Proportional Representation?

Some years back during a federal election Canadian voters took part in a referendum. To signify how they felt about a new potential reform for the Canadian electoral system. It wasn't quite proportional representation, but a modified version of it. And voters turned it down. That hasn't stopped the proponents of proportional representation, however. And isn't it an odd thing that those who urge that such a change occur mostly represent political parties that have never been voted into power by Canada's first-past-the-post system.

Now those who protest our original and only electoral system insist that the majority the Conservative government under Stephen Harper were finally granted by the electorate represents a "false majority". On the basis that under 40% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives - that percentage rises to 48% if we exclude Quebec, and Quebec deliberately excluded itself as it is wont to do when its nose is out of joint; which is a perpetual state.

The protesting groups representing the NDP and the Green parties received far less of the popular vote, needless to say. But the principle that they espouse, that proportional representation would be a fairer recognition of how Canadians tend to vote is one that will not be laid to rest.

It does result, in countries which use that electoral system, in fractionalized governments which, to maintain their integrity must shuffle for support and alliances resulting in a process approximating co-operation, but not always to the best advantage of the country necessarily. The Green party's leader, Elizabeth May, portrays herself and her party as seeking PR from principle.

She won her party's first Parliamentary seat giving her party and herself cause for great celebration. But the Green party, despite fielding 300 candidates won just one seat, after three elections in which they won none. Because the party garnered 7% of the popular vote, a million dollars was doled out in vote subsidies to enable the party to operate and run an election campaign.

That campaign focused on one single seat, chosen because in all of Canada it seemed the most likely to submit to the blandishments of a party focused on the environment. Elizabeth May's previous riding election attempts failed; her reputation and her hubris simply weren't enough to sway voters there to her vision of a new Canada.

How much of a success was her single Parliamentarian win, when the other 299 candidates all failed?

And when, this time around, the Green party garnered a mere 4% of the popular vote? "My concern is less about the number of seats the Greens would have in Parliament, but that the first-past-the-post system has allowed this false Conservative majority when only 39.6% of voters voted for them." There's a vast difference between 4% and 39.6% is there not? Yet she professes unconcern about the lack of seats achieved by the Greens.

The spearhead group, Fair Vote Canada, is now focusing on moving the dispirited, failed Liberals around to their way of thinking, "...because under a proportional system they would have twice the number of seats they have now." Which still would not have given them the lead they anticipated, raising them toward governing status.

Elizabeth May's bravado and sense of entitlement is somewhat galling and insulting to the great numbers of Canadians who voted during this election and feel satisfied that their vote counted as intended. Her contention, "I realize that the term false majority isn't familiar to most Canadians, but the reality is, we will be governed under one for the next four years", makes one groan at the thought this poseur will now sit in Parliament.

The 41st Parliament under Prime Minister Stephen Harper cannot rescind the tax-paid vote subsidy fast enough for many of us. It falsely and insultingly enabled the Bloc Quebecois and the Green parties to assume an importance neither logically and practically were entitled to.

Squelching Freedom of Political Expression

Well, it doesn't have very good optics, and the Liberals seem to have a case when they accuse the prime minister and his parliamentarian cohorts of waging "a fundamental attack on freedom of political expression".

This expression of dismay contained in their statement of defence against the $2.5-million libel suit Stephen Harper has launched as a result of bribery allegations brought against him personally, in the now-forgotten "Chuck Cadman affair" that erupted latterly in the House of Commons.

It's highly unusual, that such a degree of umbrage would be evinced as to persuade a prime minister to resort to what can only be considered a legal stifling of opinion. On the other hand, the web site of the Liberal Party did cast very serious aspersions on the honour, credibility and personal ethics of the Prime Minister of Canada.

That in and of itself is not only a serious breach of parliamentary ethics, but constitutes a legal basis for bringing action in the courts as a result of their defamatory nature of accusation.

And they did have ample opportunity to remove those libellous accusations. The Prime Minister stood in the House and warned them that his reputation - both as an individual who takes pride in his personal code of conduct and as an parliamentarian elected to the highest office of the land - was not to be trifled with in such a manner.

Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party officials remained belligerently defiant, and this is what they've brought down upon themselves.

Although there can be some merit in claiming that resorting to the courts in response to slander can have a chilling effect on political discourse, there is also the not-quite trifling matter of political bumptiousness plunging peoples' usual common-sense into the toilet of rank disrespect for the sensibilities and reputations of others they so casually seek to besmirch.

So, perhaps, viewing this particular situation in the round, it's just desserts. Still, however, setting an unsettling precedent.

And there's more, all appearing to emanate from the Conservative Party, currently representing the government of Canada, with reputation-sensitive parliamentarians prickling over representations levied by the opposition members of the House imputing corruption or underhanded dealings by those on the government benches.

Character assassination at any time represents a not-well-tolerated ad-hominen attack in lieu of responsible inter-party legislators' representation of the country's interests.

Even unelected parliamentary staff are now following the example of their members of parliament, with a Liberal MP being sued by a minister's chief of staff. Bravado, intimidation, swagger, discourtesy, irritated sensibilities, outraged apprehensions, all play their part in these latest manifestations of the dysfunction of Canada's current parliament.

Where it might seem reasonable to the voter that all of the parties with members elected to parliament might deem it feasible to act together in good faith for the good of the country, the opposite is the reality. Everyone wanting to score points. Waiting for the opportunity to leap forward with accusations of inadequacy, hypocrisy, self-serving point-making, televised verbal parries and thrusts.

Behaviour more acceptable in a classroom of unruly hormone-addled teen-agers than intelligent and mature individuals priding themselves on their parliamentary entitlement, throwing decorum, common sense and restraint to the winds.

This has been, however, a tight-lipped government, one not willing to communicate well. Either with the press or with the opposition. There are no open lines of communication between the government benches and those of the opposition.

Bafflingly, this is a government which, in so many instances, has demonstrated good judgement, which has performed well on the world stage, which has made credible and honourable decisions on behalf of all Canadians. Yet it appears to view itself as vulnerable and dreadfully put upon. It is suspicious and withdrawn, where it should be open and approachable.

This government has, in effect, set the stage for commensurate and reciprocal treatment by both the opposition parties in parliament, and the press reporting on government activities. It faces hostility from all those sources because it has turned a hostile face to them. There's no particular reason for this government to feel so insecure, yet it does.

The country needs a more co-operative approach between its governing body and other elected lawmakers. Public debate should be civil and pursued in the best interests of the country. Personal attacks against individuals despoil the process and belittle the attackers. Legitimate criticism of the government should be undertaken in an intelligent and mature manner.

Canadians deserve no less, and much more.