Posts in Category ‘Politics’

Electoral reform, coalition style

One of the concessions made by the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition agreement was a referendum on electoral reform. The Conservatives aren’t interested in changing the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system, while the Lib Dems have long advocated for the adoption of STV (single transferable vote). The compromise worked out for the coalition was a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV), which, depending on who you read, is either only marginally better or even worse than FPTP, and will either help the Lib Dems or wipe them out.

On 5 July 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is responsible for political and constitutional reform, announced in the House of Commons that the referendum on AV will be held next year on 5 May 2011, the same date as the elections to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as local council elections in England. Hand in hand with electoral reform, the government will also be tabling a bill to provide for a review of constituency boundaries in order to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies. If passed, this will reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons from the current 650 to 600.

There is so much to address here.

The choice of the Alternative Vote is problematic on many levels. It isn’t by any means a proportional system. For those unfamiliar with AV, voters rank candidates first and second, and the two candidates with the most votes contest an instant run-off. This way, people still have a single MP who represents their constituency, and all MPs can say they were supported by more than half the voters in their seat.

In February 2010, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced proposals that would see a referendum called on introducing Alternative Vote as a means of choosing MPs. The Lib Dems rebuffed Brown’s February 2010 suggestion in public – not least because an election was coming, and electoral reform is a major plank of the Lib Dem manifesto that they did not want to cede to a Labour government.

The Lib Dems, as stated above, preferred a more proportional system than AV, but not the purest form of PR as might be found in South Africa or Israel. They advocate moving to a system of single-transferable vote (STV), where large constituencies have multiple members. Voters rank all candidates, and “surplus votes” (the votes that a winning candidate could have been elected without) are redistributed on the basis of second preference, and so on. This was the electoral system proposed for the Canadian province of British Columbia, but that failed to pass in two referendums.

The question following the 6 May 2010 election became whether the Liberal Democrats would compromise on STV, and accept a system such as AV or AV+ as the price of their support in a hung parliament. Although the Liberal Democrat manifesto refers to STV as their “preferred” solution, their commitment is only to “a fair, more proportional voting system” and leaves the possibility of accepting something else open.

Most tellingly, in May 2009, the Lib Dems launched a website called TakeBackPower.org which recognised the practical difficulties of forcing the UK to adopt STV, and instead committed the party to supporting a referendum on AV+, to take effect the next general election after May 2010.  AV+ is AV with a “top-up” – an extra group of MPs whose election is based on regional votes for parties. They are added to all the AV-elected MPs to bring the total seat distribution broadly in line with proportions of the popular vote.

As we know now, the Lib Dems did accept the compromise, hence the referendum on AV.

There is a lot of irony surrounding the referendum. As stated above, a referendum on AV was part of Labour’s election manifesto, and now Labour finds itself in the awkward position of potentially campaigning against something it campaigned for only months ago. The referendum will be overseen by a Prime Minister who opposes it, and supported by a coalition partner which believes the reform doesn’t go far enough.

Both Labour and the Conservatives benefit greatly from FPTP, and thus most of the opposition to moving to AV will come from many Tories, allied with a significant number of Labour MPs, who remain stubbornly attached to FPTP and the hope that they will be returned with a majority in the next general election (something the Conservatives also hope will happen for their party). Meanwhile, the Lib Dems will have to campaign for an electoral system Clegg once described as “a miserable little reform”.

But should AV pass, and be implemented in the 2015 election, which is what the government says will happen, how will that impact future elections? Conventional wisdom has held that that AV would hurt the Tories and benefit Labour and the Lib Dems, with most supporters of each party choosing the other party as their second choice.  Similarly, most Conservative voters would probably choose the Lib Dems as their second choice. Interestingly, British polling firm YouGov asked about second preferences in their final pre-election poll conducted for Channel 4 – and did so again last week. The very detailed and interesting findings are explained quite clearly in this article.

As we can see, had AV been in place for the 6 May election, it would have returned a much closer result between the Conservatives (277) and Labour (269) – compared to the actual results of 307 seats for the Conservative and 258 for Labour. And the Lib Dems would have 76 seats rather than the 57 they currently hold. This result would have allowed for a Lab-Lib coalition since the Lib Dems combined with either the Conservatives or Labour would have resulted in a majority (albeit a slightly larger one for a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition).

However, that was then and this is now. After two months of Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government, people’s voting preferences have changed somewhat. In the most recent survey, fewer Labour voters chose the Lib Dems their second choice, while Lib Dem supporters were slightly more likely to give their second preference to the Conservatives rather than Labour. Applied to the recent general election, these post-election, post-coalition second preferences would have resulted in the Conservatives with only 2 fewer seats than they got under FPTP, while Labour would be down 13 seats from their FPTP results.  The Tories’ lead over Labour would have been 60 seats, meaning only a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would have commanded a majority in the House of Commons.

Andrew Rawnsley wrote an excellent column in The Guardian about the referendum on AV. His observations on how David Cameron will handle the referendum are particularly interesting:

As for David Cameron, he finds himself in an exceptionally tricky position. Number 10 has let it be known that the prime minister will express opposition to a switch to AV. This may just be tactical to appease hostile Conservative MPs, some of whom are already plotting to sabotage the referendum by mucking about with the legislation. The real question about David Cameron is whether he takes an up-front or a backseat role in the referendum campaign. There will be a world of difference between a “no” campaign which has the full-throated support of the prime minister, the big Conservative beasts and all the resources of the Tory party and a campaign in which they stay on the sidelines.

The prime minister must also be asking himself how exactly he would justify opposing this reform. He could claim that AV is a little more likely to produce indecisive, weak coalitions. That was his argument during the election campaign. But there’s a bit of problem with that now, isn’t there? The self-same David Cameron is king of a coalition which he hails as strong and resolute. Lovers of political paradox are going to be in heaven.

If nothing else, this should be a very interesting campaign.

Related Posts:

Clarifying fixed term parliaments

More information was provided today concerning some of the parliamentary and electoral reforms announced by the Coalition government. I will focus here on the fixed parliamentary terms, reserving comments on the AV referendum and boundary reform for a separate post.

