Canadians believe PMO has too much power, House of Commons not enough power (Nanos Poll Completed February 8)

It is really party power that has given the PMs office such power. Trudeau was the first to use whips to such an extent and Mulroney certainly followed suit, Chretien managed to as well. In Britain, we have witnessed the Parliamentary Party removing Margaret Thatcher and certainly Tony Blair knew the Party wanted him out. Since the revolt of George Hees and 5 others in 1962-63, we have not seen an attempt in Canada by a Party to reign in the leader of that Party.

It is my contention that we have come to mix US political thinking (leader) with a British Parliamentary system, thus making our elections too dependent on the party leader rather than the local consituency member. The result is the MP is beholden to his/her leader for their seat and any favours.

The only way to correct that would be to teach Canadians that the local member is whom they ought to vote for and not the leader. And if we had sufficient number of local members with integrity who were not beholden to the leader, the PMO would not longer have the power it does but I do not see such a change happening - regardless of the party in power.

[updated Wed Feb 24 04:56:40 -0500 2010]

It just goes to show one that the poll responders have a more diagnostic view of our dysfuctional federal governance model than the very MPs we elect to manage the country. The huge Prime Minister's Office and the UNELECTED intelligensia are the root of the problem. This political sickness was started by Trudeau and made pandemic by Harper. It is shameful that none of the political parties have challenged the political decision making of the PMO nor the huge personnel numbers in the PMO nor challenged the dimished relevance of debate, probing questions and the authority for the ELECTED Members of Parliament and for the authority of the House of Commons.

In a minority parliament ALL opposition parties could have challenged the budget for the PMO but NONE did. They all became pseudo-Conservatives and passed the budget like sheep as they were supposed to do these days rather than trigger an election.

It has to be assumed that the Liberals and the NDP see themselves someday as government and would rather like to profit from , as Ronald said, the bastardized "new normal". The PMO, as organized today, is a TOP-DOWN model where all governance decisions for Canada are first made in the PMO then presented to the sheep in the House of Commons to ratify. We have already seen several examples where the current Prime Minister has ignored bills passed in the House that he does not like nor support. In another century, the Sun King said HE WAS THE COUNTRY until he lost his head literally and quite rightly so.

Our Westminster model says the House of Commons represents the people and that is where the power for the governance of the land resides and where the people's issues will be presented and debated meaningfully and where question period is a legitimate time for the government to clarify its programme to the Opposition, who were also ELECTED. I believe one would call this governance from the BOTTOM-UP, as it should be.

I believe the Westminster model founded on tradition and entwined with so much unwritten trust and democratic expectations, has been successfully bastardized. I might say legally bastardized as trust, tradition and expectations have not been codified into law. A sorry situation.

Of course, the Senate has to be reformed to be an ELECTED , regionally representative body. Given the way governance has been going in this decade, I would not wish to be without that chamber that can, on occasion, "put on the brakes".

The Supreme Court is there to INTERPRET the law and, in no way, should it WRITE the law. Determining what laws for the land will be initiated, is the sole responsibility of the ELECTED Members of Parliament where such proposals are openly debated IN the House of Commons and where meaningful questions are responded to politely, sincerely and fully. Governments, when they have had a sensitive political or social issue, have tended to refer such issues to the Supreme Court for "interpretation" and thus avoid the issue.

I am surprised this poll did not identify the current diminished role of authority of Ministers who appear to be run on strings attached to the PMO. Deputy Ministers are usually career civil servants although their appointment now appear political for the term of the Minister. The civil servants in the Ministry follow the direction of the Deputy but I imagine the Deputy, too, is tied by strings to the PMO rather than taking direction from the Minister. Talk about Ministerial responsibility. There is a lot of quiet rot in our government model today. I can imagine the civil servants can see this as easily as the electorate.

If our MPs and the parties they represent do not smarten up quickly----and they are IN government, then I see an increasing role for such grassroots organizations OUTSIDE government such as Canadians Advocating Political Participation.

[updated Wed Feb 24 06:54:10 -0500 2010]

Nik,

Is this a one off type of poll or would it be one that is reasked after a period of time and the result compared to previous polls.

It would be interesting to see how the results would look like in six months to a year after the Conservatives have been able to put their stamp on the Senate and with having the Conservatives holding the balance will this change in the balance of power, will it give cause for Canadians to view the Senate differently and if so will the changes be reflected along party lines.

The reason that I am asking is that the Conservatives will be reintroducing the 18 crime bills that died at prorogation and assuming that the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc do not impend the reintroduction in the house and I do not see any reason as to why the opposition parties would block bills that they have already supported those bills - how will Canadians react to the Conservative Agenda being backed and not impeded by the Senate.

The Senate (n=1,001), Too much power 33.4%, The right amount of power 35.3%,Not enough power 15.2%, Unsure 16.1%, Senate net score*: +18.2

[updated Wed Feb 24 09:14:44 -0500 2010]

Bogus Poll results;

I expect the results for "The Office of the Prime Minister having too much power (41.6%) " would be different if these Canadians were told that Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton plans on taking prorogation powers away. Allowing for undemocratic taking over by Liberal/NDP coalition. A coalition that goes into an election with 616 candidates and the Cons only having 308 candidates; undemocratic Canada.

