They mis-handled arts funding in Quebec and let the opposition parties, primarily the separatists take the high ground. I wish they would have mentioned they would intervene in the economy when it was necessary, instead of just saying “we’re not in the same position as the US”. They ran a sub-Harper campaign and got rewarded with another minority government.
Did I forget to explain the minority government? Sorry. You see, in Canada we elect a king. When a party has enough seats to form a majority government - meaning they have enough votes to pass any laws and they have enough people to chair every committee - our Prime Minister has more power than any US President. He picks the senators and Supreme Court Justices. He sets the budget. Our checks and balances only happen at the next election… which he (or she) can set at the time of his (or her) choosing.
I really didn’t like that system and often spoke about the merits of a minority government until today. Any credit I gave to politicians working for the good of the people has been shattered. There is nothing but politics in a minority government.
You see the Liberals, who have the fewest seats since… I don’t know when, and who are led by a leader who has already resigned without quiting - and the NDP, who is everyone’s second choice, but who no one actually wants to govern - and the Bloc, whose stated goals in order are 1. the separation of Quebec from Canada and 2. that “we’ll only vote what is best for Quebec.” together have more seats than the ruling Stephen Harper government.
And in typical arrogance, they’ve chosen cabinet seats and have a 30 billion dollar plan to kick-start a 1.3 trillion dollar economy, that just happened to not recede last quarter. That’s right - we still haven’t had 1 quarter of negative growth (I love that term). And it takes 2 before we have a recession.
Let’s point out the obvious… a trillion US dollars haven’t kick-started the US economy. How can so small an amount influence ours? Second point, even if we start a stimulus package now, the recession will be over before the dollars are spent (It could take 6 - 18 months to come online). Third point, we have billions already allotted for infrastructure that are held up by bureaucratic procedures. Fourth point… we haven’t had a quarter of negative growth in our economy.
Don’t let the “coalition of losers” tell you this about the economy. It’s not even about them losing government funding to function when they don’t have the confidence of the people who get far too generous tax breaks for giving to political parties.
This is about power. It is about fixing the stupidity of the Canadian electorate - that’s you and me (if you’re a Canadian and you voted… I know, I had to hold my nose to.) And our crazy system means that an appointed official representing the British Crown will ask this junta to form a government IF they pass a no-confidence vote against the conservative government.
It looks like the vote will be in a week.
But I’m not one just to whine. If they want a revolution, I say, let’s go all the way.
What if we changed our electoral system to be a mixture of first-past-the-post and percentage vote? Every voter could cast 2 votes - one for the candidate, one for the party. The percentage of the vote for the party would equal the amount of seats they have in the Senate. Each party would draw up a list of names, ranked in order. I’d suggest the party leader would first, followed by experts in key cabinet positions. The party with the most seats in the two houses would form the government.
The PM would come from the Senate. It’s a joke to have a party leader represent a riding. Who really things they can do both jobs adequately? The same holds true for cabinet positions. Free talented people up to do the best job possible. By voting for the party, we’d vote for the prime minister.
Curb the power of the Prime Minister, put in checks and balances. Fixed election dates are a must. Supreme Court appointees must be vetted by committee. The PM can pick the cabinet.
The Senate can pass bills relating to the House of Commons. The Commons can pass bills relating to the Senate. Committees should be from both Houses, so bills could come from either house. They would need to pass both houses and would come into law with the signature of the Prime Minister. (I’ve always liked the Governor General position, but this situation shows its ridiculousness.)
We need to get rid of the physical set up of our houses. The government and opposition sit 2 sword-lengths apart. Is it any wonder why question period is an embarrassment? Ministers must give account to the people of Canada. Why can’t this be done in committee, when all parties on the committee can be questioned? Why can’t questions be asked in a way that leads to answers? Why can’t answers be given?
We need a Culture of Honour in Ottawa.
It’s a sad day to be Canadian.