Days after the coalition was formed, they announced that they would introduce fixed term parliaments and would require a vote of 55% to dissolve parliament and force a new election. I discussed this in detail in this earlier post.

During the debate on the address in reply to the Queen’s Speech in early June, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg fielded questions regarding both, and when confronted with objections raised on both sides of the House concerning the 55% required for dissolution, Clegg stated that the number was not carved in stone and that the government would revisit the matter in order to ensure that a “zombie parliament”  – one in which the government lost a confidence vote, but not enough votes could be mustered to dissolve parliament – would be avoided.

In the House of Commons today, Clegg provided more information on legislation that would be tabled before the summer break later this month. The Government is sticking with its commitment to a five-year fixed-term, with the next general election to be held on 7 May 2015. They also promise that the traditional powers of no confidence would be put into law, and preserve the traditional requirement of 50% plus one for a vote of no confidence.

The big change announced is that rather than a vote of 55% to dissolve parliament and force a new election, following a vote of no confidence, if no new government was formed within 14 days, parliament would be automatically dissolved and a new election held. However, if an early vote for dissolution was requested independent of a vote of no confidence, it would require two-thirds support (66%), as is the case in the Scottish parliament.

This change is framed as one that again will prevent any Prime Minister from arbitrarily calling an early election at a time that might be most beneficial to his or her party.

Of course, we will again have to wait to see the actual legislation, but at first glance, this seems to be a reasonable compromise. In countries where coalitions are the norm, I know it can sometimes take several weeks, even months, to hash out a workable coalition. In that regard, perhaps allowing only a 14-day window for the formation of a new government following a non-confidence vote might strike some as insufficient, but I think it reflects actual British political culture. Should there be a successful vote of non-confidence which would defeat the current Coalition government, the natural next option would be for the Conservatives to govern as a minority. That wouldn’t take 14 days to work out. And if Cameron wasn’t interested in governing in a minority situation, they could simply request a vote on dissolution, which, one would assume, would have the support of Labour (and other parties as well). The Conservatives and Labour together would exceed the required 66% (but Labour and the Liberal Democrats together would not, nor would the Conservatives and Lib Dems).

Perhaps, if the referendum on the Alternative Vote were to pass, and, as some speculate, hung parliaments become more the norm than the exception, this measure would have to be revisited, but for the moment, it seems like an reasonable proposal for the current political situation in the UK.

Related Posts:

The UK media and coalitions: lessons for Canada?

How the UK media reports on the coalition government may provide insight into how a coalition government might be treated by the media in Canada. I have been monitoring various UK news sources online since the election, and have noticed a few trends.

1. Every policy the government announces may break the coalition

The coalition partners put together a detailed program for government which was endorsed by each party’s caucus. To date, everything the coalition government has done was outlined in the coalition program. No matter. The media regularly features headlines warning (or celebrating?) that the coalition will be sorely tested by – take your pick – the proposed change to the no-confidence vote threshold,  the VAT increase, the referendum on AV, the budget in general, Lords reform, etc.

Of course governing as a coalition will test both parties. There is no tradition of coalition government in the UK, and so both parties are making up most of this as they go along. However, they have also outlined very specific mechanisms to work out inter-party differences and, while it is still very early on in this experiment, things have been going fairly well. The media might be wise to remember that even majority governments are sometimes tested when elements of the party disagree with certain policies (or the leader, as Gordon Brown well knows).

2. There are splits in the coalition…

Separate from the above point, the media goes out of its way to find splits in the coalition – be they real or imagined. It’s inevitable that tensions between the Lib Dems and the Tories are going to be a major and running theme through this Parliament. But pundits so used to the delusions and comforts of tribalism are generally yet to grasp that the public like politicians working together, and seeming to achieve consensus through compromise. Many party hacks and commentators have yet to recalibrate their sensibilities according to this fact. That is partly why all the talk of splits in the coalition. which will probably come, risks being overdone. So far, none of these rumoured splits have materialised, or certainly haven’t lived up to the headline hype.

3. but not necessarily between the Conservatives and Lib Dems

It follows from the previous point that while the media looks for, and usually exaggerates, splits between the coalition partners, more often than not, the real splits aren’t between the coalition partners, but between certain wings of each party – and in particular, the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party and the party leadership (Cameron’s inner circle). If any group causes problems for the coalition, my money would be on the Tory backbench, not on the Lib Dems.

4. The coalition is treated with a degree of ridicule

Clearly, the media – in particular columnists, and especially those with a clear party affilitation – don’t quite know what to do with a coalition government. At the outset, it was something of a novelty, and the media, while not quite fawning, seemed rather enthralled by the strangeness of it all. Following Cameron and Clegg’s first joint press conference, many wrote it up to make it sound more like a gay marriage. That soon changed, however, as it seemed the media was getting bored with the fact that the Coalition wasn’t self-destructing. Accustomed to reporting on confrontational politics, the media now seems desperate for a return to politics as usual. Columnists who support the Labour party are especially vicious in their treatment of the coalition in general, and the Liberal Democrats in particular, while Conservative hacks tend to treat the coalition as some unwanted houseguest, at times almost hoping it fails so another election can be held which the Tories would win with a proper majority, of course.

Luckily, there are a few voices in the media willing to give the coalition credit, and others warning its detractors that constant attacks might do more harm to them than to the coalition. It is perhaps too soon to tell if this marks a change in how the media will deal with the coalition (probably not), but it is good to see some treating the coalition not as an oddity, but as a legitimate form of government.

Related Posts:

Brave new words

(Note: I meant to publish this post over a month ago, but the draft got lost in the shuffle. I still find the following quotes quite inspiring and ambitious. It will be interesting to revisit them during the life of this coalition government experiment.)

“This is a new era for our politics and something of a new start–a chance for a new generation to show just how good this place can be. (…) The real tests of this new Parliament will be building trust between Parliament and the people we serve, giving people the power to recall MPs engaged in wrongdoing, and making the right decisions in this House about everything from expenses to pensions to processes – -everything necessary to clean up our politics. It is within our gift to do this and it is our responsibility to make sure that we do.” - Prime Minister David Cameron, House of Commons, 18 May 2010.

