January 13, 2003
Canadafreepress.com is cautiously optimistic that Jack Layton, who has proven that he’s had it with Toronto, will succeed as leader of the flagging New Democratic Party. Letters to the editor from constituents during his leadership campaign accuse the city councillor of taking the taxpayers of Toronto for granted. Very little has been said--most noticeably by Layton--about his city-paid benefits for a full five months.
How can constituents expect Layton to be interested in his Toronto ward when he’s just itching to be leader of the Opposition in Ottawa? Indeed, Layton now promises that Canadians would be able to decide in a referendum whether to dramatically alter the nation’s electoral system--should a Jack Layton-led NDP wield influence in a future minority Parliament.
That promise emerged with the status of his being acknowledged as the front runner in the NDP leadership race.
In fact, Layton promises to make the referendum a condition of his support for a governing coalition.
The reform he’s pushing would bring about a form of proportional representation that is already in place in the vast majority of democratic countries around the world. In essence, that system ensures parties have a representative in legislatures roughly equal to their share of the national vote.
With proportional representation, the Canadian Alliance would not be out in the cold.
Citing the Canadian status quo as an undemocratic system, Layton said, "It allows a party that, generally speaking, does not have a majority of people voting for it to become the government."
With visions of Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in his head, Layton said he would be prepared to work with other opposition party leaders to convince Canadians the electoral system must be reformed. There is no doubt that the barely existing NDP and Progressive Conservative parties would benefit big time from the change. (All three parties have already passed policy statements calling for a serious examination of that alternative).
To consider the full potential of proportional representation, one has only to consider its impact on the Canadian Alliance, which took 24 percent of the vote in Ontario in the 2000 election. With the new system in place, the Alliance would have won two dozen seats rather than just two.
The implementation of a proportional representation is, of course, being fiercely opposed by the ruling Liberals. Their party would have ended up with roughly 123 seats rather than 172. The bottom line here is it would have forced Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to make concessions with other parties to run a minority government.
The NDP and the PCs, which both suffer from having support scattered across the country, live with the reality of losing their official-party status to boot. (The minimal number of seats needed to qualify is 12.)
With a significant number of seats in Ontario, the Alliance would no longer be seen as a western rump. Liberals would no longer be as rare as Vikings in the western provinces.
The idea of a proportional representation electoral system for Canada is certainly not Layton’s. But for once his unbridled ambition would be serving the rest of the country.
Meanwhile, Jack off to Ottawa is the best thing that can happen to Toronto. Jack Layton has cost the City of Toronto megabucks with a non-stop career in social engineering.
Lucky for his constituents that the city councillor who’s never there has finally outgrown his bluejeans.
For those who despair because of the possibility that Jack will breathe new life into the NDP, Jack can’t do much harm in Ottawa where other egos are destined to eat him alive.
A city of Toronto without Jack Layton?
It’s almost too good to be true.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement