May 13, 2016

Electoral reform by Twitter: Jason Kenney GRILLS Minister Monsef on Liberal efforts to “rig the system”

Brian LilleyArchive

The Liberals continue to push for changing Canada's electoral system without giving real reasons, beyond claiming the old one is, well old, and hey, it's 2016.

During Thursday's Question Period Conservative MP Jason Kenney pushed the Liberals on why they will not commit to putting any changes to the people in a referendum.

Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef gave a series of answers that became more and more bizarre until she finally cited Twitter hashtags as a reason.

You will only wish she was joking.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-16 15:40:43 -0400
RIDICULOUS …not strong enough …what is RIDICULOUS is how this group of delusional neophytes got to center stage…when inexperience, rhetoric , theoretical bla bla and un grounded precedents were the basis of their political propaganda…like buying a house SIGHT right James Callaghan: "Where would the Liberals be without Low Information Voters? "
commented 2016-05-16 08:08:03 -0400
I can’t believe that she tried to make electoral reform as special interest group issue..including women…she wants to make sure that women can can be consulted on this issue…what an insult to women…I also can’t believe that this is an actual department in the cabinet…and I am sure that she is the best qualified to be this minister because there is no way that she would be given this position just because she is a woman…oh…never mind
commented 2016-05-15 22:47:13 -0400
She is a Muslim. Mindless, uneducated, and inexperienced but she knows how to take over a country…control the votes.
commented 2016-05-15 13:26:32 -0400
William Collins said: “The main problem we have is not the way we vote-the Westminster system. The problem is the quality of the candidates.”

Too true!
commented 2016-05-15 13:18:49 -0400
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses! Leadership and Decision? Piffle! This is about the Liebranos foisting a dictatorship by any other name on this country. Of course they do not want a referendum knowing full well that even some of their lieberal supporters would not approve of it!
commented 2016-05-15 11:42:41 -0400
The main problem we have is not the way we vote-the Westminster system. The problem is the quality of the candidates.
commented 2016-05-15 10:01:09 -0400
Good for Kenny, but I’d like to see the opposition pull out all the stops with this government. The Liberals have to be reigned in.
Democratic Institutions Minister ? is that a new portfolio made up by the governing Marxists? Maryam Monsef sure is a piece of work. Where do they find these people.
commented 2016-05-15 03:15:53 -0400
Surely JAY KELLY, it has not escaped your attention that given the Liberals “modus operandi” so far, that it is indeed the fundamental question of whether the process they set up will “legitimate”… I fail to share your assurances that:- “Conservatives and Liberals and members of the New Democratic Party, plus others, are going to be involved in this”… I am cynical enough t believe it will be Kabuki theatre if anything, with the “fix” put in from the start… But hey, what do I know?… I base my opinions on having followed Canadian politics since 1960…
commented 2016-05-15 00:34:40 -0400
Jason Kenney is not an idiot. His questions of Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef are legitimate.

A commenter on here said “it will be all Harper’s fault”.

Not true. Conservatives have also tried to reform the voting process over the past years. They proposed direct voting, proportional representation, mixed ballots, and so on.

It is not the Conservatives’ fault that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals will be the ones to reform the voting process.

Surely our role as concerned citizens is to try to establish the legitimate process and concerns that will be brought to bear.

Conservatives and Liberals and members of the New Democratic Party, plus others, are going to be involved in this.
commented 2016-05-15 00:26:26 -0400
Where would the Liberals be without Low Information Voters?
commented 2016-05-14 21:32:12 -0400
I am by no means a ‘dinosaur’, however I do NOT tweet, nor does my mother or ANY member of my family. How does having a ‘Twitter account’ suddenly make one Canadian and able to have a say in how the government changes our electoral policies? It doesn’t. There needs to be a way to reach ALL Canadians, not just those who tweet. Referendum PLEASE and thank you. THIS is the Canadian way and any government worth it’s salt would do so. And now it is Mr. Harper’s fault AGAIN? For not changing our electorate to suit HIS party’s voting requirements? What a load of crap. We should ALL have a say, not just twittering young Canadians that have shown they CANNOT be trusted to make judgements on behalf of the country.
commented 2016-05-14 11:59:14 -0400
The impetus behind the Trudeau globalist agenda is implementing transnationalist policies in Canada, and bringing us on board the global governing uber-bureaucratic cabal. As we see in China, the EU and the US, the agenda is to grow government and make it increasing unaccountable as well as installing domestic globalist governing cabals in perpetuity through rigged balloting systems – just like the EU.
Any changes the Librano globalist cabal brings to Canadian democracy will surely not benefit the electorate or the nation – it will benefit the political class who are attempting to make that class permanent and unaccountable.
commented 2016-05-14 09:07:32 -0400
@ Elton Braun

