# Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)



## McG (30 Jun 2004)

> *Electoral reform moves higher on agenda*
> The Edmonton Journal
> 
> Ottawa - The minority government that emerged from Monday's federal election may actually lead to long-awaited changes to the way Canadians elect their representatives, says the head of a citizens' group.
> ...



I hope this is wrong.   I have heard several spins on what the Commons could look like under proportional representation and I don't like any of them.   In all cases the responsibility of the MP to a given constituency is reduced.   True Proportional representation would remove constituencies all together and MPs would be solely responsible to the parties that appoint them to fill seats earned.   This system would bring about an end to any independent MPs.

Compromises suggest 1/3 to 1/2 the house be filled by proportional representation while the remainder be constituency based.   This sounds nice, but again my voice gets obscured in a constituency that may now be four times larger (as constituencies will be merged to reduce thier numbers to a fraction of the house).   The MPs obligation to the individual is comparatively reduced as he is compelled to spread his time over so many more individuals with so many more concerns.

I think Canada would be much better served by an elected Senate.   I propose a Senate which is elected every 5 years & seats are awarded by proportional representation within provinces/regions.   The current seat distribution (by province/region) in the Senate does not need to change (but it would not hurt to give each province an equal number of Senators).   The effect of this would be that MPs are still just as responsible to their constituents while those people who are best represented by smaller parties can still have their voices heard through the proportional Senate.   This could even result in more independent & small party MPs as people would be less concerned with "strategic voting."

           


Note:   I refer to Senate "region" as I see the territories voting as a single block.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jul 2004)

I am tempted to post something a little more indepth, but I simply don't have the energy.

I don't want to see any form of Proportional Represention in the House of Commons.  Even a mixed form, which has both representatives and members elected proportionally, creates a two-tiered system that still strengthens party politics.  The representatives of the ridings have to ensure they have the confidence of a plurality of their riding, or they will lose their seats.  Not so for PR elected members, who have to keep in the good graces of their respective party machinery.  Who decides how the PR elected senators are appointed?  Depart from the democratic vote to party infighting for higher spots on the list?

I think you are quite right on a better solution being in the form of Senate Reform.  I firmly believe in a Triple E senate; Equal, Effective, and Elected.  What is the point of leaving senate seat distribution the way it is (Ontario 24, Quebec 24, NS 10, NB 10, PEI 4, Manitoba 6, Sask 6, Alberta 6, BC 6, NF 6, Yuk 1, NWT 1, and Nun 1), this only leads to Ottawa and Quebec having to much clout in a federal system.  Australia has a Senate in which each of the six states send 12 Senators and each of the three territories sends 2.

I propose Canada's ailing federation be served by two House's of Parliament.  The upper house, the Senate, is the bedrock for support for regional issues.  Like the US Senate, each province of Canada would be alotted the same amount of Senators, regardless of population.  Some sort of inclusion of the territories is important as well.  The Senate would be elected for 6 year set terms, and would have independant legislative duties, acting as a check on the Commons.  I could see PR fitting a little better into provincial senatorial votes, but I still oppose it for the reasons highlighted earlier.  A mixed form of PR could be better, perhaps a preferrential ballot throughout the Province would insure a better mix and allow for independents.

Canada's lower House, the Commons, will remain as it is today as a representative of population groups.  We complain of the undue influence of Ontario and Quebec in elections, but we must remember that half the population lives here; they are the Majority.  With an effective senate we can remove rules prohibiting reduction of Commons seats; we can find a reasonable number that can define a riding a set the number of seats according to that.  I would advocate that the House of Commons would be elected on fixed 4 or 5 year terms (5 year terms could ensure that Senate elections and Commons election never fall on the same year, pros and cons?).  The Prime Minister would be from the leading Party in the Commons and select his Cabinet, on approval by the Senate, from other members of Commons.  As well, any appointments made by the Prime Minister (Supreme Court, Governor General, Auditor General) would have to be approved by the Senate.  As well, non-confidence votes (not even law, just convention) would be abolished, allowing for more free debate and free voting on the floor of both Houses

This Senatorial power of approval can do much to reduce the power that is highly concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister (our head of government has the most power out of any industrialized democracy, look what happens when assholes like Trudeau or Cretin get in).  I think a layout like this could place the proper checks and balances upon Majority governments and maintain the principles of Peace, Order, and Good Government that our Founding Lawyers...err Fathers built Confederation upon.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

Thanks McG for posting a more productive thread.  Too many raw surfaces today.

Infanteer.  I agree with you.  

The direct representation of the House of Commons needs to be kept at all costs.  Maybe the first past the post system could be swapped out for the single vote transferrable.  (Rank the candidates 1 to umpty ump, last candidate dropped and votes assigned to the remainder - conservative leadership convention). At least that way the actual representative has some claim to a degree of support from the majority of their constituents and the constituents have an elected, directly accountable and responsible representative.

