End of Fall Session
In the final days of the Fall session a number of issues have surfaced. It is clear all opposition parties are in election mode ready to take down the government in the not too distant future, the question is will there come a time soon when it serves to each party's advantage to do so? The Conservatives also seem to be an election mode as well, however with Harper now being a known quantity, will just have to see how that will play out.
One of Harper's promises was to have senators elected and limit their terms to eight years. I do support senate reform, although my preference would be to abolish it completely. However, before we can go to an elected senate, we need to deal with the points Dion brings up which are ensure the West is properly represented. What is ironic is senate reform is an issue near and dear to many Westerners, yet BC and Alberta are the most grossly under-represented in the senate each having only six seats, while New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have ten despite having 4 to 5 times less in population. Jack Austin and Lowell Murray have already proposed a bill to rectify this and I believe this should be done first. Also an elected senate would acquire more power and with that comes the concern we would get deadlock. Therefore some type of dispute resolution mechanism must be in place to ensure there isn't constant deadlock. Finally if the senate elections are like the Alberta ones have been where one has a choice only amongst former Reformers, then forget it. If that is the case in a senate election I will spoil my ballot by writing LIBERAL in big print over it since I believe this would be unfair to the majority of Canadians who are not on the right side of the political spectrum.
Stephane Dion has proposed to have 1/3 of candidates be women. I fully support this and while my preference is not to have them parachuted in, I do support the leader appointing women in winneable ridings if not enough are nominated. Beyond that though, Dion should commit to strike a committee to look at why few women are interested in running for office and find ways to make it more attractive for women to want to run for office, so we can have proper representation without the leader having to parachute women into certain ridings.
As for when the next election should be, I believe the current government has lost the moral authority to govern and therefore once the house resumes a non-confidence motion should be tabled ASAP.
One of Harper's promises was to have senators elected and limit their terms to eight years. I do support senate reform, although my preference would be to abolish it completely. However, before we can go to an elected senate, we need to deal with the points Dion brings up which are ensure the West is properly represented. What is ironic is senate reform is an issue near and dear to many Westerners, yet BC and Alberta are the most grossly under-represented in the senate each having only six seats, while New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have ten despite having 4 to 5 times less in population. Jack Austin and Lowell Murray have already proposed a bill to rectify this and I believe this should be done first. Also an elected senate would acquire more power and with that comes the concern we would get deadlock. Therefore some type of dispute resolution mechanism must be in place to ensure there isn't constant deadlock. Finally if the senate elections are like the Alberta ones have been where one has a choice only amongst former Reformers, then forget it. If that is the case in a senate election I will spoil my ballot by writing LIBERAL in big print over it since I believe this would be unfair to the majority of Canadians who are not on the right side of the political spectrum.
Stephane Dion has proposed to have 1/3 of candidates be women. I fully support this and while my preference is not to have them parachuted in, I do support the leader appointing women in winneable ridings if not enough are nominated. Beyond that though, Dion should commit to strike a committee to look at why few women are interested in running for office and find ways to make it more attractive for women to want to run for office, so we can have proper representation without the leader having to parachute women into certain ridings.
As for when the next election should be, I believe the current government has lost the moral authority to govern and therefore once the house resumes a non-confidence motion should be tabled ASAP.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 3:09 PM
14 Comments:
Personally, I think the 1/3 quota is somewhat undemocratic. Call me sexist for believeing so, if you must; however, I believe people should be nominated based on their merits and not their gender. If a woman candidate was to run against a man candidate for a party nomination, if she had the better credentials, and was democratically elected, I would support that; however, I have a concern this will just parachute women who are underqualified to seek office into ridings over a man who may very well be more qualified for the sake of meeting a quota.
I think the proper solution to seek is basic initiatives to itnerest women in politics. Frankly, I think such initiatives would be a lot better than tinkering with democratic nominations would be.
Then again, this IS the Liberals we're talking about, so if this means more underqualified women are put in swing ridings to meet some sort of quota, I'm all for it! ;)
BC Tory - I would much rather that Stephane Dion not have to parachute any women in, but since I believe parliament should be representative of Canada's general make-up, there should be more women and I would even go further in having minimum quotas for both aboriginals and visible minorities so as to ensure parliament is reflective of modern day Canada.
The goal is to ensure qualified women are found, which is why a search team has been appointed to look for qualified woman and encourage them to seek their respective nominations so as to ensure there will be enough women. Besides even 1/3 is still too low in my view. In Britain the Conservatives agreed to have 50% female candidates in the next election and this is a Conservative not a Liberal party. We rank 44th in the world for women in politics, which is shameful for a country as progressive as Canada.