I am on board with that! When do we start?
commented 2016-05-14 09:04:40 -0400
Drew Wakariuk said, “Let me predict the future if the libs change our system, they will love it until they are not in power then it will be the most evil concept ever.”

Just to append to that.

… … And it will be all Harper’s fault as far as they and their CBC lovers are concerned.
commented 2016-05-14 08:35:30 -0400
Gee, it would have been fun to watch the reaction if Harper had of proposed changing the electoral system. Lefty heads would have exploded from coast to coast to coast. Kinda like that scene in “The Kingsmen” movie.
commented 2016-05-14 03:44:44 -0400
John S, are you suggesting that someone like May have an equal vote at the table with one member from every other party? That would be insane.
commented 2016-05-14 03:38:35 -0400
If it is indeed “proportional representation”, or some variant, that clueless Maryam Monsef is hanging out there then let us quickly cut to the chase and be reminded what kind of a political morass that tends to produce… Italy over the years is a prime example of the minority party coalition chaos that results from everybody getting their toe in the water… Germany ditto… A more dramatic example is a country like Latvia, with a population of roughly 2 million, having 8 “major parties” and 12 “minor parties” and a whopping 23! “defunct parties” since regaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991… But I suspect that the Liberals are simply going after a “never ending power” variant that is going to take a genuine REVOLT by Canadians in the long term to oppose… If you live in a Liberal held riding, take every opportunity to give your MP “le doigt moyen”….
commented 2016-05-14 03:36:46 -0400
When I meant independence I meant systems free from political interference. I thought that was a given. I do not see this as left versus right because there are many variants of left, right, centre and extremes and other options, so I think your reasoning is a bit short-sighted and based on emotions and it does not take systems alternative systems into account. This process must be done independently and all parties should be at the table, but all parties in power for some reason always want absolute power. That is what bothers me.
commented 2016-05-14 02:06:57 -0400
Well I’m all for independence. I say we start a new party called The Natural Governing Common Sense Party of Western Canada. We build a wall on the Manitoba/Ontario border and make Quebec pay for it. We install 2 doors. One exit door to toss out all the lefty communist traitors and one entrance door to allow in only heavily vetted conservatives. Once we’re all settled in we build 5 pipelines to the coast. We then fire up all our coal mines and coal fired electric plants and move our windmills along the wall so all the pollution blows east. We’ll build a diesel pickup truck factory and export any surplus to China along with the oil and outlaw any thing to do with the debunked climate change scam. No more welfare transfer payments. Just jobs, pick up trucks and Alberta beef for everyone.
commented 2016-05-14 01:24:38 -0400
They are small because many people do not know they exist. If people knew they existed, then I am sure the outcomes would be different. Which is why on Facebook I have long called for independence during election time and a reduction of the money that parties are allowed to spend if not the total banning of attack ads and money in elections. That way, the Canadian people will be able to focus on the papers from all the parties, do their own research and truly be open-minded. I see nothing wrong with these ideals. In fact, it helps Canada to have an independent system of governance.
commented 2016-05-14 01:21:15 -0400
After watching parliament on many issues all the parties vote as single blocks for almost every issue. That is the norm. As for coalition governments versus the two party system which are polar opposites, the US is a massively indebted nation with the two party system so I think having more ideas and more parties would work and it would not make things dysfunctional because the people would come to their senses on the parties, ideologies and would teach themselves.

To suggest that the system is fine with fewer parties is restricting our choices when in business we are supposed to have many choices. Why should there be fewer choices in the most important decision we will ever make? That is the crucial question to ask.

