Why promise consultations if the libs have already made up their mind to proceed?

[Locutus]

Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon



When you lose the Star....

The throne speech delivered to Parliament on Friday featured the usual platitudes and vague commitments. However, it made one very specific engagement, a crystal-clear commitment: “To make sure that every vote counts,” it declared, “the government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.”

more

The Trudeau government’s arrogant approach to electoral reform | Toronto Star

then again, she's just another talking point kid in shiny pony's stable.



but today now...


Watch the exchange, above, from Tuesday’s Question Period involving Conservative Blake Richards (Banff–Airdrie) and Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef (Peterborough–Kawartha)


That exchange produced this statement Wednesday from Conservative HQ, issued jointly by Richards and MP Scott Reid (Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston):

“Yesterday during Question Period, Minister Maryam Monsef said consulting Canadians in a referendum on electoral reform would prejudice the Liberal consultation process. We can’t think of a more robust, inclusive consultation process than the holding of a referendum. The Liberal government obviously thinks Canadians can’t be trusted with such a fundamental change to our democracy. We couldn’t disagree more.”
​

Indeed, after Monsef’s first answer, Reid used the next Conservative slot in Tuesday’s Question Period to come back to Monsef’s first answer and ask her if she was serious that asking Canadians what they wanted to do would prejudice their plans:

“Not since the 1950s has a Canadian government tried to alter their electoral system without consulting their people in a referendum. Liberal party governments in British Columbia (2005 and 2009), Prince Edward Island (2005), and Ontario (2007) put their proposed reforms to a referendum. In peer countries New Zealand (1992, 1993, and 2011) and the United Kingdom (2011), the people were similarly consulted by way of referenda. Modern democratic history overwhelmingly supports the use of referenda when changes to an electoral system are proposed.


“The Liberal government does not have a mandate to implement whatever new system they decide suits the Liberal party best. Neither the Liberal platform, nor the Liberal government, has proposed an alternative method of electing Members of Parliament; all they have proposed is that the system should change.”


“We’re glad the Minister admitted that Canadians “…deserve to be consulted…”, however, her refusal to give Canadians a vote on the unreleased Liberal plan for electoral reform is stubbornly and profoundly undemocratic.”


“Canadians deserve to see the Liberal proposal, fully formed, and to then have the opportunity to vote to adopt or reject that proposal in a referendum.”
​

I think this is an issue which both the Conservatives and New Democrats amy find some useful angles in QP.


Conservatives gobsmacked over minister’s answer on electoral reform referendum | David Akin’s On the Hill

 

[CDNBear]

Not a lot of interest from the Fluffers.

Democracy must scare them.

 

[FiveParadox]

Her Majesty's Government has indicated, fairly conclusively, that its consultation plan is for an all-party committee to travel around the country to consult with Canadians about our electoral system, and for that committee to then provide advice to the Parliament of Canada, where the debate on our electoral system — and upcoming reforms — shall be held.

Source: Liberals won't hold referendum on voting reform (Dec. 27, 2015, The Globe & Mail)

This provides for a far more robust conversation on our current electoral system, and the options for electoral reform, than a referendum on a complete package would provide, contrary to the statements of The Honourable Rona Ambrose MP, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

That is not to say, however, that the consultative work of the committee might not precipitate a call for a referendum, or that the debates in the Senate or Commons, themselves, might not precipitate a call for a referendum. The consent of the Senate is required for the Commons to change its electoral system and, so, as it has done in the past, it might block a proposal if it appears contrary to the public interest, or to the expressed opinions of the electorate.

(Remember, too, that though the Liberals hold a majority in the House of Commons, this is not so in the Senate. In fact, given the changes that the prime minister is making to the process for the nomination of senators, the influence of Senate Liberal-sympathetic senators is going to continue to decrease as more independent senators are appointed next year.)

 

[Locutus]

FPTP is not acceptable to elect a government anymore but getting 39% in FPTP election gives you mandate?

Liberals won’t hold referendum on voting reform - The Globe and Mail

it is to laff.

 

[CDNBear]

FPTP is not acceptable to elect a government anymore but getting 39% in FPTP election gives you mandate?

Liberals won’t hold referendum on voting reform - The Globe and Mail

it is to laff.

You'll have to excuse the Liberals, logic isn't their strong suit.

 

[Machjo]

Nunavut's would be a good nodel: de-official I've all political parties and have all candidates run as independants.

FPTP is not acceptable to elect a government anymore but getting 39% in FPTP election gives you mandate?

Liberals won’t hold referendum on voting reform - The Globe and Mail

it is to laff.

What's wrong with the system established in Nunavut?

Yes we should learn from European systems, but we should also learn from Canada's indigenous peoples too.

Personally I'd say the referendum should offer three options: non-partisan, consensus-based FPTP, the Government's chosen proportional representation model, and the present hyperpartisan status quo.

 

[CDNBear]

What's wrong with the system established in Nunavut?

Why are you asking him a question, to which no one has forwarded a thought about?