Likewise I think the Senate is the place for some form of proportional representation with elections being conducted by provinces and territories definitely but possibly also by natives, interest groups, and maybe even the federal government. If the idea is to get a house of "Sober Second Thought" and supply as many qualified viewpoints as possible.

But with two authoritative houses, do we need a tie-breaker?  Do we need to, as I suggested elsewhere, elect the Governor-General?  As we have all been reminded lately she is not without power.  She only lacks authority - the moral authority that comes from popular support measured in an election.

And again I will apologize for my comments on the other threads - but I will not withdraw them.

Cheers....


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2004)

I'm all for an elected Governor General (appointed by the Queen on the recomendation of the People of Canada) but I would keep the executive powers with the PM & Cabinet.  There are other ways of breaking a deadlock between the houses.  The UK has a system in which the commons can pass legislation that is opposed in the House of Lords by passing the act under three consecutive governments (or something to that effect).


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2004)

You are right McG.

PM and the government should be in the house.


----------



## Yard Ape (14 Jul 2004)

You should make this a poll.
I'll go for an elected senate & GG.


----------



## Ryoshi (14 Jul 2004)

I am certainly for Senate reform (the current version is effectivly useless), but at the same time, I do have some minor worries about too many changes to align the Canadian system with the US system. I'm not an expert in political science or the government systems, but to me, the US system is built on checks and balances with and overall purpose to block legislation and action. Each branch of the government checks and balances another, and unless you please a lot of people in a few different places/houses, your proposed legislation would be tied up for eons, if not flat out rejected.

On the other hand, the current Canadian system grants far greater power to the ruling party and especially PM, it seems to allow for far speedier change and action. While a lot of this has to do with getting elected with a majority government... Canadians on the whole seem to like majority governments. I like the idea of a government that is able to get things done, in terms of not being tied up by a million and one checks and balances to their power. Of course, the trade off is if the standing government or PM pushes through bad bills and policies.

Still.. I'm hesitant about placing too many barriers to a speedy and effective government. Even though it may not be particularly fast now, I don't see how adding more checks and balances would help speed up the process.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2004)

As has been pointed out on several political blogs, the whole "party representation" issue is a red herring.  Political parties don't really have any particular constitutional standing.  Parliament is composed of riding representatives who are directly chosen by riding electors (voters).  Party affiliations are an afterthought which helps to simplify governance (ie. figuring out which clique can control Parliament or the balance of power in Parliament), and there are some institutional characteristics that have been grafted on over the years (eg. funding based on party status).

No form of proportional representation based on party affiliation is necessary or appropriate.

As for transferable vote schemes to ensure each MP's tally is a majority rather than plurality, I am unconvinced that the sum of, for example, "first + second place" votes should be given greater weight than "first place only" votes.  Electors have a choice of voting for the best representative, or one who will be a proxy for the party leader of preference.  If an elector is lucky, both qualities reside in the same person.  Caveat emptor.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2004)

> I am certainly for Senate reform (the current version is effectivly useless), but at the same time, I do have some minor worries about too many changes to align the Canadian system with the US system. I'm not an expert in political science or the government systems, but to me, the US system is built on checks and balances with and overall purpose to block legislation and action. Each branch of the government checks and balances another, and unless you please a lot of people in a few different places/houses, your proposed legislation would be tied up for eons, if not flat out rejected.



Perhaps we can look to a "check and balance" system like the US and take what is best from there.   The very fact that 60% of the electorate that voted did not want the ruling parties means there should be some checks and balances to deter the near fiat rule we have today.



> On the other hand, the current Canadian system grants far greater power to the ruling party and especially PM, it seems to allow for far speedier change and action. While a lot of this has to do with getting elected with a majority government... Canadians on the whole seem to like majority governments. I like the idea of a government that is able to get things done, in terms of not being tied up by a million and one checks and balances to their power.   Of course, the trade off is if the standing government or PM pushes through bad bills and policies.



We seem to have had a lot of that recently.
-----



> As has been pointed out on several political blogs, the whole "party representation" issue is a red herring.   Political parties don't really have any particular constitutional standing.   Parliament is composed of riding representatives who are directly chosen by riding electors (voters).   Party affiliations are an afterthought which helps to simplify governance (ie. figuring out which clique can control Parliament or the balance of power in Parliament), and there are some institutional characteristics that have been grafted on over the years (eg. funding based on party status).



Isn't unwritten convention part of our Constitutional process.   Even the layout of the House of Commons, with a side for the ruling party and a side for the official opposition, lends itself to party solidarity (who wants to "cross the floor"?).   Even if Parties are not written into the formula of leadership that we use, we must give recognition to the de facto ruling nature of them when contemplating reform.   Perhaps we need to change the seating arrangement to one of a semi-circle or something more conducive to the notion of Edmund Burke's "deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole" as opposed to the factionalized groupthink we have now.