But no Europe is a failure because it is a large block and nations chose to go into that large block and sell out their sovereignty. That means they came to those decisions at the initial point of the EU a la 1999. I am for the nation-state and real sovereignty. All nationalists are for it. That is what the dichotomy should be based on. I want the nation-state not super unions and that is why nations fail. They fail because of selling out sovereignty. As a nationalist it seems obvious. Too many liberals, conservatives and social democrats if not all are for globalism.
commented 2016-05-14 01:14:42 -0400
John maybe the small parties are small for a reason, why should they have a say if very few people want them to?
commented 2016-05-14 01:13:34 -0400
Let me predict the future if the libs change our system, they will love it until they are not in power then it will be the most evil concept ever.
commented 2016-05-14 01:12:42 -0400
John the conservatives allowed free votes by their members idiot.
commented 2016-05-14 01:09:23 -0400
John if you want coalition governments to run this country then take a look at Europe to see what kind of a disfunctional mess that leads to. Talk about derision and nothing getting done.
commented 2016-05-14 00:59:20 -0400
Well if there’s one thing Trudeau hasn’t lied about its ‘real change’. Some interesting opinion pieces about this in the National Post. I hope they are right that the consensus seems to be that this is going to backfire big time.
commented 2016-05-14 00:30:34 -0400
Well the heckling by the Tories does not help either. What is helpful is genuine concern of the system? But I take a different approach which is anti-liberal, anti-conservative and anti-social democrat since I am a centrist nationalist in the form of Hellyer who ran for the PC leadership in 1976 and the Liberal party in 1968. Canada needs a revamping of the system done in an independent manner which transcends parties but sadly each party wants to outdo each other instead of doing what is best for Canadians. Sadly this occurred under the Conservatives by wanting to destroy their opposition. Therefore, this exists among parties to defeat each other to the point of wanting a one party state. It is obvious by the way they are. As for how to conduct such a change in our electoral system, I favour the proportional system since it favours smaller parties but I want politics to be taught as early as high school in a political science course which must be mandatory, and I want the civics courses to be removed so that a political science course can be extended to educate the children on all parties, independents and mechanisms of elections so that they can learn everything in an independent manner without ideology. That is how it should be done and each province should have governing over such a system so that federal, provincial and municipal politics can be done in such a course. That is how it must be done. Of course, each system will not be explained thoroughly and succinctly because parties are not interested in the major party movements to educate the public. They want limited education and limited focus which is why I cannot be pleased with any of the major parties in this case.

Elizabeth May is 100% correct because there should be no rigging and no voting as a single block. Such an issue as our elections has to be done fairly, equally and all Canadians must be properly informed. All parties must be included.

I would also favour getting money out of politics and banning attack ads. We also need a system where any person running in a single riding has to be able to win and each person must be given equal and fair time and every person running has to be allowed in the local debates. This must be part of each level of government. I think if all this is satisfied then the system can run smoothly and then we can truly have a multi-party democracy. I see nothing wrong with a multi-party democracy. Many ideas are healthy. Some people say that coalition governments are bad since they stall good legislation but the US is 20 trillion with just 2 parties. That is the complete 180 degrees of coalition systems from proportional.

People will always have their arguments but I think I analyzed why we need debate and why proportional can only work with all parties at the table and a fair and independent system going forward.
commented 2016-05-14 00:22:22 -0400
I agree with Lilley that the parties have too much power. Why won’t the grassroots of each party try to influence their parties? It seems simple enough but to libertarians they favour less legislation when legislation is the only way to correct a system where the overreach of the party machine is the issue.
commented 2016-05-14 00:22:12 -0400
The Westminster system has not worked since the early 70’s. MPs are supposed to vote based on the wishes of their constituents so Heard and Lilley are factually lying to the public because even the Conservative party did the same thing by making all their members vote as a single party without disagreement. That is completely disingenous, but I agree that we need to have a thorough and important debate before any changes are made. I do not view this as an advantage for any party if it is done correctly and with all Canadians being informed without manipulation. I actually welcome a proportional system if it is done right and based on percentages with no cutoff point like some countries. What Canada needs is also the smaller parties to gain an advantage in a new system with hopefully no money in politics and the banning of attack ads. This whole fake outrage by Lilley and Heard does show that they want the system to be the status quo with just three major parties and two or three parties with 1 seat to five seats. I think the system would be more accountable in a system with proportional but it cannot be done solely by one party. It must be done in a fair and reasonable way taking into account the other 20+ parties that are smaller as well.
commented 2016-05-14 00:06:08 -0400
It really does not matter how pointed and direct a question a Conservative MP asked of the Liberals, the Liberals will never give a straight answer.