I find it interesting that the majority of people don't take advantage of the existing mechanisms in place to have their say in our existing system, yet we spend a ton of time debating new mechanisms.
What do I mean?
In Canada, we tend to have big-tent parties vying for goverment at both the federal and provincial level. Within those parties, there's opportunities to participate in the process of identifying local candidates, inputing into policies and platforms, and even selecting leadership. All of those decisions determine what's available for selection come election time, yet the vast majority of us aren't interested enough to engage in the parties that most closely represent our beliefs and ideologies. Those decisions tend to be made by people who participate in party politics professionally or as members of particular interest groups (a lot who whom this also becomes a vocation).
If we all want more say in who runs for power and what they do when they get there -- join a party and participate in the ongoing process!
The idea that we should all have mechanisms to jump into the process when we are outraged at something -- particuarly given this age's tendency to whip up outrage at nearly anything -- seems counterproductive to sober, well-thought out public policy.
I have been a member of a federal and provincial party. And they really don't care what I have to say. I made the suggestion that all paid up members be given access to an online discussion forum. No aliases, no hidden identity, and no access by non party members. Much like this forum it would be a great place for like minded individuals (or party members) to discuss and propose policy. Haven't had any takers on that yet.
In the Northwest Territories they govern by consensus. I have always thought that was the very best way. I don’t know if it would work on a larger scale but it would sure be nice to try.
It seems to me like there needs to be more free votes from back benchers and more contact between MPs, MLAs and their constituents. Our current system only works well for trends and populist leadership.
Exactly Wayne. Right now the MP's are the governments representative in the riding. What they should be is the ridings representative in government. It's backwards to how it should be. I think PR would go a long way to fixing this. Alternately, I would like to see the birth of multiple regional parties that would prevent any party from commanding a majority. That would force them to work together and allow the elected officials to be more representative of the region that sent them to Ottawa.
I think it's both. An MP (or MPP) is both the representative of the government in the riding and the representative of the riding in government. Good ones spend time within their constituency and share the 'word on the street' within the party. That said, those are -- by design -- not public discussions, so it's hard to measure how effectively your MPP or MP is advocating for constituency concerns. That's a function of the advisorial nature of our system.
It's a *lot* easier for an opposition MPP or MP as they don't have to defend policy and are looking for constituency complaints. But that constituency input is really valuable for a savvy government as it starts to show where they are either failing on policy execution or communications.
Ultimately, though, we elect governments to enact a platform, so having a bunch of MP or MPPs then disagree with the platform that got them elected isn't terribly helpful. Where is is helpful is in the execution of the platform.
I think that's a brilliant idea -- not just because of the opportunity to get ideas, but also because it would keep party members really engaged between elections. When a party takes your idea and discovers it drives volunteerism and fundraising, whoever suggested it in the party will be though of as a visionary :-)
For the Territorial Government each community votes for a representative to which then has a seat in the legislature. They discuss policies and ideas and it’s voted on by all. It’s to work for the betterment of all communities and not just the largest ones. It’s really a great way but I am not sure how one could work that on a large scale. Things may have changed over the years as I have been gone for some time but I think it’s still run the same.
Trudeau himself will tell you that the experts determine his policy, not his membership. He acquires Liberal memberships by scaring Canadians that the dreaded Conservatives will form government if they don't buy in. Or the old, tried and true, 'the Liberals will always stand up for a women's right to choose, donate now if you agree.'
Basically, none of the parties are anywhere close to where we need them to be, and with the threat of catastrophic climate change , nuclear war and an evolving virus, we don't have time to wait for them to get it right.
Wayne, thanks for sharing. I would say there is always going to be a tension between what the party wants and what the leaders think will make for an election-ready platform. That's true for all parties. But, just because something the party wants doesn't make it into the next election platform does not mean the discussion is closed.
Democracy isn't about everybody getting what they want. It's about finding areas of action with enough support to be at least (mostly) acceptable. For sure, if you or I join a party, it is very unlikely that our list of policy priorities will become the platform. Rightly so -- a party is a coalition of people looking to find both common causes and ones that are electorially viable.