> No form of proportional representation based on party affiliation is necessary or appropriate.



At least someone agrees with me.



> As for transferable vote schemes to ensure each MP's tally is a majority rather than plurality, I am unconvinced that the sum of, for example, "first + second place" votes should be given greater weight than "first place only" votes.   Electors have a choice of voting for the best representative, or one who will be a proxy for the party leader of preference.   If an elector is lucky, both qualities reside in the same person.   Caveat emptor.



Too true.   We should look to improving the quality and abilities of our individual Parliamentarians rather than changing the way they are given their position.   Sending an idiot to represent you will not change if you give him or her a plurality, a majority, a majority of "frist and second" place votes, etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2004)

If the aim of reform were to achieve the good of the whole, we would be best advised to energetically pursue means of impoverishing (rather than empowering) parties.


----------



## Yard Ape (14 Jul 2004)

Might an elected Senate do that?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2004)

I think measures to strengthen the role of the individual Parliamentarian are needed.  Eliminate the non-confidence vote, and make all members able to propose legislation, even that which deals with public funding.  As we have it now, too much power is centralized in the Cabinet and the Prime Ministers Office.  I would like to be able to go to my MP and have him effectively heard, rather then him being the frontman for those who yank the party strings.


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> You should make this a poll.
> I'll go for an elected senate & GG.


Done.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Aug 2004)

I think the biggest advantage of splitting our executive and legislative branches would be to raise the profile of parliamentary votes.

We all say we vote for our MP based on his or her good qualities, but does that really matter?   In the end, we are voting for the party and its leader, who will form government on some sort of ad-hoc "electoral college" (the 308 seats in the house).   Traditional measures prohibit an MP from having any real effect on governence, unless your fortunate enough to have a Cabinet Minister in your riding.   Party discipline and solidarity can muffle even the best of Representatives.   You could lobby your MP until you're blue in the face to increase defence spending, but he/she is powerless to propose anything due to restrictions on backbenchers proposing bills that deal with the public purse.   

If we had seperate elections for for Parliamentarians and Senators, then there would be no need to get caught up in "national debates" and "leadership profiles", that could be reserved for the election of the Governor General (Head of Government, representing the Head of State); where he or she gets their Cabinet from is another can of worms.   Issues would filter down to a more local level, with Parliamentarians having a real voice in representing their seat (of course, some restrictions would have to be removed, as I stated above).

In between the local MP's and the national Governor General would be the regional Senators, who would probably do a better job in representing us then the superfluous Provincial Governments.   They would be the force of Federalism, ensuring that regional issues are properly addressed in a Triple-E Senate.


----------



## McG (3 Aug 2004)

Are you suggesting a US style executive in which the Ministers/Secretaries are not elected officials?

While we have had cabinet ministers that were not members of either house, they are rare.  Even the unelected Senators rarely find themselves in Cabinet.  Because the executive generally is mixed into the House of Commons, opposition members have the ability to question decisions/actions of the executive directly.  I think this is good.  At election time, citizens also have the power to punish Cabinet Ministers that have done a particularly unsatisfying job.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2004)

> Are you suggesting a US style executive in which the Ministers/Secretaries are not elected officials?



Possibly; that's why I said it was another can of worms.

Obviously their are pros and cons to having a civilian appointment vs a Parliamentary appointment.

     I might say I am a little more inclined towards having a "US Style" system of civilian appointment followed by Parliamentary confirmation.   You could avoid conflict of interest issues in that a MP happens to be at both times a representative of his riding and of his Ministry.   If I am a citizen of riding X, I want my minister to focus on the local issues and dealing with pertinent legislation, not trying to manage the budget and deal with the nightmare bureaucracy that is the Department of National Defence.   
     As well, I do not like the fact that Cabinet appointments from the House of Commons creates a "two-tiered" system of MP's.   If you are lucky enough to have an MP who is an influential Cabinet Minister (Say you live in Edmonton Central), the issues of your riding have a better chance of being voiced, as opposed to if you are one of the other 270 or so ridings that are represented by backbenchers (even more pronounced if your MP is NDP or Conservative).   
     Finally, the 308 MP's and 100 or so Senators may not be the best choices for Minister of National Defence, whereas there may be someone who is not a legislator that would be excellent choice as a minister.   General Lew MacKenzie seems to be the popular choice for Defence Minister; an elected Governor General, regardless of party affiliation, could seek him out for the job figuring his credentials are more important then his appeal to his local electorate.


----------



## ags281 (3 Aug 2004)

I have to say I'm not too keen on going the US route. Get a republican executive but a democrat legislative branch (or vice versa) and you will have the same difficulties as with minority government, except the deals are even more likely to happen behind closed doors. Not to mention the joys of dipolar politics   :.

