“So much for party unity.

Just a few weeks after being named leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak has a caucus spat on his hands.

Outspoken Tory Bill Murdoch is slamming his colleague Norm Sterling for suggesting that municipal politics should have a party structure.

Mr. Sterling’s comments were published in an Ottawa newspaper a week ago.

Mr. Murdoch, who now serves as the party’s rural and northern affairs critic, says he completely disagrees with Sterling and that municipal politicians should remain non-partisan.

The feisty Tory was booted from caucus last fall for suggesting that then-leader John Tory find another job, but returned to the fold in April after Mr. Tory resigned.”

Timothy Garton Ash

From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009 04:44AM EDT

Unless I’ve missed something, Britain has not just emerged from a war, revolution or declaration of independence. Such are the exceptional circumstances that are usually needed to produce a constitutional moment.

And yet – incongruously precipitated by revelations about British MPs claiming expenses for items such as a little wooden house for ducks on a duck pond – there is a widespread acknowledgment that Britain’s political system is in a profound crisis. Earlier this week, I heard Dominic Grieve, the opposition spokesman on home affairs, say this crisis could put in question “the foundations of the legitimacy of the state.”

There is no agreement about the solution. Many in the political class still appear to believe that patchwork repairs will be sufficient. They are wrong. Britain does not need a revolution, but it does need a great reform. There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that is so grossly overcentralized and has such an overmighty executive, restrained only by judges implementing the country’s Human Rights Act, unelected lords and journalists.

In theory, Britain has a sovereign Parliament. In practice, as Mr. Grieve told a meeting at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, the recent history of Parliament is that of its increasing subordination to the executive. Labour MP Tony Wright agreed: Here is a Parliament that, in practice, refuses to be sovereign since “the main objective of members of the legislature is to join the executive.” The electoral system, he added, is really about choosing a government, not representatives of the people.

Britain’s task, therefore, is to create and sustain a constitutional moment, without the historical circumstances that usually give rise to one. This requires exceptional initiatives from above and from below, from Parliament and from the people. At the moment, there is too little and too much from both sides. There are innumerable proposals, speeches and initiatives, but it is wholly unclear how any of this will come together to produce change.

What has emerged from above is pretty minimal. The House of Commons will clean up its act on expenses. This fall, a select committee, chaired by Mr. Wright, should propose some significant improvements to the way the House conducts its business. There is also, once again, a serious discussion about electoral reform. Alan Johnson, a strong contender to be Labour’s next leader, restated his proposal this week for an election-day referendum on the “alternative vote plus” system – the one recommended a decade ago by a commission headed by Roy Jenkins, the former Labour minister and European Commission president, but then shelved by the Blair government.

Meantime, the game called politics continues being played on the country’s television screens. But how many Britons feel these are their representatives? The intermediate levels of democratic participation are either weak or non-existent, unlike the flourishing local and regional democracy of America and much of continental Europe. Yes, once every four or five years, the British voter can help to “kick the bastards out.” Then a new bunch will head to Westminster, and go on playing the same game the same way.

Outside the walls of Parliament and its attendant TV studios, there’s a plethora of new initiatives fizzling off in all directions. Tonight, for instance, there’s a rally in Westminster’s Methodist Central Hall, organized by the Vote for Change coalition with music by Billy Bragg to stir enthusiasm for electoral reform. The Unlock Democracy campaign has a draft bill to empower a citizens’ convention to decide on reforms. There’s 38degrees.org.uk, which aims to create a British online community for change.

A mighty popular mobilization is essential. Without pressure from below, British politicians will sink back into their bad old ways. But there are some hard questions to be answered. How far can popular anger at the political class be translated into sustained participation in a movement for constitutional change? Won’t such civic energy as there is be dissipated among all these diverse initiatives? In what sense can any of them claim to speak for “the people”? (A convention of randomly selected willing citizens, as pioneered in British Columbia, would go some way to meet that objection.) And, at the end of the day, how can all this be translated into legislation in Parliament and into the specific motion for a referendum?

At some point, sooner rather than later, what’s needed is a body that’s a two-way bridge between Parliament and the people. Mr. Wright, the Labour MP, has suggested calling it a “democracy commission.” It should have some people on it who really know what they’re talking about when it comes to Britain’s half-written constitution and complex political system. It should have representatives of the political parties. And it should include a student, a blogger, a couple of civil society activists – and why not some members of the general public, chosen by lot?