I think the policies the Liberal party was calling for (decriminalization) probably make a lot of sense (to the degree that I've looked into it, which is admittedly not that much). But left-leaning parties are always painted as 'soft on crime' so these are tough electoral positions for them to take.
Getting the policies one believes in into play can be a long, slow slog. But, that's democracy. The fringe crazies and special interest groups always seem to have the will and the patience to advocate for their causes -- if we want sane policies, it means getting somewhat involved.
When has this government in Canada ever put through any well thought out public policy? You can not have well thought out anything if you have an agenda that does not include the cost to Canada and Canadians.
I can't speak to your experience, Marylou. But, there's a lot of policy/programs we take for granted that -- while they may be imperfect -- have had a lot of positive impact on my life.
I'm a middle aged guy that grew up in a middle-class, suburbian household. I had access to good public schools and a good public eductation. I graduated and had access to a very good university system, and while attending wasn't free, it was attainable. I've always had access to healthcare without worry of the cost. My Dad worked in the steel industry, which went through huge disruptions during the late 70s and early 80s. He spent time laid off, yet had access to unemployment insurance -- that insurance, the fact that my Mom also worked, and some prudent planning made those disruptions managable. Yeah, they sucked, but they didn't destroy the life my parents had built.
Behind that story is an education system, a healthcare system and an unemployment insurance program -- programs delivered by both provincial and federal levels of government. Are those programs perfect? Not at all. Do we need to improve them -- to make them more effective and cost efficent? Absolutely. But, my life would probably be much different (and likely not in a good way) if those policies and programs had not been in place.
And, Canada does have an Parlimentary Budget Officer that "provides independent analysis on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request, estimates the cost of any proposal under Parliament's jurisdiction." They literally offer "the cost to Canada and Canadians" of programs the federal government is delivering or proposing. See: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/
My parents were born in the early part of the 20thC, during WWI. They were among the many whose lives were disrupted during their teens by the Depression, and then, just when they got their heads above water, WWII came and my father was stationed in England for 5 years and counting. When he came home, his promised job was not waiting and they were back to square one.
It was that generation, that lived through the deprivations of their youth, and the broken promises, that brought in all the supports that we see being constantly attacked by people who have no interest or understanding of why we need such programmes. The selfishness is appalling.
Yes I have heard much from That Parliamentary Budget Officer but none of it has ever been good. He is often on the Roy Green Show you may want to tune in to hear what he has to say. Also he has on an economist and unfortunately he thinks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Unfortunately our healthcare system is failing and it has been for a long time. It’s the very reason we are in a mess with the Pandemic. It was close to collapse before the pandemic. So Instead of trying to make it manageable with changes, and more money, they decide to bring in pharma care and Free Dental.
The debt that the Liberals created before the pandemic was staggering enough let alone now. Billions have been printed and spent so that generations will have to pay for their careless spending while bringing nothing but inflation and higher taxes for every Canadian. So if giving Canadians more of what they want means financially bankrupting them and the country, then by all means add on more.
If indeed your family survived due to the government and the programs we already have I would like to think that it also came down to being financially responsible during bad and good times. There is a time and a place for all things but now is not the time to add more taxation to Canadians.
Our healthcare system is failing is a pretty broad statement -- one I would assume would be associated with the inability for people to access care. A once-per-lifetime pandamic is *not* the yardstick to measure our healthcare system. If governments had spent to maintain enough of a capacity cushion to support a pandemic, you really, really would not have liked the required spending based on your other posts!
I've had two family members access the healthcare system in the past two years. One had terminal cancer, the other some chronic health issues. I'd say our healthcare systems is optimized to deal with life-threatening illness -- the care received was top notch and likely very expensive. I was very, very grateful for the calibre of the care received!
The other relative with chronic issues has not had such a great run. Lots of waiting, administrative issues, and a real need to continually push against the bureacracy in the system.