You'd likely be hard pressed to find strong support for switching cold turkey from our current system to a version of the American one among people versed in comparative politics - not because such a system couldn't work, but because it's chances of working HERE are not all that great. Turning things upside down may eventually be successful, but it would require a long period of working out the kinks, with at very best - and I'm talking fluke extended good luck streak here - equal chance of success as less drastic changes to the current system. Why accept greater risk of failure for no better chance of success? We're better served using countries with political backgrounds closer to ours as case studies (e.g. Aussies and Kiwis).

I think we should be looking at reform to our electoral system and electing the senate within our current basic framework. For the Commons I'd take either a MIXED proportional system or transferable vote, but dislike the current system and am dead set against a straight up proportional one. For the senate, a mixed proportional system would work well I think, though I could tolerate pure proportional, with provinces or regions as multi-member districts in either case. 

Actually, now that I consider the two together, I'd say a single transferable vote for the Commons and mixed proportional elected Senate is probably my preferred option. This would cut down on wasted and strategic votes for local MP's, but satisfies the need for a more representative dimension in government with the senate, thus still keeping majorities in the Commons, well... common (no pun intended).   

An elected GG would be kind of nice, but the vote would probably have to be limited to a list of 4 or 5. While an elected GG could recover some of the position's former significance, such a change is irrelevant by comparison to the others.


ADD version:
- single transferable vote Commons
- mixed PR Senate in multimember districts
- don't care too much about GG by comparison, but elected would be nice


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2004)

> While an elected GG could recover some of the position's former significance, such a change is irrelevant by comparison to the others.



Actually I think you are wrong there.  The elected Governor-General is the most significant of all.  The G-G has many powers in law.  The holder of the position is only constrained by the lack of popular support.  A situation that would be remediedd if the G-G were elected.

Keep in mind that all bills are signed by the G-G, the G-G can dissolve parliament and choose the PM.  As well all of those "Prime Ministerial Appointments" to the Courts, Crown Corporations, Commissions, Civil Service, RCMP, DND, Senate, etc  .... all of those are at the PM's "recommendation" the appointment is actually in the "gift" of the Governor-General.


----------



## rdschultz (3 Aug 2004)

Have there been any (recent) instances where the GG has refused any of the "recommendations" of the PM?  What would happen in that situation?

I'm the one that chose option 3, but mostly out of a lack of understanding of the matter.  I'm not saying we should not have an elected GG, but I'm not so sure how it would work.  If the GG does have real power, and as you say, power over much of what the PM does, could there not be a problem if the GG had a conservative agenda, and the Liberals were in power (unlikely, sure, but what if)?  I'd like to think a GG could remain impartial to any party ties, but at the very least they're going to have a bias one way or another.  At least it seems to me, because they would have to campaign on some kind of issues. 

Also, what length of term would the GG have, if elected?  If its too long, and there's a change in government, the GG could force a stalemate in government.  Too short, and you'd run the same risk, if the people elect a GG with vastly different views during the middle of the PM's term, because they don't like the way things are going. Maybe a system where if the GG refuses to make an appointment or sign a bill, there's an automatic recall and an election for his/her job.  Then again, that would make it beneficial for the GG to play kiss-ass to keep their job, and remove any sort of power that the accountability of an elected position would provide.  

If I'm missing the boat on something, please let me know.  I'm typing as I think here, so my ideas are more than likely full of holes.


----------



## RCA (3 Aug 2004)

My feelings are the Executive branch must remain elective. In this way they are accountable to the House of Commons through having a seat there.

Leave the House of Commons as the status quo (except possibly a fixed term), and move to an elected Senate, based on equal number per province and based on a proportional system, and a fixed elective schedule staggered from the House of Commons.

 The Senate would then have final voice for all appointments from Crown Corporations, The Supreme Court, Bank of Canada, the Governor General etc. The Cabinet would not fall under this, because this is the PMs prerogative. The Senate has veto power, but can be overtunred by a 60-75% re vote in the House.

The GG remains the Head of State, but only has rubberstamp powers as she has now. 

This only works if the Senate can be kept non-partisan. Once moving to an elected body, some form of hierarchy must be set up. For example who leads etc. Once this starts, it is very difficult to keep party politics out. The check is the staggered voting schedule for each entity. Other then that, I don't know how to keep The Senate above it.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2004)

I've come to completely oppose any form of proportional system of representation as it only serves to further entrench party politics.  I'd like to see each politician elected on his own merits.

RCA, you worry about the Senate being overtaken by political parties; don't you feel that a proportional system, which makes gives senate seats right to a party to decide on who to fill it with, will do exactly this.  Perhaps some sort of dual seat system could work.  For example, a province has 10 seats.  Each senatorial riding within the province has two seats.  The top two vote getters will get the two seats, giving you a senior and a junior senator from each riding; 5 senior and 5 junior senators go to Parliament.  I bet you about 70% of the electorate would have their voices heard if you could work something like this out.