This cannot be a delegation from Westminster that travels around the country, graciously listening to the humble petitions of Her Majesty’s subjects, and goes on to produce compromise proposals from which the government of the day then chooses the bits it wants to push through a subservient legislature. Nor can it just be an independent citizens’ initiative from below, without the political authority to place demands before Parliament.

Neither Parliament alone nor the people alone can do the business. Only a novel kind of creative interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs.

Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University.

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated: Tue. Jul. 7 2009 10:22 PM ET

A Conservative MP says federal funding for Toronto’s Gay Pride parade may be responsible for junior cabinet minister Diane Ablonczy losing a key part of her portfolio.

Brad Trost, the MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, said Ablonczy’s decision to use $400,000 for the popular parade that celebrates homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered culture was not supported by most of the Tory caucus.

Trost told the anti-abortion website LifeSiteNews.com that the decision surprised the Conservative cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.

He said that responsibility for the Marquee Tourism Events Program, a $100 million initiative, has been given to another cabinet minister. The two-year program helps fund major tourism events such as the Calgary Stampede, which received nearly $2 million or Ottawa’s Bluesfest, which took about $1.5 million from the program.

Industry Minister Tony Clement has taken over the program, his office confirmed.

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett demanded that Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain the reasoning behind the demotion.

“If this indeed has happened . . . the prime minister needs to tell Canadians, did he indeed punish a minister for doing her job?” she told CTV News Channel Tuesday.

Bennett added that if Trost’s allegation is true, the decision is “atrocious” as the Pride parade clearly meets the criteria for the funding program.

Bennett slammed Trost for his “boasting . . . one of his colleagues has had a file removed from her because she had the audacity to support a celebration of human rights.”

She said Ablonczy was one of the most talented ministers in the Tory caucus. Ablonczy, the MP for Calgary-Nose Hill, was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993.

But social conservatives have hailed the move.

“I think it clears the air a little bit . . . the federal government doesn’t support the pride event,” Jeff Gunnerson of the Campaign Life Coalition told CTV News.

City Councillor Kyle Rae told CTV News Channel he was “worried that the federal government is failing to be sensitive to the diversity here in Toronto.”

“For someone to be shocked by Pride being funded by the federal government, they are in another time.”

Not all Conservatives agree with the decision. One emailed CTV News and called the move narrow-minded, saying it might hurt the party’s chances in the next election in places like Toronto.

The city’s Gay Pride Parade is one of the biggest in the world and of its top tourism events. This year’s parade attracted more than one million people. It has been an annual event since 1981.

The controversy represents yet another black eye in the relationship between Toronto and the federal Conservatives.

Transport Minister John Baird and the City of Toronto have been at each other’s throats for months. Baird apologized to Mayor David Miller in June for telling the city to “f— off,” which was overheard by a reporter.

Baird then denied the city’s application for stimulus cash to fund improvements to the TTC, saying the request did not meet federal requirements.

With a report by CTV’s Graham Richardson in Ottawa

The case of the independent canditates -

Labels: a few questions, need for change, social problems

Who does our government work for?

“Mr. Page appears to have attracted cross-partisan ire by interpreting his role as reporting to the public, rather than to parliamentarians. “I’m quite concerned the Parliamentary Budget Officer sees himself as an independent practitioner who can report whenever he wants,” the Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett complained. “If the Parliamentary Budget Officer sees himself as truly independent, then he would believe that he could release [a report] whenever he wants to, as opposed to the wishes of the parliamentarian or the parliamentary committee that had commissioned the study.”

Read the following article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/misplaced-confidentiality/article1203689/

Misplaced confidentiality

From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Friday, Jul. 03, 2009 03:21AM EDT

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been fairly criticized for making the culture of government more secretive, after pledging to make it more transparent. But the recent conduct of a joint committee of senators and members of the House of Commons, on the future of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, has made plain that a disregard for accountability transcends party lines.

Since his position was created by the Conservatives shortly after they came to office (an admirable early attempt to live up to their campaign promises), Mr. Page has brought much-needed scrutiny to the government’s financial projections, including the size of the federal deficit and the cost of the war effort in Afghanistan. As a reward, he has been undermined at every turn, including a denial of the funds he needs to do his job properly.