But, again from my own experience, is that a 'failing healthcare system'? Hardly! Does it need an overhaul? For sure. I think we do need to prioritize what we want the system to do well. If the answer is literally "everything" than Canadians need to prepare to see that reflected in taxes. More importantly, the question really should be: how can we find room to explore innovation in something as critical as public healthcare? Right now, we're afraid to mess with it from a policy point of view -- it's something people really rely on. But, I would put forth we need to find ways to innovate within the system if we are to continue to improve care as a cost that is sustainable. I wish I was enough of an expert to suggest how to do that, and I'm disappointed that I haven't seen a ton of great suggestions. We seem to be locked in the useless privatization/don't be like the US debate when there are much, much better examples to learn from!
Kind of sounds like you're ignoring the $700 billion debt Trudeau inherited, and then made far worse. In his defence, every country spent big on COVID, and he did promise deficits when he ran. The rest of his financial plan appears non-existent....just like his predecessors. But as was so brilliantly pointed out, we chose this. Yet no party has the courage to come forward and say we need to change. You say no to more taxation. That's fine. what are you prepared to give up?
We love to blame politicians when what we asked for (demanded) proves to have bad consequences.
I was once behind the one-way glass watching a partisan-conducted pre-election focus group in a western province. Times were tough. One guy made a stirring speech - "All I want is a politician to be honest. I know tough things need to be done. I just want a politician who will be honest with me, up front." Everyone applauded.
The moderator asked, "would you vote for someone who said they will raise your taxes and cut your services."
I did and I disagree with it. If they can not do the job they said they would do and they turn around and do everything that even party members disagree with, we should be able to remove them. If the CEO of the company is corrupt and incompetent, making the entire company look bad, he will be fired. If he does not follow the ethical guidelines laid out for the job, he will be fired. If our politicians were held to the same standard, it would clean up the unethical behavior, waste, and incompetence. The cost of electing a new leader would be far less than the continued damage of incompetence. Frankly, politicians are left to police themselves and they do not do a very good job of it when there are no consequences for their actions.
Recalls are used mostly when the supporters of the electoral loser want to overturn the results of the election. They are a bad and unnecessary intrusion that weakens any democracy.
I used to believe as the author does, I don't anymore. Anything an average citizen can do to inject fear, or even caution, into our elected representatives is worth trying. And if voters have made some pretty bad choices over the years - look at what options we've had to choose from...
Just as a matter of interest, which site was that? I ask because of the author of that piece, who refers to the `other' Line, which is the home of the good folks who brought us the Ottawa occupation.
We leave comments on for almost all of our posts, and the only reason we ever turn them off is when neither Jen or myself are going to be available to keep an eye on them throughout the day. We have definitely had issues that required attentive moderation. Any time posts don’t have comments turned on is a pretty good indicator that neither Jen or myself will be paying any attention to our emails that day.
I always thought that if you didn't vote, you lost your right to complain. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Nose plugs are usually required.
`(W)e have not had the benefit, as they have, of reviewing the evidence, hearing multiple viewpoints,....'. Exactly, and a truly one-for-the-ages example of this is the uninformed hysteria about the use of the Emergencies Act to finally deal with the Ottawa occupation and its sponsors' threat of sedition.
It used to be that the politicians were elected to represent the people who voted for them. Our political elites today no longer work in the best interests of the people they represent but they are working for the Party they are part of and it’s leader. You must tow the party line, even if it devastates the people who voted you in. I believe there should be more than just recall but a complete reconstruction of the entire political system. The system we are under is no longer democratic nor do politicians work for the people. They work only for themselves and the parties agenda, regardless of the damage and costs to the people they are suppose to be working for.
Under the Constitution each member of Parliament is beholden to carry out policing their fellow members on ethics and hold them accountable as they are the makers of the laws. There is no higher power than the Parliament and yet Trudeau was taking the Speaker of the House to court, to keep hidden why the Chinese Army was working in the Winnipeg lab ? He knew better. It was just more corruption to keep it hidden so it must be something extremely damaging to the Liberals and to Canada. Something very damaging.