As for an executive/legislative split, I'd say it is more in the realm of idea then Senatorial reform, which I believe is very necessary for the health of our democracy.  However, when we speak of this split do we necessarily have to draw immediate comparisons to the system the United States uses?  I know France and Germany both have systems with a President and a Prime Minister/Chancellor.  I believe in France, the President has more power, while in Germany the Chancellor seems to be the leading figure, but either way both countries have functional heads of state and government.  Could Canada function with an elected Governor General and an elected Prime Minister, each position with its own respective powers?


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2004)

If memory serves and without checking fact, in the original US system senate members were to be elected by the respective state legislatures.  Should provincial senators be elected for two-year terms (staggered one in each year) by provincial legislatures, from nominations submitted by the public at large?

Note that the point of a short (two year) term would be to both discourage career politicians from entering senate life and encourage citizens to consider a two year hiatus in their private careers to serve in the senior legislative body of the nation.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2004)

> If memory serves and without checking fact, in the original US system senate members were to be elected by the respective state legislatures.  Should provincial senators be elected for two-year terms (staggered one in each year) by provincial legislatures, from nominations submitted by the public at large?



I am not sure if they were appointed by state governors or elected by state legislatures.  Either way, I don't like the idea for two reasons:

1)  I am not a big fan of provincial politics all together.  I think we would be better off without wasting time and energy on Provincial governments (ie: what do they do that the Federal Government can't?)

2)  If a Canadian Senate was composed of an equal amount of senators from each province, then you wouldn't see much variation among provincial "Blocs".  For example, using 10 as our magical number; what is to stop a province with an NDP majority from sending 10 NDP senators to Parliament, whether they are appointed or elected by the provincial government.  Seems to open up the Senate to cronyism and patronage, exactly what we are trying to eliminate with Senatorial reform proposals.  I'd prefer Senators to be held directly accountable to an electorate.



> Note that the point of a short (two year) term would be to both discourage career politicians from entering senate life and encourage citizens to consider a two year hiatus in their private careers to serve in the senior legislative body of the nation.



Although I can see pros and cons to both long and short terms, I would err to the longer terms.  Short terms are not necessarily going to deter the career politician (look at the US House of Representatives).  I would like to see a longer term so that officials can properly enact and follow through with their proposals.  To counter this, perhaps more accountibility through a system of recall is neccesary?  The revolving door of officials in 2 year terms would make voting seem to be more of a chore, where we could never really get to know our representative.

If I were to peg elections and terms, I would work it like this:

Elected Senate and Elected House: Senate elections on fixed date in spring; 6 year term.  House elections on fixed date in autumn; 4 year term.

Elected Senate, Elected House, and Elected Executive (G-G): Senate and House elected on fixed date in spring; 6 and 4 year terms.  G-G election on fixed date in autumn; 5 year term.


----------



## RCA (3 Aug 2004)

What I actually said was become partisan. This is the biggest problem, and  I can't think of a solution. Other then to mitigate its effects. Therefore the proportional system (I not a great fan either) would counter the "first past the post. Your MP is accountable to you, the constituent. The Senate would be accountable to something else [province (?)]. The province would pick from the slate of candidates based on the portion of the vote, so an NDP  province couldn't select 10 NDPers unless they had 100% of the vote. Or you break the province into areas, broken how ever, as long as the # of Senators are even and don't go over 10 (or 12 or 15 whatever). Example, Manitoba  - 5 from Winnipeg, 5 from the rest of MB, Ontario - 5 for Southern On, and 5 from Northern On.

You have a strong dislike for provincial governments (my guess an extra layer) but they are necessary in a country our size, because we are regional by nature. A solution that works in the Maritimes, won't necessarily work on the Paraires. 
And I'm a strong federalist.

 In France, the President is head of sate and the executive, while the Prime Minister is head of government. In Germany, the chancellor is head of the executive and government, and the President is head of state.

Recalls won't work because antone with an axe to grind can play that card. Witness Arnold and California. Over the years our politics has become much more polarizing with parties doing anything to stay in power. Recalls would be just another tool for them to play.

For a Head of State, all we need some one to sign the bills, accept dissolution of gov'ts (not necessary on fixed elective terms), and show the flag. Therefore this person can be appointed, and confirmed by the Senate. An elected one, probably would be preferable, but it is a non-partisan post, and do we need another election and expense that will go with it (on top of elected Senators and MPs.


----------



## ags281 (3 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am not a big fan of provincial politics all together.   I think we would be better off without wasting time and energy on Provincial governments (ie: what do they do that the Federal Government can't?)


Out of curiosity Infanteer, are you from Ontario?   :blotto:

Seriously though, the provincial governments are there to prevent people in one region from being screwed over because a federal government is more interested in the other side of the country (note that unfortunately this does nothing to prevent people from being screwed over in general). Feelings of alienation (e.g. Quebec and western provinces) would go through the roof if there was only a federal level.

I'd like to address a few more things brought up by people here, but have to run. I'll get to it later.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2004)

>ie: what do they [provincial governments] do that the Federal Government can't?)