The opposition might have been expected to leap to Mr. Page’s defence, and a few of its members have; the Liberal MP Bob Rae recently praised him for “making a tremendous contribution to the development of strong public policy,” and said he “should be encouraged rather than attacked.” But, when the Library of Parliament committee was charged with making recommendations about Mr. Page’s position, opposition MPs sided with the government in criticizing him for overstepping his bounds. While calling for his office’s annual funding to be increased, as Mr. Page had requested, the committee unanimously recommended that he cease publicly reporting most of his findings, until “the confidentiality is lifted” by the parliamentarian or the committee that asked for the information.

Mr. Page appears to have attracted cross-partisan ire by interpreting his role as reporting to the public, rather than to parliamentarians. “I’m quite concerned the Parliamentary Budget Officer sees himself as an independent practitioner who can report whenever he wants,” the Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett complained. “If the Parliamentary Budget Officer sees himself as truly independent, then he would believe that he could release [a report] whenever he wants to, as opposed to the wishes of the parliamentarian or the parliamentary committee that had commissioned the study.”

In effect, Ms. Bennett was echoing comments by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that Canada already has an auditor-general, and does not need a second one. But Mr. Page’s reporting is required because of the practices of Canada’s finance ministers, including Mr. Flaherty. There should be no need for a watchdog to assess the credibility of government forecasts (an area not typically addressed by the auditor-general, who combs over expenditures). But because successive governments have proved so unreliable in their projections – the Liberals low-balling annual surpluses, the Conservatives claiming they would avoid deficit – Mr. Page has come to perform a valuable public service by clarifying where matters really stand.

Parliamentarians should be more worried about why that service is needed than about jealously guarding their turf.

JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 30, 2009 11:16AM EDT

Canada’s political-financing laws have become so complex that candidates are having trouble finding volunteers to manage their financial affairs during election campaigns, Elections Canada says.

The electoral watchdog is itself having difficulty finding people to work at polling stations because of increasingly complicated rules and inadequate pay.

A survey conducted for Elections Canada after last fall’s election found 22 per cent of candidates had trouble finding “someone willing, available and qualified to become their official agent.”

And focus groups conducted with official agents heard a common refrain: “If I had known what I was getting myself into, I would never have accepted” the job.

“Agents struggle with the complex rules and requirements set out in the [Canada Elections] Act,” said an Elections Canada report on last October’s federal election.

“Most stated that agents almost need to be financial experts to fulfill their role while more than one professional accountant found the role of agent to be difficult.”

Official agents are crucial to the electoral process.

“You can’t have a campaign without an agent,” notes Elections Canada spokesman John Enright.

“All monies coming in and all the monies [going] out have to go through the official agent. There’s nobody else in the campaign that’s entrusted with that responsibility. So it is a big burden.”

Moreover, official agents are responsible for ensuring all financial transactions are legal, and could face fines or jail for violations, although Elections Canada is lenient with those who make “honest mistakes.”

The job has always been onerous but has become progressively more so since political-financing reforms went into effect in 2004, severely restricting donations and beefing up reporting requirements for contributions and expenses. The donation restrictions were tightened again in 2007.

Administrative measures can be used to ease the regulatory burden, but the Elections Canada report concludes that “the legislation itself drives most of the complexity that makes the current regime daunting.” To that end, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand will make recommendations to Parliament in the fall on legislative changes to reduce red tape.

The report says it is becoming difficult to find deputy returning officers and poll clerks to staff each polling station. Poll workers are dealing with more voters as the population increases and new regulations, such as those requiring voter identification, that require more intense training.

“We hear increasing reports of workers quitting after the training,” the report says.

The report says Elections Canada is increasingly concerned about the inability of returning officers to recruit the poll workers they need. Just days before last October’s election, 12 electoral districts faced “severe understaffing issues” that were resolved only by last-ditch initiatives, such as hiring 16- and 17-year-olds and regional swapping of resources.”

Ignatieff takes heat for allowing rebellion

JANE TABER

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail

February 3, 2009 at 9:35 PM EST

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former right-hand man warned Michael Ignatieff Tuesday that his leadership could be in peril after his decision to allow a rebellion by his Newfoundland and Labrador MPs.

Tom Flanagan said following the “dictates” of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams by allowing the province’s six Liberal MPs to vote against the Harper budget was the “easier course” to take for the Liberal Leader and will work “okay” in the short term.