No party or individual in this country has been more divisive than Justin Trudeau himself. So before pointing fingers you best beware just who it is that is telling lies to create hate. You might not like what you find out.
It is a real thing and not another MLS fever dream. It has to do with documentation that the Speaker wants and Trudeau doesn't want to give up. So the argument has been bumped up to the Supreme Court. At least it was. I think the Speaker may have stepped back. Not sure. I'll check tomorrow. Pretty sure the Chinese Army in Winnipeg is hyperbole. "Best beware..." more hyperbole.
I watched it happen. Do you know you too can watch the proceedings in our parliament as they have it all live. Imagine that! You can actually listen to what they say, the ideas behind theirs policies and the antics and deviations that they use not to answer any questions. That is of course if they allow parliament to even open. Apparently, it’s safe to go to COP 26 with the largest delegation of all countries attending (real keeners)., and it’s safe to hold an election but god forbid it’s not safe to open our parliament so democracy can take place! Trudeau prefers to dictate from his cottage steps. I should say fib to Canadians from his cottage steps and leave the patsies of his party to cover over the mistruths so he can look the hero to his press gallery. If you want proof watch Parliament and google Trudeau taking the Speaker of the House to Court! I am tired of uninformed Trudeau lovers telling me I am wrong. I pay attention, I watch, I read, I listen, you can too. I suggest you do that before writing like you know of what you speak. It’s obvious you have no clue. It’s ok though as I find most people who stand with Trudeau don’t. It’s a valid observation because they continually call me a liar to which I Have no reason to do so. Trust me Trudeau does not need me to make him look a fool, he does fine all by himself.
Which will just make them more open to taking bribes and other forms of corruption... Alas, that's another 'heads, they win; tails, we lose' proposition.
The argument for recalls is that the quality of deliberation among the most excitable voters is better than the quality of the deliberation in Parliament. Tying to decide which of these two, admittedly terrible, things is better is a depressing prospect. Is something dreadful better than something nonexistent?
On the whole, though, at least I think that the motivation of the most excitable voters is closer to the public good (as opposed to the power of the party and its leader, as Marylou Speelman points out) than MPs, and so I support recalls.
I agree with almost everything Mr. Anglin writes. But a couple of thoughts come to mind; 1) What about a politician who campaigns on one thing, and then does the complete opposite. Not because the facts on the ground changed, but simply because they lied to get elected. 2) Fair enough we aren't always privy to the information that the elected official gets, but in many cases we should be. Take the case regarding the two scientists dismissed from the lab in Winnipeg. Parliament overwhelmingly voted to have that information made available, and even the speaker censured the government, but we still don't have it. The will of Parliament is supreme, but the current government has faced no consequences, legal or otherwise. These are the exceptions that I don't believe are addressed adequately by Mr. Anglin's argument. I would be genuinely interested to hear his thoughts on these types of things.
I find it interesting that the majority of people don't take advantage of the existing mechanisms in place to have their say in our existing system, yet we spend a ton of time debating new mechanisms.
What do I mean?
In Canada, we tend to have big-tent parties vying for goverment at both the federal and provincial level. Within those parties, there's opportunities to participate in the process of identifying local candidates, inputing into policies and platforms, and even selecting leadership. All of those decisions determine what's available for selection come election time, yet the vast majority of us aren't interested enough to engage in the parties that most closely represent our beliefs and ideologies. Those decisions tend to be made by people who participate in party politics professionally or as members of particular interest groups (a lot who whom this also becomes a vocation).
If we all want more say in who runs for power and what they do when they get there -- join a party and participate in the ongoing process!
The idea that we should all have mechanisms to jump into the process when we are outraged at something -- particuarly given this age's tendency to whip up outrage at nearly anything -- seems counterproductive to sober, well-thought out public policy.