If you want to bring up Nanavut's system, just bring it up. You don't need fabricate arguments that don't exist.

 

[Machjo]

Personally I'd say the referendum should offer three options: non-partisan, consensus-based FPTP, the Government's chosen proportional representation model, and the present hyperpartisan status quo.

 

[davesmom]

Travelling around the country consulting voters? Yeah right! Consult LIBERAL voters and give more photo ops for them! Governments hate referenda; they do not want to know what the people want.
Unfortunately, voters gave the Liberals a majority so they can and will do as they please. If they change the electoral system without the permission of the people, it could be a case for the SCOC to decide.

 

[Curious Cdn]

How we vote is too important to be left up to the voters, apparently.

It brings back old memories of Marie Antoinette and Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

 

[lone wolf]

Why promise consultations if the libs have already made up their mind to proceed?

Guarantees photo ops while creating an illusion of due process....

 

[Bar Sinister]

Hodling a referendum on a major issue such as electoral reform seems democratic, but it does have a few serious issues connected to it. First of all previous referenda have shown that many voters lack the knowledge to vote intelligently on many issues. Second, special interest groups supporting or opposing an issue may sway voters to actually vote against their best interests. Third, frequent use of referenda is both slow and costly. Sometimes governments just have to make decisions based on what they believe is best. Fourth, some referenda have the bar set too high. Voters in B.C. defeated a proposal for electoral reform because the referendum required a two-thirds majority a number almost impossible to obtain in most democracies. And fifth, past referenda have shown that the issues being decided can be incredibly divisive. One only has to look at past referenda in Quebec to illustrate that fact as well as Mulroney's Charlottetown Accord. And finally, if Canadians really do not like the changed voting system they can always vote for a government that will change it back.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Why promise consultations if the libs have already made up their mind to proceed?

Guarantees photo ops while creating an illusion of due process....

Maybe, they'll ask some Syrians what has made their democracy so successful.

 

[damngrumpy]

There are as many who don't want reform as do and consultation is an ongoing thing
Most do not realize a process takes forever, it doesn't mean they have made up their
mind it means they staked out a position for now like a talking point.
Remember Harper was going to reform the Senate and he did he filled it with any
number of undesirables and destroyed the reputation of the place and was a part of
his own undoing.
Personally I like the system the way it is and I don't want reform but others have different
opinions

Referendums are not the answer in many cases Who asks the question
and what is the question and how is it asked? That takes time too

 

[lone wolf]

Maybe, they'll ask some Syrians what has made their democracy so successful.

Sure.... He can make it a password question while they're stepping off the ... oh gee ... can I call it an airplane ... or a skyship

 

[FiveParadox]

Travelling around the country consulting voters? Yeah right! Consult LIBERAL voters and give more photo ops for them! Governments hate referenda; they do not want to know what the people want.
Unfortunately, voters gave the Liberals a majority so they can and will do as they please. If they change the electoral system without the permission of the people, it could be a case for the SCOC to decide.

No, the Supreme Court would have nothing to do with it.

Provided that the changes are only made to how members of the House of Commons are elected, and that the changes do not alter the proportionate distribution of seats between the provinces, there is no need for a constitutional amendment. Even if there were such a need, it could likely be made by the Parliament of Canada, alone, under s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Besides, as I have mentioned elsewhere on here, the Senate Liberals do not have a majority in the upper house and, by the time that any electoral reform package is ready to be proposed in the legislature, the Senate Liberals are going to be even more outnumbered by Conservative and independent senators. I look forward to seeing this electoral reform committee make their case to Parliament for an electoral system based on their consultations.

 

[CDNBear]

I look forward to seeing this electoral reform committee make their case to Parliament for an electoral system based on their consultations.

The only moral and ethical recomenadtion they could make is.

"By referendum only, sir"

 

[taxslave]

Nunavut's would be a good nodel: de-official I've all political parties and have all candidates run as independants.



What's wrong with the system established in Nunavut?

Yes we should learn from European systems, but we should also learn from Canada's indigenous peoples too.

Personally I'd say the referendum should offer three options: non-partisan, consensus-based FPTP, the Government's chosen proportional representation model, and the present hyperpartisan status quo.

Yep 17 parties in Italy works so well.
The object is to govern the country and keep the economy rolling, not have a bunch of parilmentarians sitting around on the taxpayer's dollar looking for consensus on every bill.

 

[FiveParadox]

"By referendum only, sir"

Funny, I don't remember the Conservatives demanding "by referendum only" when they had a majority in both houses, and pushed through their amendments to the Canada Elections Act, when they made it tougher to vote, disenfranchising voters by allowing the transmission of results before the polls have closed, and forbidding Elections Canada from promoting voting.

 

[pgs]

Funny, I don't remember the Conservatives demanding "by referendum only" when they had a majority in both houses, and pushed through their amendments to the Canada Elections Act, when they made it tougher to vote, disenfranchising voters by allowing the transmission of results before the polls have closed, and forbidding Elections Canada from promoting voting.

The conservatives are toast , remember .