“This government is going to be unlike any other. This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state… This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again.” – Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Speech on Political Reform, 19 May 2010.

“We stood for Parliament — and for the leadership of our parties — with visions of a Britain better in every way. And we have found in this coalition that our visions are not compromised by working together; they are strengthened and enhanced. That is why this coalition has the potential for era-changing, convention-challenging, radical reform.”

(…)

“We have found that a combination of our parties’ best ideas and attitudes has produced a programme for government that is more radical and comprehensive than our individual manifestos.”

(…)

“We believe that the combination of our ideas will help us to create a much stronger society: one where those who can, do; and those who cannot, we always help.”

(…)

“Three weeks ago we could never have predicted the publication of this document. After the election, of course, there was the option of minority government — but we were uninspired by it. Instead, there was the option of a coalition in the national interest — and we seized it. When we set off on this journey we were two parties with some policies in common and a shared desire to work in the national interest. We arrive at this programme for government a strong, progressive coalition, inspired by the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. This programme is for five years of partnership government driven by those values. We believe that it can deliver radical, reforming government, a stronger society, a smaller state, and power and responsibility in the hands of every citizen. Great change and real progress lie ahead.” – From the Foreword of The Coalition: our programme for government, by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, released 20 May 2010.

Related Posts:

Progressively confusing

I used to have a blog called Vues d’ici, in which I mostly blogged about various aspects of Canadian politics.

A few posts were different, addressing matters not specifically related to Canadian politics. I was reminded of one of them recently after reading an opinion piece by Tony Wright the Guardian entitled “We can’t all be progressives“. In his article, Wright, a former Labour MP, writes:

“So now we have progressive Conservatism implementing a programme of “progressive” cuts, adhering to what George Osborne christened a “progressive budget”, with the Liberal Democrats as progressive partners. If everyone is now a progressive, either the term has to be dumped or a serious attempt has to be made to give it some meaning.”

The reason why this piece reminded me my old blog is because I once wrote a post questioning the assumption that “progressive” was synonymous with “left-wing”. Contrary to what Mr. Wright says above, I would argue that “progressive” already has a well-defined meaning. A quick scan of various online dictionaries reveals that they are all rather unanimous in how they define progressive when used in the political sense. Here are just a few examples.

From Dictionary.com:

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

From theFreeDictionary.com:

1.  Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

From eHow.com:

Definition of Progressive Politics (in the US sense)

Progressives’ main objective is to change the status quo. If the country is isolationist, they are expansionists; if the country’s economy is industrial, they favor a return to agrarianism. They favor small government in a time of big government programs and government intervention in big money-markets. They are not revolutionaries because they believe in American democracy and the responsibility of government to address the needs of its citizens.

Progressive politics is not Democratic—or Republican. It adapts with each election and change in the domestic economic landscape and world circumstances. Progressives favor more change than Republicans or Democrats but are more conservative in outlook than populists.

The value of progressivism in American politics may be its ability to open up new ways of thinking about old problems.

Nowhere does it say that a progressive has to be left-wing (unless one interprets “liberal” as meaning left-leaning). Progressiveness simply means you favour change, reform, doing things differently. It doesn’t say you have to change things to make them fit with a more socialist approach, or that the reforms proposed have to be of the left-wing variety. One simply has to challenge the status quo. It’s natural that a former Labourite such as Mr. Wright will disagree with some of the changes and reforms the UK Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is introducing, but that doesn’t mean that some of their changes aren’t progressive if they indeed mark a departure from how things are currently done. They can still be progressive policies, simply not left-wing policies.

Progressives can be leftists, certainly. But they can also be centrists, or right of centre. No particular political ideology has a monopoly on wanting to improve or reform how government operates. People on the left with disagree with reforms introduced by those on the right or centrists, just as those on the right won’t like the changes introduced by a more left-wing government. But if “progressive” means open to change, reform, doing things differently, not preserving the status quo, then quite a few of the measures proposed by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition are indeed progressive.

For example, yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg officially launched the Your Freedom website, on which people can suggest laws they’d like to see repealed, laws that make people “feel under threat” and “serve no real purpose”, and will also be able to propose ways to reduce bureaucracy. The government isn’t beholden to actually repealing the laws proposed, but the government insists they will all be considered. This certainly strikes me as a new way of doing things, and should lead to some reforms and changes. People may not agree with which laws get repealed – right now one of the most popular suggestions calls for repealing various drug laws, particularly those affecting the use of cannabis, and it is doubtful the government will move in that direction, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a progressive initiative. Tied in with this program, Clegg stated in an interview with the BBC (viewable here at time of writing) that they were also starting a new process by which when a minister proposed a new regulation, he or she had to repeal an existing one at the same time – a “one in one out” rule.

The real issue here is that “progressive” has become confusing. As stated above, I disagree with Wright that the term has to be dumped or more clearly defined. I believe the definition is quite clear. The problem is that at some point, progressive became synonymous with “left wing”, and so only the policy changes introduced by leftist parties could be rightly considered “progressive”. No one would dare call anything Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives did “progressive”, yet her government certainly transformed the United Kingdom. People on the left deplore her reforms and the changes she introduced, but no one can argue that she didn’t introduce reforms and new ways of doing things. Thus the problem of attributing an ideological stance to “progressive”: when centrist or even right of centre parties use the term, as does the coalition government in the UK, people on the left say the term has been “hijacked”, and dismiss it as meaningless (as per the first part of this podcast).

People will always disagree over what constitutes progress, or what is a progressive idea or policy. Or even when there is agreement that a certain goal is progressive – such as furthering individual freedom, the different ways of achieving this will be considered progressive by some, but not by others, depending on their ideological beliefs. But in the end, if a policy does move something forward, in some way, that is progress, and therefore, progressive.

Of course, I doubt there will be much agreement on what constitutes “moving something forward” either…

Related Posts:

Mr. Speaker

Peter Milliken announced recently that he won’t seek re-election.