What a grown-up idea!
I have been a member of a federal and provincial party. And they really don't care what I have to say. I made the suggestion that all paid up members be given access to an online discussion forum. No aliases, no hidden identity, and no access by non party members. Much like this forum it would be a great place for like minded individuals (or party members) to discuss and propose policy. Haven't had any takers on that yet.
In the Northwest Territories they govern by consensus. I have always thought that was the very best way. I don’t know if it would work on a larger scale but it would sure be nice to try.
It seems to me like there needs to be more free votes from back benchers and more contact between MPs, MLAs and their constituents. Our current system only works well for trends and populist leadership.
Exactly Wayne. Right now the MP's are the governments representative in the riding. What they should be is the ridings representative in government. It's backwards to how it should be. I think PR would go a long way to fixing this. Alternately, I would like to see the birth of multiple regional parties that would prevent any party from commanding a majority. That would force them to work together and allow the elected officials to be more representative of the region that sent them to Ottawa.
I think it's both. An MP (or MPP) is both the representative of the government in the riding and the representative of the riding in government. Good ones spend time within their constituency and share the 'word on the street' within the party. That said, those are -- by design -- not public discussions, so it's hard to measure how effectively your MPP or MP is advocating for constituency concerns. That's a function of the advisorial nature of our system.
It's a *lot* easier for an opposition MPP or MP as they don't have to defend policy and are looking for constituency complaints. But that constituency input is really valuable for a savvy government as it starts to show where they are either failing on policy execution or communications.
Ultimately, though, we elect governments to enact a platform, so having a bunch of MP or MPPs then disagree with the platform that got them elected isn't terribly helpful. Where is is helpful is in the execution of the platform.
I think that's a brilliant idea -- not just because of the opportunity to get ideas, but also because it would keep party members really engaged between elections. When a party takes your idea and discovers it drives volunteerism and fundraising, whoever suggested it in the party will be though of as a visionary :-)
For the Territorial Government each community votes for a representative to which then has a seat in the legislature. They discuss policies and ideas and it’s voted on by all. It’s to work for the betterment of all communities and not just the largest ones. It’s really a great way but I am not sure how one could work that on a large scale. Things may have changed over the years as I have been gone for some time but I think it’s still run the same.
The federal Liberal government stated straight up that they do not listen to their members and will not let their members dictate policy.
Quote or link?
Do you remember when Liberal members voted to legalize prostitution and all drugs? https://www.thesudburystar.com/2018/01/16/sex-drugs-and-liberals-members-call-for-decriminalizing-prostitution-illicit-drugs-at-liberal-party-policy-convention
Well, here is what became of that:
https://www.straight.com/news/1062146/liberal-party-members-overwhelmingly-vote-decriminalizing-drugs-while-trudeau-repeats
Trudeau himself will tell you that the experts determine his policy, not his membership. He acquires Liberal memberships by scaring Canadians that the dreaded Conservatives will form government if they don't buy in. Or the old, tried and true, 'the Liberals will always stand up for a women's right to choose, donate now if you agree.'
Basically, none of the parties are anywhere close to where we need them to be, and with the threat of catastrophic climate change , nuclear war and an evolving virus, we don't have time to wait for them to get it right.
Wayne, thanks for sharing. I would say there is always going to be a tension between what the party wants and what the leaders think will make for an election-ready platform. That's true for all parties. But, just because something the party wants doesn't make it into the next election platform does not mean the discussion is closed.
Democracy isn't about everybody getting what they want. It's about finding areas of action with enough support to be at least (mostly) acceptable. For sure, if you or I join a party, it is very unlikely that our list of policy priorities will become the platform. Rightly so -- a party is a coalition of people looking to find both common causes and ones that are electorially viable.
I think the policies the Liberal party was calling for (decriminalization) probably make a lot of sense (to the degree that I've looked into it, which is admittedly not that much). But left-leaning parties are always painted as 'soft on crime' so these are tough electoral positions for them to take.
