CCP Platform
Major Structural Reform of How Canada’s Parliamentary System Operates
The CCP has only one item on its political platform - changing the way government functions to ensure the primary influence on what it does is Canadians.
The result is our Party doesn’t offer its recommendations on a wide range of topics to convince you its candidates ought to be elected every four years. What is done in the public's name becomes the exclusive domain of 33 million voters.
Because technology has advanced swiftly in the last 20 years, allowing for a new way for the ‘will of the people’ to be reflected in policy formation, the CCP will implement an Internet-based referendum system on policy.
Several times a year proposed government policies will be put to a vote. Matters that have a particular geographical scope i.e., national, regional, provincial, intra-province-regional and local, will each have its own separate referendum process.
First, password protected accounts will be set up by each Canadian. Social insurance numbers and other privacy law protected government information will be used to verify identities.
The public will be solicited for suggestions on what ought to be on the ballot. You will go to a government website and add your name like a petition; and once a threshold number of ‘electronic signatures’ is obtained the process will move to the next stage.
There will be three to five scheduled TV discussions and debates with experts and specialists in relevant fields to inform citizens about the nature of the proposed policy and ramifications upon implementation. Members of the public will also have direct input into this forum. Political party leaders, cabinet ministers, MPs, MLAs and municipal council members will be invited to participate and offer their views - but only if they have qualifications, work-related experience or some other attribute that contributes to having a quality conversation.
Then the vote will take place. When a policy is approved by a majority of votes cast the government’s sole responsibilities are to implement the policy and retain independent experts and specialists to conduct on-going multi-disciplinary empirical analyses of its direct and indirect effects.
On occasion the vote count will be less than required. In that event the process will revert back to the discussion and debate stage and a second vote held within 6 months. During this time the policy suggestion could be slightly or significantly amended to reflect public input. If a third vote is unsuccessful, the Government may implement a policy of its own design and be subject to removal at the next election if the public is dissatisfied with its alternative.
Accommodation is made for approved polices that are controversial on legal or moral grounds or there are impracticalities to implementation. The override - the accountability mechanism - is having a free vote in the House of Commons by the Government. If it achieves an 85% majority in favor of decertification it may substitute a policy of its own design. Here too the public has the option at the next election to vote in another party.
Members of the public and groups will be permitted to promote their position on proposed policies on television, in print, on the Internet and by way of mass mailings. Regulations involving transparency disclosures and financing will ensure those with vast sums of money cannot secretly dominate the discourse and there is a level playing field for everyone.
Reform of Cabinet Ministers’ Policy Making Function
Another structural change to how this country’s political system functions involves contributions made by those appointed by prime ministers and premiers to lead, manage and oversee government departments and agencies. Usually they’re chosen because of patronage and political convenience and from a pool of expertise that’s limited by who’s elected to Parliament and legislatures.
The result is ministers who more often than not don’t have academic qualifications or work-related experience and must therefore rely exclusively on unelected bureaucrats and are prone to inappropriate influence from special interest groups and the wealthy.
Consequently, there ought to be a decoupling of the criteria of appointment from the election system. As is the case in other countries, political leaders ought to be free to make appointments from the private sector, where there's an abundance of people who have requisite academic and/or professional and/or technical qualifications, significant work experience and a reputation of high standing within the community, sector or industry to which the portfolio relates.
When Ministers have what’s necessary to competently oversee their departments and agencies, they can also contribute to the referendum voting system in a meaningful way. For example, they’ll be able to
(i) usefully determine who ought to be on the panels for televised discussions and debates, and
(ii) choose experts, specialists and academics who will conduct assessments of voter approved policies to ensure they achieve intended results and meet voter expectations, recommend modest or major improvements or certify the policy as a failure.