Mr. Milliken has been an MP for 22 years, but more importantly, he has been the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons for the past nine years. During that time, Milliken has figured in some rather momentous events in Canadian politics.  He is the longest serving Speaker in Canadian history, elected to the post three times and acclaimed once. There have been only 10 tie-breaking votes cast by the 34 Speakers who have presided over the Commons since Confederation. Mr. Milliken has cast half of them.

He is also the only Speaker in Canadian history to decide a confidence vote.

There is often some confusion among the general public regarding the role of the Speaker in such instances. Some believe that because the Speaker belongs to a particular party, their vote is influence by their party allegiance. In 2005, Milliken’s vote staved off the defeat of Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government. Milliken is a Liberal MP, and some believed this is why he voted with the government.

In theory, the Speaker has the same rights as any other Member to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. However, the Speaker must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House. This is also why the Speaker does not participate in debate and votes only in cases of a tie. Thus we see that, in reality, the Speaker is not free to vote in accordance with his or her conscience.

Over time, certain parliamentary conventions have developed to help guide Speakers in the rare instances in which they are called upon to cast the deciding vote. Simply put, the Speaker normally votes to maintain the status quo. To do so, the Speaker will vote in the following manner:

  • whenever possible, leaving the matter open for future consideration and allowing for further discussion by the House;
  • whenever no further discussion is possible, preserving the possibility that the matter might somehow be brought back in the future and be decided by a majority of the House; and
  • leaving a bill in its existing form rather than causing it to be amended.

In 1863, these conventions were acknowledged in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada when the Speaker was called upon to give a casting vote, and gave as his reason “that in the case of an equal division, the practice was, that the Speaker should keep the question as long as possible before the House in order to afford a further opportunity to the House of expressing an opinion upon it.” (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 384.)

Thus, in the case of voting in favour of the Martin government in 2005, the Speaker was maintaining the status quo. It would not be up to the Speaker to determine if the government should fall – that was a matter for MPs to decide, and since they couldn’t decide the matter themselves, tradition dictated that the Speaker not rock the boat.

Milliken has said that his most memorable moment as Speaker was his historic ruling on sensitive Afghan detainee documents which he delivered on 27 April 2010. This ruling clearly reasserted parliament’s absolute and unfettered right to receive from the government any document it deems necessary to perform its function of scrutinizing the actions of the government and holding the government to account:

“It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts.” (…)

“[T]he procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of Government documents, even those related to national security. (…) Bearing in mind that the fundamental role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account (…) I cannot agree with the Government’s interpretation that ordering these documents transgresses the separation of powers and interferes with the spheres of activity of the executive branch.”

Miliken’s love of parliamentary procedure is well-known. He subscribed to Hansard when he was in his teens, and read it thoroughly, familiarizing himself with the oft-arcane procedures that govern our political system. He is a true scholar of parliamentary procedure, and I believe that we have yet to fully understand how great his contributions to the body of Canadian parliamentary tradition and procedure truly are.

Related Posts:

The hatreds will always be there

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Guardian this weekend on the plight of former prime ministers. While focusing on former British PMs, the same certainly applies to former Canadian PMs.

In the US, where the office of President – if not always the individual holding the office – is revered, former presidents are not only granted respect once they leave office, but are frequently called upon by incumbent presidents for advice, or to lead high profile missions abroad. They continue to play prominent roles in US politics and society. Even those who leave office in disgrace, such as Richard Nixon, usually end up rehabilitated to a degree with the passage of time: their accomplishments in office are acknowledged, and their disgraces, while not exactly swept under the rug, aren’t focused upon as intently.

This is probably largely due to the fact that US presidents are the head of state, elected directly by the people, while prime ministers are the head of government, and more importantly, the leader of a party. A party in power can decide to change its leader part-way through their term in office and replace him or her with someone else, as has recently happened in Australia, and has happened in the UK when Tony Blair resigned, replaced by Gordon Brown, and in Canada, when Jean Chrétien was replaced by Paul Martin. The voting public has no say in this – it is, for all intents and purposes, a bit of administrative housekeeping.

This illustrates clearly how parliamentary systems work: we in countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK, do not elect our head of government, the government is formed by MPs, the post of PM filled by whichever MP happens to be leader of the party that forms the government (or in the case of a coalition, usually the leader of the largest party in the coalition). If the party becomes dissatisfied with the person leading it, it is the party’s prerogative to change leaders. In some ways, the leader is almost incidental, but the irony is that the leader comes to symbolise the party and government in the minds of the general public. While we know that we don’t actually vote for the PM, many people do indeed vote with that in mind – who they would like to see (or certainly don’t want to see) in the post of Prime Minister.

However, does this mean that once out of office, former PMs should be discarded to the annals of history? Certainly their time in power would allow them to accrue a great deal of insight into both domestic and world affairs that could be, and should be, of great value to the country. But that is not what happens. For the most part, we do not call upon their expertise. Incumbent PMs do not seek out their advice, nor do they ask them to play prominent roles on behalf of the country internationally (or domestically). In some cases, former PMs prefer to return to some sort of private life, eschewing the public spotlight, working quietly for causes dear to their heart. But in general, as Glover notes: “Leaders are driven out either by their party or the country; and either way are left haunted by a sort of ignominy for which we expect them to do unspoken penance. They become relics of old conflicts. Thatcher is just as toxic now to the left as she ever was; Brown will never be forgotten by the right. Blair will never be able to shake off Iraq.” The same holds true in Canada: Brian Mulroney will forever be a reminder of failed constitutional talks and the Free Trade Agreement, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin of the sponsorship scandal, Joe Clark of bumbling incompetence.

Party allegiance is a much bigger factor in parliamentary systems than it is in the US. The president is not the leader of the party he or she represents in the way the prime minister is the actual leader of the party that he or she represents. If anything, they are party leader first, PM second. In the US, the people may elect their president from one party, but ensure Congress and the Senate are dominated by the other, while in parliamentary systems, it is impossible to separate the executive and legislative branches this way. And even when one party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the US, as President Obama has learned, that is no guarantee that the president’s policies will get through.  There is also an understanding that the president is the the leader of the entire nation first and foremost, and that they achieved office because the people, not their party, put them there. This inherent respect for the office of president goes beyond the party affiliation of the individuals who hold, or have held, that office, which is why incumbents can easily reach out to their predecessors across party lines. Party affiliation doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they were elected by the people to the highest office.