Except for defending and securing the nation and promoting its interests abroad, everything - if efficiency is a consideration.  If we can spare no expense, then we are free to indulge in federally crafted one-size-fits-all solutions; no community need worry, for example, about deciding between whether to employ finite financial resources to build schools or roads.

But financial resources are finite, you say?  Well, then let's devolve the decision-making power down to the lowest level: province before nation, regional district before province, municipality or community before regional district, and family before community.  That way each group can decide at its respective level of responsibility how to meet its most pressing needs instead of its peers' most pressing needs.  If my community needs a walk-in family clinic rather than a MRI clinic, we aren't likely to be well-served if big government buys us a MRI clinic.

Everyone has problems they believe they could solve if only they had enough money and power.  Unfortunately the problems are different.  So, it is best to let people solve problems at the lowest possible levels.

The number of senators need not be identical for each province.  Unless the Senate has legislative power of its own, short terms should suffice for a role as a watchdog of legislation passed by Parliament.  Even with party cronyism, I would expect the Senate to have a more interesting and useful balance of ideological representation than Parliament.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2004)

Yeesh, I sure opened a can of worms with this one.



> Other then to mitigate its effects. Therefore the proportional system (I not a great fan either) would counter the "first past the post. Your MP is accountable to you, the constituent. The Senate would be accountable to something else [province (?)]. The province would pick from the slate of candidates based on the portion of the vote, so an NDP   province couldn't select 10 NDPers unless they had 100% of the vote.



What would happen if I wanted to run for the Senate as an Independent because I felt the NDP was to socialistic, the Liberals had too much entrenched cronyism, and the Conservatives had too many regressive skeletons in the closet?   Should I be denied my chance to represent my province in the Senate because don't want to submit myself to party politics?



> Or you break the province into areas, broken how ever, as long as the # of Senators are even and don't go over 10 (or 12 or 15 whatever). Example, Manitoba   - 5 from Winnipeg, 5 from the rest of MB, Ontario - 5 for Southern On, and 5 from Northern On.



That might be necessary.   Take BC for example.   How is a senator supposed to express regional interests as defined by someone living in downtown Vancouver (multiculturalism, environmental issues) as opposed to regional issues as defined by someone in a small Northern forestry town (International trade, health of the forestry industry).   Although I would argue that this may fall upon the Member of Parliament in the House to deal with, we probably wouldn't go wrong by giving "areas of responsibility" for Senators elected from a province.



> You have a strong dislike for provincial governments (my guess an extra layer) but they are necessary in a country our size, because we are regional by nature. A solution that works in the Maritimes, won't necessarily work on the Paraires.



As for doing away with provincial governments, the main line of my reasoning is that I think they are no different then the Federal government in the sense that they are macro-political identities.   My MLA, in far away Victoria, does about as good of a job as my MP, far away in Ottawa.   The fact that I need a representative to manage my political matters at two distinct levels is redundant.   I would prefer to see Canada built upon a dual system, a macro-political level where representatives work as part of the greater whole for national issues, and a micro-political level where citizens take a more direct role in determining local politics.

I'm looking at provincial roles, and I just don't see how giving them to a provincial government, with its own codes and laws, makes things more efficient or democratic.   For example:

Health Care:   Government management of Health Care has proved to be a farce, no matter what large bureaucracy manages it.   If health care was given to the local level to manage (starting with the individual citizen managing his own universal health care dollars with a Medical Service Account system), solutions could be tailored to meet local health care needs, rather than some large government bureaucracy deciding what is best.

Highways and Motor Vehicles:   Do the laws of physics change from province to province, requiring different laws and driving standards, as well as different requirements for road maintenance?

Education:   As with Health Care, does giving the responsibility to one big bureaucracy or another really affect the quality of education that a young Canadian can receive?   Do the provinces hold a monopoly on the truth that the Federal government could never exercise?   Let's face it, we need to increase the level of education for all Canadians.   All my provincially specialized education really taught me is that the Royal Engineers and Judge Begbie hung a few Natives in the mid 1800's and that White people suck for coming to Canada and oppressing the Metis pursuit for freedom....

Other trivial things: I find it absurd that an 18 year old Canadian soldier can drink in his mess in Alberta, but if is on exercise in BC, he is considered a minor.   Is important for the Province of Quebec that they avoid a "one-size-fits-all" Legal Age and go with 18, despite what the people of Ontario have across the river?   This is just an example of the many little silly discrepancies that divide the nation and exacerbate provincial differences, rather then promoting the notion of a Canadian standard.

I recognize that many of these functions may be to placate Quebec Nationalists and the like.   I would argue that the job of the Government is to ensure that we have efficient and good government, not to placate separatists and other sorts of regional chauvinism's.