Getting the policies one believes in into play can be a long, slow slog. But, that's democracy. The fringe crazies and special interest groups always seem to have the will and the patience to advocate for their causes -- if we want sane policies, it means getting somewhat involved.
updated
When has this government in Canada ever put through any well thought out public policy? You can not have well thought out anything if you have an agenda that does not include the cost to Canada and Canadians.
I can't speak to your experience, Marylou. But, there's a lot of policy/programs we take for granted that -- while they may be imperfect -- have had a lot of positive impact on my life.
I'm a middle aged guy that grew up in a middle-class, suburbian household. I had access to good public schools and a good public eductation. I graduated and had access to a very good university system, and while attending wasn't free, it was attainable. I've always had access to healthcare without worry of the cost. My Dad worked in the steel industry, which went through huge disruptions during the late 70s and early 80s. He spent time laid off, yet had access to unemployment insurance -- that insurance, the fact that my Mom also worked, and some prudent planning made those disruptions managable. Yeah, they sucked, but they didn't destroy the life my parents had built.
Behind that story is an education system, a healthcare system and an unemployment insurance program -- programs delivered by both provincial and federal levels of government. Are those programs perfect? Not at all. Do we need to improve them -- to make them more effective and cost efficent? Absolutely. But, my life would probably be much different (and likely not in a good way) if those policies and programs had not been in place.
And, Canada does have an Parlimentary Budget Officer that "provides independent analysis on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request, estimates the cost of any proposal under Parliament's jurisdiction." They literally offer "the cost to Canada and Canadians" of programs the federal government is delivering or proposing. See: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/
My parents were born in the early part of the 20thC, during WWI. They were among the many whose lives were disrupted during their teens by the Depression, and then, just when they got their heads above water, WWII came and my father was stationed in England for 5 years and counting. When he came home, his promised job was not waiting and they were back to square one.
It was that generation, that lived through the deprivations of their youth, and the broken promises, that brought in all the supports that we see being constantly attacked by people who have no interest or understanding of why we need such programmes. The selfishness is appalling.
Yes I have heard much from That Parliamentary Budget Officer but none of it has ever been good. He is often on the Roy Green Show you may want to tune in to hear what he has to say. Also he has on an economist and unfortunately he thinks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Unfortunately our healthcare system is failing and it has been for a long time. It’s the very reason we are in a mess with the Pandemic. It was close to collapse before the pandemic. So Instead of trying to make it manageable with changes, and more money, they decide to bring in pharma care and Free Dental.
The debt that the Liberals created before the pandemic was staggering enough let alone now. Billions have been printed and spent so that generations will have to pay for their careless spending while bringing nothing but inflation and higher taxes for every Canadian. So if giving Canadians more of what they want means financially bankrupting them and the country, then by all means add on more.
If indeed your family survived due to the government and the programs we already have I would like to think that it also came down to being financially responsible during bad and good times. There is a time and a place for all things but now is not the time to add more taxation to Canadians.
Our healthcare system is failing is a pretty broad statement -- one I would assume would be associated with the inability for people to access care. A once-per-lifetime pandamic is *not* the yardstick to measure our healthcare system. If governments had spent to maintain enough of a capacity cushion to support a pandemic, you really, really would not have liked the required spending based on your other posts!
I've had two family members access the healthcare system in the past two years. One had terminal cancer, the other some chronic health issues. I'd say our healthcare systems is optimized to deal with life-threatening illness -- the care received was top notch and likely very expensive. I was very, very grateful for the calibre of the care received!
The other relative with chronic issues has not had such a great run. Lots of waiting, administrative issues, and a real need to continually push against the bureacracy in the system.
But, again from my own experience, is that a 'failing healthcare system'? Hardly! Does it need an overhaul? For sure. I think we do need to prioritize what we want the system to do well. If the answer is literally "everything" than Canadians need to prepare to see that reflected in taxes. More importantly, the question really should be: how can we find room to explore innovation in something as critical as public healthcare? Right now, we're afraid to mess with it from a policy point of view -- it's something people really rely on. But, I would put forth we need to find ways to innovate within the system if we are to continue to improve care as a cost that is sustainable. I wish I was enough of an expert to suggest how to do that, and I'm disappointed that I haven't seen a ton of great suggestions. We seem to be locked in the useless privatization/don't be like the US debate when there are much, much better examples to learn from!
Kind of sounds like you're ignoring the $700 billion debt Trudeau inherited, and then made far worse. In his defence, every country spent big on COVID, and he did promise deficits when he ran. The rest of his financial plan appears non-existent....just like his predecessors. But as was so brilliantly pointed out, we chose this. Yet no party has the courage to come forward and say we need to change. You say no to more taxation. That's fine. what are you prepared to give up?
We love to blame politicians when what we asked for (demanded) proves to have bad consequences.
I was once behind the one-way glass watching a partisan-conducted pre-election focus group in a western province. Times were tough. One guy made a stirring speech - "All I want is a politician to be honest. I know tough things need to be done. I just want a politician who will be honest with me, up front." Everyone applauded.
The moderator asked, "would you vote for someone who said they will raise your taxes and cut your services."
"Of course not!!!"
The perfect explanation of why we are where we are.
They would not do that if we could recall them.
Read the article.
I did and I disagree with it. If they can not do the job they said they would do and they turn around and do everything that even party members disagree with, we should be able to remove them. If the CEO of the company is corrupt and incompetent, making the entire company look bad, he will be fired. If he does not follow the ethical guidelines laid out for the job, he will be fired. If our politicians were held to the same standard, it would clean up the unethical behavior, waste, and incompetence. The cost of electing a new leader would be far less than the continued damage of incompetence. Frankly, politicians are left to police themselves and they do not do a very good job of it when there are no consequences for their actions.
Recalls are used mostly when the supporters of the electoral loser want to overturn the results of the election. They are a bad and unnecessary intrusion that weakens any democracy.
I used to believe as the author does, I don't anymore. Anything an average citizen can do to inject fear, or even caution, into our elected representatives is worth trying. And if voters have made some pretty bad choices over the years - look at what options we've had to choose from...
Oh, and I'll also take a moment to say that I enjoyed the irony of not being able to comment on yesterday's column about online freedom...😉
You could comment on it. Just not on our site. That is online freedom.
Just as a matter of interest, which site was that? I ask because of the author of that piece, who refers to the `other' Line, which is the home of the good folks who brought us the Ottawa occupation.
Literally anywhere.
We leave comments on for almost all of our posts, and the only reason we ever turn them off is when neither Jen or myself are going to be available to keep an eye on them throughout the day. We have definitely had issues that required attentive moderation. Any time posts don’t have comments turned on is a pretty good indicator that neither Jen or myself will be paying any attention to our emails that day.
I always thought that if you didn't vote, you lost your right to complain. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Nose plugs are usually required.
`(W)e have not had the benefit, as they have, of reviewing the evidence, hearing multiple viewpoints,....'. Exactly, and a truly one-for-the-ages example of this is the uninformed hysteria about the use of the Emergencies Act to finally deal with the Ottawa occupation and its sponsors' threat of sedition.
Great column.
Can't say that recall legislation has any value. It is usually ideology driven , which we have to much here already.
Can you imagine the process? Chaos. Mind you, I can see how some groups might value that.
It used to be that the politicians were elected to represent the people who voted for them. Our political elites today no longer work in the best interests of the people they represent but they are working for the Party they are part of and it’s leader. You must tow the party line, even if it devastates the people who voted you in. I believe there should be more than just recall but a complete reconstruction of the entire political system. The system we are under is no longer democratic nor do politicians work for the people. They work only for themselves and the parties agenda, regardless of the damage and costs to the people they are suppose to be working for.