Such outreach by a sitting PM to former prime ministers, even those of the same party, very rarely happens in parliamentary systems. The one exception might be Margaret Thatcher in the UK. While it isn’t very surprising that David Cameron invited her to 10 Downing Street after he became PM, Gordon Brown did the same thing when he became PM, which raised a few eyebrows. But in both cases, Dame Thatcher was merely invited to visit 10 Downing – she was not asked to take on any role or act on behalf of the government.

In parliamentary systems, party allegiance is certainly a key obstacle preventing sitting prime ministers from reaching out to former PMs, but there is another factor as well – internal party politics. If a sitting prime minister feels pressure from his or her party to step aside for someone else, it isn’t unexpected that there will be much resentment, even hostility, between the ousted leader and the person who replaces him or her that will last long after they are both out of office. This was clearly the case between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK, and between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin here in Canada.

This is perhaps a weakness of our parliamentary system. I don’t know if there is an easy way to overcome our tradition of dumping former PMs on the trash heap of history. Certainly, nothing would stop a sitting prime minister from reaching out to former PMs, but it is unlikely to happen, especially if this outreach were to cross party lines. Our party system is such a dominant feature of our politics, it doesn’t easily allow one party to acknowledge the contributions of another. Still, part of me would like to see our former PMs play a more prominent role in our nation’s political life, acting as a sort of éminence grise. This would be a far better role for them to play than acting as a panel of judges on a television program the way former PMs Kim Campbell, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney have done here in Canada. If that is the best we, as a nation, can offer our former PMs, that is a rather sad state of affairs.

Related Posts:

The media and hung parliaments

This post is not in keeping with what I generally would write about in this blog.

A bit of background here for anyone not familiar with Canadian politics. The past three elections in Canada, 2004, 2006 and 2008, have resulted in hung parliaments. In 2004, we ended up after the election with a minority Liberal government. The next two elections led to a Conservative minority government. The Liberals and the Conservatives are the two main parties in Canada at the federal level, consequently, neither would contemplate a coalition or formal agreement with the other. We also have two other parties represented in our House of Commons: the 3rd party is the Bloc Québécois, a party which runs candidates in only one province (Quebec) and whose main raison d’être is to promote Quebec independence from Canada, while the 4th party is the New Democratic Party (NDP), a social-democratic party. Because the Bloc wins the a majority of the seats in the province of Quebec, neither a Liberal-NDP nor a Conservative-NDP coalition or alliance would command a majority in the House of Commons. Also, the ideological differences between the Conservatives and NDP are too great for them to consider any sort of formal coalition or alliance. This leave the Bloc, but because of the their separatist agenda, no federalist party would seriously consider including them in a formal coalition or alliance. The Canadian political situation at the federal level is very polarized, and most observers agree that future elections will likely return very similar results to what we have now: no party winning a majority of seats, and likely none of the parties able to form a workable coalition or alliance unless they include the Bloc, which they would be loathe to do.

Given this political stalemate, there has been increased chatter in Liberal, NDP and other “progressive” circles about the possibility of a merger between the Liberals and NDP, or at least the likelihood of the two parties forming a coalition government following the next election. Many in the media – editorials and political commentators – have also been debating these options. I won’t comment here on the feasibility or desirability of these proposals. What I will do is dissect one such column which I read in yesterday in the Globe and Mail, a column by Lysianne Gagnon entitled Coalition: a false calculation.

I normally enjoy Ms. Gagnon’s columns, even when I disagree with them, but this column is rife with errors and very misleading.

The problems emerge at the very beginning, when Ms. Gagnon switches between the terms “coalition” and “merger” in the first two paragraphs. It isn’t clear from what she’s written if she think the individuals quoted are discussing the same thing or not. Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton dismissed the idea of a coalition between the NDP and Liberals. Former Saskatchewan NDP premier Roy Romanow is promoting a merger of the two parties, supported by former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who then is quoted supporting a coalition of the two parties. This is confusing. Is Ms. Gagnon under the impression that they’re all talking about the same thing? They aren’t, of course – coalitions and party mergers are very different things. However, these first two paragraphs do create some confusion, which gets worse as the article progresses.

She then writes this: “And at about the same time, Bob Rae, the Liberal Party’s No. 2 and a leadership hopeful, waxed nostalgic about the good old days when he, as Ontario NDP leader, joined in a coalition with David Peterson’s provincial Liberals.” (emphasis added)

This is factually incorrect. The Liberal-NDP Accord in 1985 was just that – an accord, not a coalition. The NDP was not part of the government. They simply agreed to support the Liberals, who governed as a Liberal minority, for a set period of time in exchange for some NDP policies being adopted. This is NOT a coalition. A coalition would have included some NDP MPPs as ministers – such as we have in the UK currently with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Further down, we find this paragraph which is very problematic on so many levels:

If not a full-fledged merger, then why not a coalition, with the two parties keeping their own personalities while agreeing on a set of specific policies? Mr. Harper was right when he mocked the idea by saying it would be a losers’ coalition. Indeed, what happened in Britain was an alliance between the Liberal-Democrats and the winning Tories, who had gathered the larger number of seats. A coalition between a minority government and a third-party makes sense, not a coalition between two opposition parties – unless one believes that it’s normal in a democracy to overthrow the party that was chosen by the larger part of the electorate.

Mr. Harper – Canada’s current Conservative Prime Minister -  was not right. It would not be a “losers’ coalition”. In a hung parliament, there is no “winner”. There are simply MPs belonging to various parties, none of which have a majority of seats. Canadians do not elect governments, they elect their individual MPs.  It is up to the elected MPs to determine which party or configuration of parties could best form a government that would command the confidence of the House, and if this happens to be the 2nd and 3rd placed parties working together in a coalition or a more informal accord, then that is how things should proceed.  This is what happened in Ontario in 1985 – the Liberals finished 2nd and the NDP 3rd behind the Progressive Conservative Party. They combined to defeated the PCs on a confidence vote, and then the 2nd place Liberals formed the government with the support (not a coalition) of the 3rd place NDP. Is Ms. Gagnon implying this government was illegitimate somehow? I don’t remember anyone protesting at the time that the PCs had been “overthrown”. Also, I feel a need to point out that you can’t have a coalition government between a minority government and a 3rd party – you either have a coalition government OR a minority government. A minority government means a party has opted to not enter into a coalition, but to govern alone.