I'm not saying it isn't shameful, but I feel that trying to attract qualified women candidates into politics is a far better solution than meeting quotas. Parliament should be representative of the people, but at the same time, it shouldn't be a place for affirmative action.
I would even go further in having minimum quotas for both aboriginals and visible minorities so as to ensure parliament is reflective of modern day Canada.
I think that not only would be that totally non-democratic, it would serve to remind and emphasize differences among Canadians rather than building a united country. Your idea implies that different races have different agendas within Canada. Would you call for ~50% of Saskatchean MPs to be native, ~50% to be White, with no other races eligable since they represent such a small fraction of Saskatchewan's population? It would be like drawing up ridings based on race.
I'm not saying it isn't shameful, but I feel that trying to attract qualified women candidates into politics is a far better solution than meeting quotas. Parliament should be representative of the people, but at the same time, it shouldn't be a place for affirmative action.
I think the focus should be on getting more women to run and appointing them should be the last resort.
I think that not only would be that totally non-democratic, it would serve to remind and emphasize differences among Canadians rather than building a united country. Your idea implies that different races have different agendas within Canada. Would you call for ~50% of Saskatchean MPs to be native, ~50% to be White, with no other races eligable since they represent such a small fraction of Saskatchewan's population? It would be like drawing up ridings based on race.
A valid point, however I would argue that a lack of minorities and aboriginals may mean the government is less sensitive to some of the issues they face. And since discrimination still does exist even if not officially it is important those voices are represented so we can combat all forms of discrimination.
I think that not only would be that totally non-democratic, it would serve to remind and emphasize differences among Canadians rather than building a united country. Your idea implies that different races have different agendas within Canada. Would you call for ~50% of Saskatchean MPs to be native, ~50% to be White, with no other races eligable since they represent such a small fraction of Saskatchewan's population? It would be like drawing up ridings based on race.
In this case, Brian is right on the money.
Like Andrew Coyne said:
The proposition is at the very foundation of a liberal society: that each individual person is the unique intersection of all the many groups to which each of us belongs; that as such the individual is, far from the rootless atom of caricature, the greatest common denominator of social cohesion. Our uniqueness as individuals, the perfect singularity of every human consciousness, is in fact what we have in common.
What parades in the name of “diversity,” the obsession with particular group memberships -- racial, sexual, and so on -- that is the hallmark of identity politics, is thus revealed as a fraud. The truer, deeper diversity extends all the way to the individual. Anything short of that is not really about diversity, but homogeneity: not differences between groups, but sameness within the group. As it oversimplifies, so it divides.
All people, even candidates for public office, should be judged solely as indviduals, period.
Brandon - In the long-run I agree with you, but groups that have historically suffered from discrimination, special efforts should be made to get more involved in public office. Had they not suffered from discrimination in the past, I wouldn't be advocating this, but sometimes to make up for past injustices you must put a special effort into ensuring those from groups that have historically suffered from discrimination are properly represented.
But at the same time, Miles, what's in the past is just that- the past. This is the kind of thing that, should Canada wish to progress as a country, move forward from.
All such a status would do is reinforce the ideal that there are inequalities. That women and men, minorities and whites, etc, are inequal and different. Shouldn't we instead be putting in place that we are equal? Brandon's right on the mark, we should be judging peoples as individuals, not members of races.
Frankly, another fact of the matter is, this could very well present a slippery slope. If we concede a quota on women, what's to say we'll stop there? Soon, people will believe in quotas for minorities, Aboriginals, etc. If that were to happen, we'd have a Parliament in which many MPs are just token members of a certain gender, ethnicity or religion, rather than being elected based on their merit.
Canadians believe in equality, thus, it is important that we reinforce equality in our democracy. If women are interested in running in elections, they should do so the same way men do it- and be nominated the same way men are- by their merits and credentials, NOT because their party is scurrying to meet some desired number of candidates.
All such a status would do is reinforce the ideal that there are inequalities. That women and men, minorities and whites, etc, are inequal and different. Shouldn't we instead be putting in place that we are equal? Brandon's right on the mark, we should be judging peoples as individuals, not members of races.
Once we've achieved equality I agree, but until then we must make certain efforts to ensure equality. In addition parliament should be representative of Canada. 21% females in parliament is not represenative of Canada.
