Tuesday, April 12, 2011

PS. Democracy Agenda: Parliamentary Reform - Look to Quebec

Forgot this one - "But this reminds me of a suggestion I've made before, that such matters, as well as appointment of Officers of Parliament, ie. all those questions that should be as non-partisan as possible, build on QC example and require 2/3 majority of House, including Official Opposition. The Official Opposition proviso would be my addition, remembering Dief, Mulroney, McKenna & Campbell landslides. Occasionally, government members represent more than 2/3 of legislatures. But there can always be an Official Opposition, if the Orders are written to recognise one, even absent official party status. First, which grouping has most MPs, and, if a McKenna wipe-out, then highest percentage of popular vote. So prorogation limits could be one of those rules that can only be changed with accord of 2/3 & Official Opposition. If parties incapable of agreement on what should clearly be non-partisan rules & appointments, then Govt can call an election, as always. One would expect the political price for incalcitrance in clearly non-partisan matters would discourage such behaviour." - Saturday, January 16, 2010

"3) The House amends the Orders of the House such that they cannot be further amended without 2/3 approval of the House & the approval of the Leader of the Official Opposition, pace Quebec precedents (search for "deux tiers" & then "chef de l'opposition) and in same spirit, Mulcair's Bill 190). NB. QC is not adequately respecting its constitutional requirement for legislative information on both languages. The online English version of the Orders is not up to date." - Friday, January 22, 2010

"What is sad is that I favour the elimination of the subsidy over time. In theory, it's the right thing to do. But the devil's in the details and such fundamental elements of the architecture of democracy need to be the subject of a wide agreement among the political actors. In Quebec, many of these kind of decisions have to be apporoved by 2/3 of the National Assembly or the members of its committees, as a way to ensure that such decisions have multipartisan approval. This should also be the case in Ottawa." - Thursday, November 27, 2008

"NB. I would favour 2/3 needed for amendments to standing orders. Even if Bloc swept QC, would still only be less than 25% of members, that is, for those weak at math, less than the 1/3 needed for a veto. So they would not have a veto. And there are the precedents from the National Assembly in QC. But we could with this for now, and change them if need be." - Monday, January 25, 2010

No comments:

Post a Comment