If, together, parties command a majority of seats and represent a majority of voters, where they actually finished overall matters not. That was the key problem in the UK following the 6 May 2010 election – Labour and the Lib Dems together would have still fallen short of a majority of seats in the UK House of Commons. It wasn’t the fact that they finished 2nd and 3rd, it was that they still would have been in a vulnerable position. As many have pointed out in recent weeks, Mr. Netanyahu’s government in Israel is a coalition that does not include the party with the most seats. By Ms. Gagnon’s definition, this government is both a “coalition of losers” and I guess illegitimate since they “overthrew” the party that was chosen by the larger part of the electorate. This last sentence of hers in that paragraph is not only factually incorrect, it is also completely illogical. The Conservatives in the UK would not have been “overthrown” had a Lab-Lib coalition come about – in fact, it was Labour’s right as the incumbent party to try to form the government first.

Gagnon’s article illustrated a major problem: how Canadian media refer to hung parliaments. In Canada, the minute it is clear from the election results that no party has won a majority of seats, the media – all of it – immediately call it a minority government of whichever party ends up with the most seats. The problem with this is that a minority government is a type of government – other types of government are majority government, coalition government, etc. The British terminology for such an election result, a hung parliament, is much better, and I wish our media would adopt its usage. By announcing an election result as a “such-and-such Party minority government”, the media help close the door on the possibility (and legitimacy) of other options, such as a coalition or formal accord between two (or more) parties to form a government. I know that in reality, this would not prevent the formation of a coalition government, but if such a coalition ended up being between the 2nd and 3rd place parties, for example, after the media had all declared the election result to be a minority government by the party that won the most seats (but not a majority of them), this could create confusion among the general public. Until the party which emerged with the most seats formally announces that it will govern as a minority government, or form a coalition, or step back and let other parties attempt to form a government – all legitimate options – the term “hung parliament” is what our media should use.

The penultimate paragraph in Ms. Gagnon’s column is also problematic:

The only way a Liberal-NDP coalition could be a sensible arrangement is on the hypothesis that the next election would result in a Liberal minority government. The Liberal Party would gain a guarantee of stability, and the NDP would gain the possibility of pushing forward its agenda.

Again, we see the problem of using “minority government” to describe what is in fact a hung parliament – i.e. an election that results in no party winning a majority of the seats. A minority government is a specific form of government, not an election outcome. If the next hung parliament results in a Liberal minority government, as Gagnon posits above, that means that the Liberals have decided NOT to pursue forming a coalition with any other party or parties, and so the rest of her statement has no logic to it. You can’t have both a Liberal minority government AND a Liberal-NDP coalition government – these are two separate forms of government. What would be more accurate would be to write something along the lines of: “A Liberal-NDP coalition could be a sensible arrangement if the next election result would be another hung parliament, but this time, the Liberals and NDP together command a majority of the seats. The Liberal Party would gain a guarantee of stability, and the NDP would gain the possibility of pushing forward its agenda.” This would factual. What Ms Gagnon wrote is misleading.

Also, the Liberals would not have to finish “first” in the next election. They, along with the NDP, would simply have to have a majority of seats in the House (actually, they would only need to have more seats than the Conservatives, but a majority of seats would be the preferred option for stability’s sake). For example, let’s take a hypothetical election outcome that results in 105 seats for the Conservatives, 100 for the Liberals, 60 for the NDP and 43 for the Bloc for a total of 308 seats. By Ms. Gagnon’s argument, the Conservatives have “won” the election (and the Canadian media would declare a Conservative minority government before all the votes had even been counted). The Conservatives could still attempt to form the government (indeed, as the incumbent governing party, it would be their right), but if they failed, which would be highly likely given the seat totals, it would be completely legitimate for the Liberals and NDP together, with a total of 160 seats – a clear majority of the seats in the House – to form either a proper coalition government, or alternatively a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP similar to what we had in Ontario in 1985. The Conservatives would not, as she argues, be “overthrown”. More  people would have voted for the Liberals and NDP than for the Conservatives, so a Liberal-NPD government of some sort, be it coalition or a less formal agreement, would be far more representative of actual voter intentions.

I want to stress, again that Ms Gagnon  is not alone in the media in confusing the terms “mergers”, “coalitions”, “minority government” and “hung parliaments”, and to seemingly not know how our system properly works. I don’t know if this confusion is genuine – they simply don’t understand that coalitions and mergers aren’t the same thing, or deliberate – they do, but don’t care or don’t think it matters if they use the terms interchangeably. Whatever the reasons, I find it very distressing that the Canadian media do not seem to grasp that they cannot throw these terms around as if they all mean essentially the same thing. They don’t. There is enough confusion among the general public regarding how our system of government actually works; the media need to be far more responsible on this front.

Related Posts:

On recall legislation

While a feature of the democratic process in some US states, recall legislation is practically unheard of in Commonwealth countries. In fact, the Canadian province of British Columbia is the only Commonwealth jurisdiction to have recall legislation.

The Recall and Initiative Act came into force in 1995, providing a mechanism to recall sitting Members and to bring citizen initiatives before the Legislature or to province-wide referendum.

In order to recall a Member of the BC Legislative Assembly (MLA), a registered voter in that MLA’s electoral district must apply for the issuance of a petition to recall the MLA. The petition must contain specific information: the name of the member being recalled; the name and address of the applicant; a brief statement (200 words maximum) explaining why the member should be recalled; a solemn declaration of the applicant that he or she is not disqualified from making the application; and any other information deemed necessary. No application for the issuance of a recall petition can be made during the 18 months following the last election.

If all the above requirements are met, the Chief Electoral Officer must then:

  • notify the MLA in question that a petition is to be issued, and the Speaker of the Legislature that the application has been approved in principle; and
  • issue the petition within 7 days after notice is given.