“But it is a sign of weakness in the brutal world of politics and will create problems in the longer run. Harper would never do something similar,” said Mr. Flanagan, now a political science professor at the University of Calgary.

The budget passed Tuesday night with the support of Mr. Ignatieff and his Liberals. The six Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador stood with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to vote against the budget.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff arrives to speak to journalists in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday. (Reuters)

Liberal Leader gives Newfoundland MPs a ‘one-time’ pass to break ranks and vote against the federal budget to protest the Harper government

There was outrage in the province over measures that will cost Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.5-billion in federal transfers over the next three years.

Mr. Ignatieff allowed his MPs the unusual move of breaking with caucus after several days of frantic negotiations and a telephone call by the Liberal Leader to the Prime Minister asking him to delay the measure that penalizes the province. Mr. Harper refused.

“After much discussion of this issue with my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador I decided to permit them in the budget vote … a one-time vote of protest to signal their displeasure and my displeasure at these unilateral actions, which in my view weaken our federation,” Mr. Ignatieff said Tuesday.

Just a week ago, the Liberal Leader announced his party would support the budget – with an amendment calling for three updates – in a confidence vote. He argued that Canadians didn’t want another election.

But on Monday night, over a glass of Ontario Chardonnay and a dinner of hake on white bean and roasted cherry tomato salad, he changed his mind. The Liberal Leader had invited the six MPs and his chief of staff, Paul Zed, to his official residence at Stornoway for a “working dinner” on the issue.

“It was a very cordial and friendly dinner,” said a guest. “A consensus was reached.”

Some of the MPs, such as Scott Andrews, had been prepared to be punished. He had campaigned in his Avalon riding on the issue of equalization payments and was not changing his mind about his vote.

Mr. Ignatieff called Mr. Williams yesterday morning to inform him he was allowing the MPs to oppose the budget.

Elizabeth Matthews, a senior aide to Mr. Williams, rejected the notion that the decision will undermine Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership.

“We certainly aren’t running the Liberal caucus,” she said. “The Premier has said he does trust Mr. Ignatieff, obviously as opposed to the Prime Minister. We clearly see this as the PM’s problem. He made the promise, he broke the promise, and now he has made unilateral changes to punish us.

“Liberal MPs are in a tough spot to be sure,” she said.

Mr. Flanagan, who served as Mr. Harper’s chief of staff, said that the Prime Minister, faced with a similar situation, would have told his MPs: “It’s my way or the highway.”

“He wouldn’t have let a premier pull the strings on the members,” he said.

However, it was Premier Williams’s rage against Mr. Harper and his “Anything But Conservatives” campaign that led to the Conservatives being shut out in the province in the last election.

Even some Liberals are questioning Mr. Ignatieff’s decision, saying that in this first real test of his leadership, he couldn’t keep his MPs in line.

“It looks bad on Ignatieff and his control over his caucus,” said one long-time Liberal.

The optics of going against a leader in a budget vote are not good, which is why MPs are usually disciplined. In 2007, former Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi was kicked out of Stéphane Dion’s caucus for pledging to support the Conservative budget. In 1996, John Nunziata was kicked out of Jean Chrétien’s Liberal caucus for voting against the government’s budget over what he considered a broken promise not to rescind the GST.

Others among the Liberals are wondering where it will stop. Could Newfoundland MPs break ranks again on another issue? And what about Quebec MPs, who are upset with some of the budget measures?

For now, the Quebec Liberal caucus is supporting the budget despite opposition to certain provisions by Premier Jean Charest. However, Mr. Charest did not pressure Quebec Liberal MPs to vote against the budget.

“The Premier has always said that it isn’t up to him to tell federal MPs how to vote in Parliament. We said we disagreed with the unilateral changes made by Ottawa on equalization payments …We expressed our opinion. It is now up to the federal MPs from Quebec to vote according to their conscience,” said Mr. Charest’s press secretary, Hugo D’Amour.

Quebec Liberal MP Denis Coderre, the leader’s Quebec lieutenant, said that the issue involving Quebec is not the same as the one regarding Newfoundland.

“I truly feel there is a political vendetta between Harper and Williams,” he said, adding that the budget must be supported because there is an “urgent need” to “fight against the recession.”

“We’re [Quebec Liberal MPs] all going to vote for the budget issue to take our responsibility to show total solidarity,” he said.

With a report by Rhéal Séguin in Quebec