[updated Wed Feb 24 09:18:47 -0500 2010]

We have developed into a quasi-presidential system without the attendant checks and balances. In a Republican democracy like the US, the three branches of government, the Executive (President and Cabinet) Legislative (Congress and Senate) and Judicial (US Supreme Court) perform an intricate and cumbersome (at times) dance that ensures no one develops dictatorial powers. Unfortunately most of their system has become beholden to special interst Lobby groups, mostly Corporate,

In Canada there are no checks and balances . There is the PMO, and the PMO now routinely ignores the Supreme Court of Canada and the House.

[updated Wed Feb 24 09:47:32 -0500 2010]

Unless you work inside Ottawa how in the world would an average Canadian know whether the PMO has too much power or not. However, if you look at the first graphic 49% say it has the right amount or not enough. I have no idea what the net scores says other than NIk's explanation. Why?

Of course Canadians are getting their impressions from what the media says and of course since the Conservatives have been elected suddenly there is too much power in the PMO and that nasty Mr. Harper must be stopped. Right!

I have no idea whether it is fact or fiction but I haven't seen the Liberals do much about the power of the PMO despite having been in government for most of the last century. In fact Paul Martin when he was running for the leadership of the Libs had a rallying cry "who do you know in
the PMO". Jean Chretien was infamous for concentrating power but suddenly Mr. Harper is being held to a higher standard. Hypocrisy? You bet.

What does too much power mean anyway? He has the right to prorogue. Its the perogative of the PM. Change the constitution? Yeah right. That is going happen when hell freezes over. I would like to see specifics. What is Mr. Harper doing that is illegal or he does not have the right to do etc. Then maybe we could make some real judgements here. This sort of loose question does not serve much purpose at all.

I really don't understand the point that is served by this survey/poll Nik.

More importantly what needs to be changed and who is going to change it? The Liberals, if elected, I don't think so.

No sitting PM is going to limit the powers of his or future holders of his office and so we are really blowing smoke here.

[updated Wed Feb 24 12:48:25 -0500 2010]

I will answer the questions in order.

1. Too much power.
2. Too much power. There should be no senate.
3. Too much power.
4. Too much power.
5. Right amount of power.
6. Not enough power.

Power, to me, is a negative idea. Maybe we should substitute it with "authority" or "permission".

The worst scenario is when it resides in one person, the next worst is when it is exercised by a few. The only democratic way is when all people have the same amount of it. And when each expresses his/her power and the accumulated expression is tallied up and the majority consented to then , and only then, do we have democracy.

I reiterate ; Canadians are too conservative to change from the status quo. And educated and liberal electorate would quickly consent to establishing a system based on what I proposed above.

With that kind of system in place, we would eliminate whining, bickering, and regional animosity that exists today. We could progress much more rapidly and not stagnate or just increase in snail-like steps.

Of course those who have that negative term "power" will not give it up willingly.
Only the people can take it from them and only the people should have it.
I will not subscribe to any other way.

[updated Fri Feb 26 07:12:40 -0500 2010]

They Remembered To Pass Harper The ASA.

Nice to see the Prime Minister in Vancouver again encouraging our athletes...from what I can tell, there is no major tension headache in sight! What with the Conservative odd couple on display in recent days, one might of thought that the PM's blood pressure would be, at least, on the rise.

The Max and Helena Show proves precisely why some people are either not meant for cabinet -- or in a hurry to perhaps dampen their chances come the next shuffle...Max may think that outdoing the right on the right is the way to go but ultimately, he will find few personal benefits come with possibly following that strategy.

As for Helena, these are trying personal times and I not only sympathize with her -- in fact, I think she should be cut a considerable amount of slack. But she really needs to get her .... together.

[updated Sat Feb 27 20:26:58 -0500 2010]

The Budget: Stay Tuned For "Uncle Scrooge" Government.

I don't know about you but nothing warms this SOB's heart as much as the pending unraveling of the Harper government. And from the smoke signals already detected, they are off to a flying start, thank the Lord.

In a nutshell: no more money for future stimulus -- the tap has run dry. The axe is about to fall on government spending across the board. It won't be Paul Martin II but it won't be trifling either.

Can't you picture it? -- Uncle Scrooge taking a wack at public service pensions (always a capital idea if you're looking to get defeated) while the geniuses at Finance, and the minister in particular, defend reductions in corporate taxes until the cows come home!

Please Jim, say it isn't so. Might we humbly suggest that the stars are finally starting to align in the right direction (oops, sorry Conservatives) for the opposition parties.

Makes you wonder if Conservatives have a rather large batch of ceremonial swords on order. All I can say is go right ahead (damn, not again), the thrusting's going to go just fine...way to go!

[updated Sat Feb 27 22:47:32 -0500 2010]

Here are the numbers to show why Ignatieff blew it and there is no way to say anything else other than he blew it big time and all because he was writing a piece on how the games effected Canadians, instead of being at the "game".

If Ignatieff does not understand what that single game of Hockey represented to all Canadians and how this game would define us in a way we have not seen in this country since 1972, he will never understand this country.

And all one has to do is going to the polling numbers coming out now and look at the viewer numbers for the game - 80% of Canada tuned in and Ignatief tuned Canada out.

Game over.

1) Some 80 per cent of Canadians watched part of the Olympic hockey final with an average audience of 16.6 million viewers, according to CTV.

2) The game was broadcast live on nine television networks in eight languages, the host broadcaster said.

3) Some 26.5 million Canadians took in part of Canada's 3-2 overtime win over the U.S.

[updated Mon Mar 01 21:58:17 -0500 2010]