The 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 decision-making is based upon the needs, desires and expectations of the Canadian people.
The result is our Party doesn't offer its recommendations on a wide range of topics to convince citizens its candidates ought to be elected every four years. What is done in the public's name becomes the exclusive domain of 36+ million voters.
Because technology has advanced swiftly over the past 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; otherwise known as "direct democracy".
Several times a year citizenry, academia, stakeholder and politician proposed policies will be put to a vote. Matters that have a particular geographical scope i.e., federal, national-regional (like eastern, Quebec, central, western), provincial, intra-province regional (like metropolitan & rural) and local, will each have their 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.
Suggestions on what ought to be on the ballot will be solicited from the aforementioned four sources. They will go to a government website and add their 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, its pros and cons, 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 meaningful and productive dialogue.
Then the vote will take place. When a policy is approved by a majority, the government's sole responsibilities are to implement it by allocating financial and other resources and retain independent experts and specialists to conduct on-going multi-disciplinary empirical analyses to ensure its goal is attained.
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 emotionally charged, controversial on legal, constitutional or moral grounds or there are impracticalities to implementation. The only check on the peoples' sovereignty is an override mechanism in the form of a free vote in the House of Commons, Legislature or City Council by the Government. If it achieves an 85% majority in favour 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 viz. 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 that a level playing field exists 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 , premiers and mayors 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, legislatures and city councils.
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 prone to inappropriate influence from party insiders, 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.