Under the Constitution each member of Parliament is beholden to carry out policing their fellow members on ethics and hold them accountable as they are the makers of the laws. There is no higher power than the Parliament and yet Trudeau was taking the Speaker of the House to court, to keep hidden why the Chinese Army was working in the Winnipeg lab ? He knew better. It was just more corruption to keep it hidden so it must be something extremely damaging to the Liberals and to Canada. Something very damaging.
No party or individual in this country has been more divisive than Justin Trudeau himself. So before pointing fingers you best beware just who it is that is telling lies to create hate. You might not like what you find out.
Your accusation regarding the ethnic Chinese researchers in Winnipeg has not been proven in a court of law.
Best to stick to commenting on things that will not attract accusations of libel and defamation, no?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-chinese-pla-general-collaborated-with-fired-scientist-at-canadas-top/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/house-orders-release-of-unredacted-documents-on-viruses-sent-to-wuhan-firing-of-scientists-1.5453598
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rota-lametti-parliament-federal-court-1.6086721
So when exactly do you think these Scientists will be in our court of law?
It is a real thing and not another MLS fever dream. It has to do with documentation that the Speaker wants and Trudeau doesn't want to give up. So the argument has been bumped up to the Supreme Court. At least it was. I think the Speaker may have stepped back. Not sure. I'll check tomorrow. Pretty sure the Chinese Army in Winnipeg is hyperbole. "Best beware..." more hyperbole.
I watched it happen. Do you know you too can watch the proceedings in our parliament as they have it all live. Imagine that! You can actually listen to what they say, the ideas behind theirs policies and the antics and deviations that they use not to answer any questions. That is of course if they allow parliament to even open. Apparently, it’s safe to go to COP 26 with the largest delegation of all countries attending (real keeners)., and it’s safe to hold an election but god forbid it’s not safe to open our parliament so democracy can take place! Trudeau prefers to dictate from his cottage steps. I should say fib to Canadians from his cottage steps and leave the patsies of his party to cover over the mistruths so he can look the hero to his press gallery. If you want proof watch Parliament and google Trudeau taking the Speaker of the House to Court! I am tired of uninformed Trudeau lovers telling me I am wrong. I pay attention, I watch, I read, I listen, you can too. I suggest you do that before writing like you know of what you speak. It’s obvious you have no clue. It’s ok though as I find most people who stand with Trudeau don’t. It’s a valid observation because they continually call me a liar to which I Have no reason to do so. Trust me Trudeau does not need me to make him look a fool, he does fine all by himself.
while I agree recalls a bad Idea, maybe we could vote to take away their pensions and perks :)
Which will just make them more open to taking bribes and other forms of corruption... Alas, that's another 'heads, they win; tails, we lose' proposition.
They do that as well anyway.
The argument for recalls is that the quality of deliberation among the most excitable voters is better than the quality of the deliberation in Parliament. Tying to decide which of these two, admittedly terrible, things is better is a depressing prospect. Is something dreadful better than something nonexistent?
On the whole, though, at least I think that the motivation of the most excitable voters is closer to the public good (as opposed to the power of the party and its leader, as Marylou Speelman points out) than MPs, and so I support recalls.
I agree with almost everything Mr. Anglin writes. But a couple of thoughts come to mind; 1) What about a politician who campaigns on one thing, and then does the complete opposite. Not because the facts on the ground changed, but simply because they lied to get elected. 2) Fair enough we aren't always privy to the information that the elected official gets, but in many cases we should be. Take the case regarding the two scientists dismissed from the lab in Winnipeg. Parliament overwhelmingly voted to have that information made available, and even the speaker censured the government, but we still don't have it. The will of Parliament is supreme, but the current government has faced no consequences, legal or otherwise. These are the exceptions that I don't believe are addressed adequately by Mr. Anglin's argument. I would be genuinely interested to hear his thoughts on these types of things.
A sensible and worthwhile editorial... called into question, of course, by some libertarian populists (who self-describe as "conservative").
I'm glad that most commentators here have taken a more thoughtful tone in response to the ideas herein.