Canadian Election 2011 Research Part I

Well, we're off, again!

I don't know who to vote for so I am doing research. This is leading me to new frustration. I like the spin that parties get on some topics.

"Liberals call for immediate action to protect rail shippers; releasing a report does not constitute implementation" POSTED ON MARCH 21, 2011 (http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/liberals-call-action-protect-rail-shippers-releasing-report-constitute-implementation/)

The article suggests that the Government, formed by the Conservative members of Parliament, are responsible for the lack of cost review. “The last costing review was conducted in 1992”

It does not mention that the last costing review was conducted under a Conservative Government. It also does not mention that from 1993 until 2006 the Liberal government did not do any costing review.

I do not like being misled this way.

I'm not saying I support the Conservatives nor am I saying I do not support the Liberals...

I'm just saying...

Parliamentary Democracy

The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting (an assembly, a court) where people discuss matters. (see Wikipedia: Parliament)

Canadian parliamentarians have got the talking down to a fine art, mostly, but have missed the rest of the definition. You know, the bit about discussion. In an good discussion people take turns talking and listening. The more people involved, the more time you spend listening.

In the next public forum leading up to a federal election, ask your incumbent M.P. if they have talked through, heckled, or otherwise ignored anyone in the House during question period. And preface it with my earlier comment about listening.

The concept of a federal Parliamentary Democracy has an excellent premise: Select a representative to discuss how to best govern the the country. By convention and like in most structured debates, some of the representatives argue "for" and others argue "against" legislation.

The discussion should be the most important shaping tool for the legislation. If our debates were not automatic "nay-saying" of what the Government (or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) are putting forth, but actual discussions of how to make the legislation best serve the country, Canada would likely be able to create the most supportive national milieu for people, industry, and the environment.

It might not work better, but it won't work any worse. And we'd could maintain our polite, Canadian ways.