Frankly, another fact of the matter is, this could very well present a slippery slope. If we concede a quota on women, what's to say we'll stop there? Soon, people will believe in quotas for minorities, Aboriginals, etc. If that were to happen, we'd have a Parliament in which many MPs are just token members of a certain gender, ethnicity or religion, rather than being elected based on their merit.
I don't support legal quotas, but I support quotas at the party level for candidates and yes this includes aboriginals and visible minorities too. The Liberal Party of Canada has always been the party for minorities whether it be for the Francophones and Catholics back during Laurier to immigrants under Trudeau all the way to gays and lesbians today. I am very proud to support a party that is about helping minorities and representing them.
Canadians believe in equality, thus, it is important that we reinforce equality in our democracy. If women are interested in running in elections, they should do so the same way men do it- and be nominated the same way men are- by their merits and credentials, NOT because their party is scurrying to meet some desired number of candidates.
I too hope that quotas will someday be unnecessary, but lets not say we've achieved equality before we haven't. Besides this is not just a left wing idea. All three parties in Ontario agreed to active seek for female candidates in all ridings and only allow a male candidate to be nominated if no female can be found. In Britain, the Conservatives, have promised that 50% of their candidates would be women. In fact Canada is 44th amongst countries globally for women in government and is one of the worse in the industrialized world.
support quotas at the party level for candidates and yes this includes aboriginals and visible minorities too
As just a side note, I'd just thought I'd mention how few include the minority group I belong to (people with physical disabilities) in lists like that one.
How many severely disabled MPs are there?
One.
How many have there been in Canadian history?
As far as I know, one.
What's interesting is how it's always the minority groups that are the most visible and with the highest profile that get attention.
Disabled people, not so much.
Miles,
My party is certainly flush with cash...the Liberals are also not exactly without resources but clearly we have the lead in money by a long shot.
Patronage appointments have been kept to a strict minimum -- mostly to ensure that party members will be "available" for the next election.
I suspect Harper is no longer entetaining the notion of sinking his own ship. He can read polls just like everyone else.
IMO the Bloc will move ASAP. I expect the Liberals will also be ready to go. The BQ will sweep across Quebec while the Liberals are likely to make substantial gains in the Montreal region. In short, it's a win-win for both parties if they force an election in February or March.
Stephen Harper is many things. One thing he isn't is a dummy. Expect him to shuffle cabinet once the house comes back and to throw Jack a bone that will be hard to resist.
He will play for time, pure and simple. That is exactly the strategy that I personally advocate. The CPC needs more time to finalize negotiations on the fiscal imbalance with Quebec and several other provinces. Without an agreement, goodies in the budget will simply not be good enough to make a substantial breakthrough at the polls.
Brandon - I certainly support making efforts to include people with disabilities. And actually Steven Fletcher is only the first physically disabled MP, there have probably been several who had non-physical disabilities, which aren't as easy to notice.
The Wizard - I am not underestimating Harper. However, now that he is a known quantity, I think his ability to recover is severely limited. I think he can still win another minority, but I think a majority is likely out of the cards at least for now.
not to harp on, but I read this question+answer piece at globeandmail.com with a respected muslim scholar:
Dave Srigley from Toronto writes: Do you foresee a future in which Canadian Muslims are a significant political force in Parliament, somewhere on the level of the Bloc Quebecois?
Tariq Ramadan: I hope there will never be such a thing. I will never promote something like a Canadian Muslim political force. As I explained in Western Muslims and The Future of Islam, Muslim citizens should stick to principles and promote an ethic of citizenship. This means to vote for the more competent, the more upright and to ask for accountability, whether the politicians are Muslim or not. Anything else could lead us toward a battle of communities, while we must hope to build a national community of ideals and common values. Muslims, as I said, should stop acting as a minority only concerned with its interests … their universal values must lead them to serve the entire society.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061218.wlivetariqramadan1219/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=3
Brian - Not on a national level, but certainly in certain regions perhaps. The simple reason for this is the Muslim community is overwhelmingly concentrated in the large cities and considering how few opportunities there are in rural Canada, I don't see that changing. In addition as a multicultural nation and one built on immigration, there is greater interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. I have friends who are Muslim and being of different ethnicity is not an issue. The reason it is an issue in countries like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and other European countries, is the Muslim community is heavily ghettoized and those countries are not countries built on immigration like Canada.
So in short, the problems you are seeing in Europe are now ones I forsee in Canada. There may be large numbers of Muslims in parliament some day, but their religion will be a personal issue, not one that drives policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home