A recall petition must be signed within 60 days from the date it is issued and must be signed by more than 40% of the total number of individuals who are entitled to sign the recall petition (be a registered voter for that electoral district for the last election and on the date he or she signs the petition, must be a registered voter for an electoral district in BC.

Once submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer, he or she has 42 days to review the petition and determine if it meets all requirements. If it does, the MLA targetted by the recall petition ceases to hold office and his or her seat becomes vacant.

There have been 20 recall applications since 1995. Of the 20 petitions issued, four were returned to Elections BC, two proceeded to verification, and one continued through the full verification process. Nineteen of the 20 petitions failed as they did not collect enough valid signatures. The other petition was halted during the verification process because the MLA in question, Paul Reitsma, resigned.

The new UK coalition government is proposing a series of political reforms, including recall:

We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

The actual legislation has not yet been introduced, leaving us with only this proposal to consider, but already there are two important differences. First, the proposal for recall in the UK would be limited to instances where an MP is found to have engaged in “serious wrongdoing”. The BC act sets out no criteria for when an MLA could be recalled; it is entirely left to the voters to decide. Secondly, the UK proposal would require only 10% of the MPs constituents to sign a recall petition, much less than the 40% required in BC.

These two points illustrate some of the key concerns opponents of recall legislation typically raise. If no specific criteria for recall is set forth, then recall petitions could be launched for very frivolous reasons – simply because someone in the MP’s or MLA’s riding doesn’t like them, for example. And while such a petition would likely fail to gather the required number of signatures, the process would still be initiated, the application would still have to be reviewed, taking up time and resources.  At least the recall option being proposed in the UK specifies that it will be targeted at MPs engaging in “serious wrongdoing”. However, if that is the case, is recall legislation really needed? Generally, if an elected official is discovered to be engaged in questionable activities – criminal or otherwise – there are already measures in place to deal with such situations, including the laying of criminal charges.

Even if most, or even all, recall petitions in BC are launched for more legitimate reasons, these can still be problematic. For example, there is great opposition in BC at the moment over the introduction of a new Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). Along with recall legislation, BC also has referendum initiative legislation, which allows any registered voter to apply to have a petition issued to gather support for a legislative proposal. The criteria for the referendum petitions is similar to that for recall petitions, except the proponent then has 90 days to collect signatures of 10% of the registered voters in each electoral district in the province. An initiative to end the harmonized sales tax issued in April has succeeded in gathering the required number of signatures within the 90-day time frame. Concurrent with that effort, eight MLAs are facing potential recall petitions due to their support for the HST legislation. One of the targeted MLAs has already resigned.

The HST recall threat illustrates an important reality in Canadian politics – the tradition of strict party discipline. Most policy decisions are made by Cabinet or the party caucus. Is it fair for electors to blame a specific policy on their MP? While recall may have a role to play in allowing voters to rid themselves an incompetent or corrupt representative, there are other scenarios that aren’t as clear-cut.  What about a decision made by the national government that is particularly unpopular in one region of the country, or has negative impact on one specific part of the country. It is very likely that the MPs who represent that part of the country will fight very hard in caucus to prevent the adoption of this policy, but in the end, the policy will be adopted. Should they be recalled simply for being outvoted by their party? What if they fail in their attempts to prevent a local industry from closing?  There is a big difference between an MP caught in difficult decisions and one who incompetent or dishonest.

By requiring that a recall petition garner the support of 40% of registered voters in an electoral district, the BC act doesn’t make it very easy for a recall petition to succeed.  As stated above, 19 of the 20 recall petitions to date failed as they did not collect enough valid signatures. A much lower threshold, such as the 10% of voters in the UK proposal, could open the door to many frivolous petitions if no regulations surrounding the extent of a recallable offense are provided. By limiting recall to instances of “serious wrongdoing”, however, the 10% threshold may not prove to be problematic. The question that arises then is, what will constitute “serious wrongdoing”?

While the necessity or desirability of recall legislation remains debatable, if a jurisdiction is going to adopt the power of recall, perhaps the best scenario would be to require a significant threshold, as British Columbia has done – or maybe even a bit higher, say 50%, and combine that with very clear, specific regulations surrounding the extent of what would constitute a recallable offense.  This would ensure that voters would have the option to rid themselves of an elected representative who is corrupt or who has violated certain other standards as defined by the legislation, while insuring that the process is not abused or used in a frivolous way.

It will be interesting to see the actual legislation that gets tabled in the UK, and how the debate on the issue proceeds.

Related Posts:

On Petitions

All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure. – Speaker Gaspard Fauteux (Debates, June 18, 1947, pp. 4278-9)

The right of citizens to petition Parliament for redress of grievance well entrenched, based as it is on tradition that dates back centuries and established precedent. The following historical overview is taken from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd edition 2009.

Petitioning the Crown (and later Parliament) for redress of a grievance originated in the 13th century, during the reign of Edward I. Petitioners had recourse to the Crown’s prerogative power, which was above the common law. Petitions granted to individuals and communities were in the nature of private laws; those granted to the nation as a whole made public laws.

In medieval times, before Parliament had assumed its present constitution and when its judicial and legislative functions were as yet undefined, Receivers and Triers of petitions appointed by the Crown travelled the country to hear the complaints of the people. Certain matters would be referred to local courts by the Triers, but others would be found appropriate for consideration by the High Court of Parliament.

As Parliament evolved from a primarily judicial to a predominantly legislative body with its judicial functions taken over by the courts, the character of petitions changed. By the end of the fourteenth century, legislative remedy was sought by individuals and corporations who petitioned Parliament or the House of Commons. At the same time, petitions from the Commons to the Crown—these being of a general nature and expressing national grievances—became frequent. The English Parliament’s first legislative acts occurred with the Commons petitioning the King for certain amendments to the law. This was the precursor to legislation by bill, as later the Commons assumed the task of drafting the desired statute which could then be accepted or rejected—but never amended—by the Crown. The seventeenth century saw the development of what may be considered the “modern” form of petition: addressed to Parliament, drawn up in a prescribed manner, usually dealing with public grievances.

