Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Donaill

Back to a real Canadian Parliamentary system

Recommended Posts

With all the talk about how unconstitutional the vote of nonconfidence would be perhaps wew should rethink our current system. Lets get back to the system which we origionally had, post confederation. We elect representatives. Yet time after time we have seen that they do not represent us. They are often forced to vote along party lines. This was not the origional intent of an elected parliament. We do not, as some would believe, elect parties. Parties are only a guide for us to use when it comes to seeking someone that repesents our values. However, of a represntative is from an area that disagrees with a certain bill than they do not have the right to vote the way the constituents want. That right has been taken away by the party system. If a member votes against his party, he can be tossed from that party. Even if the remainder of his values are still along party lines. I would also put forward that Quebec and Newfoundland are the most constitutional provinces. In as far, but not including the sovereignty issure, Quebec MPs look out for Quebec interests. Which is what they were voted in to do. Danny Williams was voted in to look out for Newfoundland's interests and repesent the wishes of his constituents in parliament.

Freedom of representation by our represenatives, nothing more constitutional about that. Or would Haper be scared of those hard core reformists that are still part of his party?

End the WHIP system. It is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no one has a rebuttle. It may be because there is alot of truth here?

Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preston Manning was saying all of this 20 years ago, and a lot of people still believe in it.

I believe Paul Martin's ideas for "democratic renewal" (or whatever he called it) also called for more free votes in Commons. And I think that a lot of the motions that hit parliament are, in fact, not "whipped" unless they have budgetary items attached.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We, on the East Coast, have seen politicians forced out of the PCs because they went against the party line for different reasons. Harper is not a fan of the free and open vote. he is more of the type of person to saysomething like here is what we think and if you don't like it than you can just go. He says that the non-confidence vote is not constitutional. Yet it is. It has occured again since Joe Clark, with Paul Martin.

I do believe that Martin keeps too tight of a reign on his fellow Tories, more so the Reformists in his group. Harper was chosen as a leader in hopes that he would unite the PCs and Reformists from shore to shore. Obviously this has not helped. Harper is not a constitutional leader.

I am not a supporter of any one party. If Danny Williams or Mike Harris ran for the PCs I would vote for the PCs. If Ed Broadbent ran for the Liberals than the Liverals would get my vote. Than again it does all depend on who my local rep is and if I get the feeling that he will voice the opinion of his constituents or tow the party line at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an alternative. Don't vote for any candidate affiliated with a party. Of course, the inevitability is that parties will form anyways. Even in the American system, where the two parties don't have anything like the disciplinary mechanisms found in most Westminster parliaments, you can still get a pretty toxic partisan situation happening.

But this isn't just a Westminster problem. There have been open revolts of a party against its leadership twice in the last two decades in the UK, once with the ousting of Thatcher and the other against Gordon Brown by several incensed Labour MPs. The British MPs, despite having a system that resembles ours in most ways, are not quite so entrapped in the party system.

The problem in Canada is that caucuses have become gated prisons. We're supposed to trust that our MP is sticking up for us, but with no real evidence to show for it. I say the real solution is to make secret caucus meetings illegal, and force all such meetings, save where matters of national security are being discussed, part of the Hansard record.

Oh, and let's end the essentially charitable status of political parties and make them pay taxes. If we have to suffer gutter politics, let's enrich the public purse with a share of their earnings. Nothing will weaken party discipline more than starving them of money.

Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great Canadian author whose name escapes me at this time. One of the points he makes in a current book is that Canada is a Metis nation. We have forgotten that many of the skills, attitudes and ways of doing things come from our contact with the first nations. Even though we we have a parliamentary system that is loosely based on the Westminister system we also have influences from the Scottish thought, Irish thought and French thought.

Deny it if you want but perhaps we need to get back to our roots and stop trying to emulate the American form of goverment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a great Canadian author whose name escapes me at this time. One of the points he makes in a current book is that Canada is a Metis nation. We have forgotten that many of the skills, attitudes and ways of doing things come from our contact with the first nations. Even though we we have a parliamentary system that is loosely based on the Westminister system we also have influences from the Scottish thought, Irish thought and French thought.

Deny it if you want but perhaps we need to get back to our roots and stop trying to emulate the American form of goverment.

Loosely based on the Westminster system? WTF are you talking about? It's not identical, but it's pretty damned close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loosely based on the Westminster system? WTF are you talking about? It's not identical, but it's pretty damned close.

Ummmmm Thats what I sad. Loosely based on.... "It's not identical, but it's pretty damned close."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummmmm Thats what I sad. Loosely based on.... "It's not identical, but it's pretty damned close."

The two sentences don't even make sense together. It isn't "loosely" based at all, it is a Parliament within the Westminster system. It's not identical to the Mother Parliament, of course, none of the Parliaments in the United Kingdom (the Scottish parliament) or the Commonwealth are. What you're saying is essentially the same as "Toyota Corollas are loosely based on automobiles."

Edited by ToadBrother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preston Manning was saying all of this 20 years ago, and a lot of people still believe in it.

I believe Paul Martin's ideas for "democratic renewal" (or whatever he called it) also called for more free votes in Commons. And I think that a lot of the motions that hit parliament are, in fact, not "whipped" unless they have budgetary items attached.

-k

PM have used confidence motions to "whip" the party into towing the line on items they find important, which may not necessarily benefit the MPs or their constituents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I agree.

But, I want to point out that (I think) the Harper government has allowed a number of 'free votes' where representatives are not 'whipped' at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the talk about how unconstitutional the vote of nonconfidence would be perhaps wew should rethink our current system.

Or, alternatively, we could educate the people on our current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the talk about how unconstitutional the vote of nonconfidence would be ....

I can't imagne anyone who knows anything about the subject saying a nonconfidence vote would be unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see no one has a rebuttle. It may be because there is alot of truth here?

Or the topic is cockeyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...