In Canada, provisions for petitions (long a feature of the pre-Confederation legislative assemblies) have always been part of the written rules of the House. The rules adopted in 1867 were somewhat expanded in 1910, and operated without substantial modification for some 76 years. However, starting in the immediate post-Confederation period, an extensive body of practice began to build, resulting in a collection of form and content requirements which were not codified in the Standing Orders but which had to be met in order for a petition to be received by the House.

In the early and mid-1980s, the resurgence in the use of petitions led to a situation in which the presentation of petitions occupied large amounts of the time of the House, sometimes to the exclusion of other business. As well, the Chair was at times called upon to intervene or rule on matters relating to the admissibility of petitions and the manner of their presentation. As a consequence, the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (the McGrath Committee) made several recommendations intended to clarify the rules relating to petitions, to promote increased uniformity in their presentation, to ensure their admissibility as to content and to provide guidelines as to form and the petitioners’ signatures. In 1986, the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders based on these recommendations.

The most significant of the changes adopted in 1986 was the requirement for certification of petitions by the Clerk of Petitions prior to their presentation in the House. Also included were a number of requirements, some previously uncodified but well established by precedent and practice, to be met in order for petitions to be certified correct as to their form and content (for example, petitions must contain a prayer requesting action, must be respectful in tone and must bear original signatures). Guidelines issued by the Speaker made reference to these and to other established practices concerning the presentation of petitions during Routine Proceedings. A new rule provided for mandatory government replies to petitions.

Several changes were adopted in 1987, in particular a new requirement that signatories to petitions must include their addresses. As well, the number and sequence of Routine Proceedings rubrics was revised so that “Presenting Petitions”, formerly the fifth of nine items, became the ninth of ten. In 1991, a further amendment set a limit of 15 minutes on the time provided for the presentation of petitions during Routine Proceedings. An amendment adopted in 1994 provided that the original petitions be transmitted to the Ministry (Privy Council Office) and that government responses to petitions may be tabled by depositing them with the Clerk of the House.

In 2003, the House simplified requirements for petitions, including the prayer for relief. The House amended Standing Order 36 to ensure:

  • that certification be granted to petitions even if they are addressed to the government or a Minister or a Member;
  • that the minimum number of 25 signatures with addresses be maintained, although wording would be added to deal with the situation of persons who do not have a fixed address;
  • that certification be granted even if the full prayer is not shown on every sheet, so long as the subject matter is indicated; and
  • that certification be granted even when petitions call for the expenditure of public funds.

The most important change was that the Standing Orders would be amended, for a one-year trial period, to stipulate that, where a government response to a petition was not tabled in the House of Commons within 45 days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond would be referred to the appropriate standing committee. The House deemed it appropriate to renew this provisional order in the days leading up to the 38th general election, before making it permanent on October 29, 2004.

Each province and territory has its own rules and guidelines governing petitions.

E-Petitions

One thing that has not changed since Confederation is that the petition must be written or printed on paper of “usual size”, which is interpreted to mean 8.5″x11″ sheets. Electronic petitions cannot be certified. This may surprise some, as we have all seen countless entreaties online to “sign” an e-petition, but they will not be accepted by the House of Commons, and only one provincial legislature allows e-petitions. Consequently, anyone concerned enough about a given issue to “sign” an online petition ahould understand that e-petitions will have no sway with either the federal or any provincial government. In fact, they won’t even be accepted by the legislative body in question.

There are jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that have started accepting e-petitions, however, including Scotland, Wales, the Australian Senate, some Australian state governments (Queensland, Tasmania), and more recently (2006), the British Prime Minister (10 Downing Street).  After the May 2010 election in the United Kingdom, the new government announced it would not answer any of the petitions that had been submitted to the previous administration. This provoked frustration and disappointment among some who had worked to get a significant number of signatories to their petitions (only petitions with more than 500 signatures are replied to). Number 10 had a change of heart and reversed its position, saying all petitions which had exceeded the 500 signature threshold as of 6 April 2010 will now get a response. The Number 10 e-petitions system is under review by the new Government and a new e-petitions system will be launched later in 2010. (Update: the HM e-Petitions are now active.)

Usefulness of Petitions

How useful petitions are is a matter of debate. In some jurisdictions, there is no requirement that the government respond to petitions at all. For example, only three ministerial responses were received to the 2587 petitions tabled in the Australian House of Representatives between 1999 and 2007. This situation has changed, however.  In 2008, the Rudd government announced that for the first time since Federation, the House of Representatives would have a Petitions Committee to “listen to millions of Australians.” The committee now refers petitions to the relevant minister and conducts public hearings. Today the committee’s online register of petitions records a large number of ministerial responses as well as the program of public hearings at which the committee takes evidence from petitioners and government officials.

While petitions are supposed to be a tool by which citizens bring grievances to the attention of government, in some instances, the process is hijacked by the politicians themselves. When a particularly contentious policy is brought forward by a government, some opposition members will table petitions, ostensibly from constituents, but often signed by members of their own staff, arguing against the policy. Government members respond in kind, tabling petitions in support of the policy, but not really from actual constituents. This creates the impression, in the public record at least, of strong support for or against a measure which might not actually be shared by the voting public.

However, in some instances, public petitions may indeed force a government to reverse course. Most recently, in the Canadian province of British Columbia, a province-wide petition drive was launched in April of this year to repeal the planned introduction of a new 12% Harmonised Sales Tax (HST), which is to take effect 1 July. BC has petition-driven referendum legislation in place, consequently, if the anti-HST petition managed to gather the signatures of 10% of registered voters in each constituency by 1 July, the government will either have to introduce a bill to scrap the HST, or refer the matter to a province-wide vote. The campaign met the required target with weeks to spare.  The province of Ontario is also introducing the Harmonised Sales Tax on 1 July, and while there have been countless petitions tabled against the tax in Ontario, Ontario does not have petition-driven referendum legislation in place. Consequently, in Ontario at least, the HST will be implemented as planned.

Related Posts:

Page 31 of 33« First...1020...2930313233