> Seriously though, the provincial governments are there to prevent people in one region from being screwed over because a federal government is more interested in the other side of the country (note that unfortunately this does nothing to prevent people from being screwed over in general). Feelings of alienation (e.g. Quebec and western provinces) would go through the roof if there was only a federal level.



You don't think people feel screwed by the federal government for overrepresenting certain regions right now under the current system?   We suffer from a antiquated federal system that does no effort in attempting to alleviate regional tensions and provincial governments that are too busy trying to fight for their piece of the pie to really offer any solution.   When is the last time you ever heard of Provincial and Federal governments working together?



> Except for defending and securing the nation and promoting its interests abroad, everything - if efficiency is a consideration.   If we can spare no expense, then we are free to indulge in federally crafted one-size-fits-all solutions; no community need worry, for example, about deciding between whether to employ finite financial resources to build schools or roads.



I would argue that "one-size-fits-all" solutions are the only results of federally directed programs.   Perhaps we may need to tweek things to ensure that they run well, but I think the principle can work.   Take policing for example.   Rather then have a hodge-podge of different provincial and municipal police forces, with varying levels of capabilities and resources, why don't we better organize the RCMP to operate with the regional or municipal governments (which seems to be a big complaint these days), ensuring that local needs are just as prominant as national directives.



> But financial resources are finite, you say?   Well, then let's devolve the decision-making power down to the lowest level: province before nation, regional district before province, municipality or community before regional district, and family before community.   That way each group can decide at its respective level of responsibility how to meet its most pressing needs instead of its peers' most pressing needs.   If my community needs a walk-in family clinic rather than a MRI clinic, we aren't likely to be well-served if big government buys us a MRI clinic.



I totally agree.   Let the micro-political level handle the requisite issues, sending large scale stuff up to the macro level.   Why have two jurisdictions to fight over who gets what part of the macro-political pie, only increasing the level of duplication and redundancy? 



> Everyone has problems they believe they could solve if only they had enough money and power.   Unfortunately the problems are different.   So, it is best to let people solve problems at the lowest possible levels.



My bottom line is that provincial governments are no better then the Federal governments at delivering services.   Either one just gobbles up public funds in the massive bureaucracies they span.   I'd rather have 1 massive bureaucracy in Canada then the current 11.   If effective regional representation could be found in the federal government (a Triple E Senate seems to be one method of moving towards this goal) I just don't see how keeping a provincial government with a hundred or so politicians and a couple tens of thousand additional bureaucrats would be necessary.



> The number of senators need not be identical for each province.   Unless the Senate has legislative power of its own, short terms should suffice for a role as a watchdog of legislation passed by Parliament.   Even with party cronyism, I would expect the Senate to have a more interesting and useful balance of ideological representation than Parliament.



Back to the topic of senators, I would demand that each province be given an equal number of Senate seats.   If we don't, we are in danger of lapsing the Upper House back towards a representative of population-based constituencies (ie: like the House of Commons), rather then a representative of regional issues.   Sadly this is how it is today; how can a province such as Nova Scotia or British Columbia expect any effective regional representation when Ontario and Quebec possess over 50% of the Commons seats and a little under 50% of the Senate seats?


----


Well, anyways, it's getting late and I'm starting to ramble on.
Hopefully some of this will get filtered out into a more coherent set of ideas in the ensuing scrum.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2004)

You are not missing the boat on anything Hoser.

The G-G has real powers.  The only thing constraining the G-G is that in a P*ssing contest with the PM she would lose because he can always say "I have the support of my cabinet and/or my caucus and/or my party and/or the House of Commons and/or my constituents".  The one thing he can never actually claim is the support of the people of Canada because they never vote for him/her directly.  The G-G has no such backing.  If she were elected (by anybody - general vote, provincial legislatures, premiers, the Privy Council) then she could challenge the PM on decisions.

Welcome to the US.

Personally I like the notion of a one-term G-G (about 7 years) so that they are not tempted to run for re-election.  Also I like the notion of the G-G essentially being an arbiter deciding if the government should fall or if the opposition should be given a chance to govern.  She shouldn't be involved in executive decisions, I like the PM for that job.

However, the G-G as figurehead for the country, the Commander in Chief, head of the Civil Service and the Privy Council, I like that notion.  Something that attempts to set those agencies outside of Party Politics.

I also like the notion of a Provincial/Regional Senate for I believe, like many on this board apparently, and like Tip O'Neill that "All politics are local".   Or put another way my loyalties run outward, from my family, through my friends and communities to the world at large.  The farther you get away from me and mine the less claim you have to my charity.

As to representation in the Senate, I think that equal weighting for the provinces and territories is possible.  The Council of the Provinces? set up by the premiers gives one premier one vote.  All provinces and territories equal. The have thus already recognized the inherent equality of province. The council is effective - the premiers have powers - and the council is elected - all the premiers are elected.

A triple E council.   A model for the senate.

Keep the commons the way it is, although single vote transferrable might be better than first past the post.  You are still electing an individual to represent you and your rights, not a party.

Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2004)

>How is a senator supposed to express regional interests

The question is: whose interests should the senators serve and represent?  If elected by the people at large, they are simply another form of parliament with a slightly different balance of power (in my view only marginally useful).  If appointed by the PM or Parliament, they evolve to serve Parliament (an unnecessary function).  If appointed or elected by provincial legislatures, they serve provincial governments.

Having the senators serve the provincial governments as a check above Parliament suits my view.

The idea that all-powerful federal government should exist to set equal standards everywhere is seductive to people who believe their ideas are sensible and would, or should, be embraced by everyone else.  That is quite a conceit, isn't it?  I certainly do not believe that what I would like is what everyone else would like, or should have imposed upon them.  That is why I prefer a system under which people can - if they wish - agree collectively on different standards in different parts of the country, different communities, etc.  Rather than worry about what a majority might impose on a minority, I would severely restrict the power of the majority to impose in the first place.  That eastern Canadians can impose their social views on western Canadians, or that urban Canadians can impose their social views on rural Canadians merely contributes to alienation and frustration.  It is possible, and I think for the long-term political and social stability of a country necessary, to elect governments democratically while restricting the scope of power of governments.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2004)

I'd be agreeing with you Brad.  I like the idea of Senators as creatures of the provinces and in particular the legislatures.  Having terms that outlast the legislatures would, I think, tend to mellow out some of the more partisan aspects.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2004)

> The question is: whose interests should the senators serve and represent?   If elected by the people at large, they are simply another form of parliament with a slightly different balance of power (in my view only marginally useful).   If appointed by the PM or Parliament, they evolve to serve Parliament (an unnecessary function).   If appointed or elected by provincial legislatures, they serve provincial governments.



This is an issue that we can see-saw over.   I just happen to feel that the provincial governments don't properly represent the issues of their provincial constituants enough; they are at too large of a level to be effective.   Can you say that you've been pleased with the performance of your government living in BC in the last 12 or so years?   I'd prefer to be able to have a direct say in who I send to a Senate seat, rather then letting a politician perform another duty for me.

Yes, an elected senate is simply another "form of Parliament" in that it is representatives elected by constituents.   However, I think the fundamental issue is that a properly balanced Senate serves as a check-and-balance to the population based Commons.   If structured properly, it shouldn't allow politicians on the 401   beltway to gang up and dictate terms to the other provinces.

Hmm...I'm going back to the Federalist Papers....

(As an aside, Brad; would you happen to know why the US abandoned the state appointment of Senators?   Perhaps that event can inject a new viewpoint into the discussion; I'll look it up.)



> The idea that all-powerful federal government should exist to set equal standards everywhere is seductive to people who believe their ideas are sensible and would, or should, be embraced by everyone else.   That is quite a conceit, isn't it?



I think the idea is just as good as one of a split in powers between an all powerful federal government and all powerful provincial governments should exist to bicker over the resources of the state.   As I stated before, the existence of only two levels of government does not automatically require that all government policies be "cookie-cutter" in nature (ie; regional bureaucracies should be given the ability to modify policies within the government mandated parameters).



> Rather than worry about what a majority might impose on a minority, I would severely restrict the power of the majority to impose in the first place.   That eastern Canadians can impose their social views on western Canadians, or that urban Canadians can impose their social views on rural Canadians merely contributes to alienation and frustration.   It is possible, and I think for the long-term political and social stability of a country necessary, to elect governments democratically while restricting the scope of power of governments.



I refuse to cut Canada up into "Maritime Socialists" and "Toronto Urbanites", and "Western Farmers".   As I said earlier, I believe the province is still to large to present a significantly different level of government then the federal on in Ottawa.   A person in Thunder Bay probably has more in common with some from Brandon rather then someone in metro Toronto; even more extreme; some downtown Vancouverite probably has more in common with a fellow urbanizte in Seattle then with a logger in Northern BC or a fisherman in Newfoundland.

I refuse to cut Canada up into "Maritime Socialists" and "Toronto Urbanites", and "Western Farmers".  As I said earlier, I believe the province is still to large to present a significantly different level of government then the federal on in Ottawa.  A citizen in Thunder Bay probably has more in common with some from Brandon rather then someone in metro Toronto; even more extreme; some downtown Vancouverite probably has more in common with a fellow urbanite in Seattle then with a forestry worker in Northern BC or a fisherman in Newfoundland.

I'd rather not see Canada broken up into a patchwork of socio-political experiments; this is why I oppose the "third level" of Native self government as well, but that's another issue.  If I, as a Canadian, happen to lean to either socialist or free market tendencies, I shouldn't have to move to an area of Canada to fit with my ideology.  I'd prefer a more vigerous democracy that engages as many Canadians as possible, commited to compromise and determining the best solution for Canadian's as a whole.


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I might say I am a little more inclined towards having a "US Style" system of civilian appointment followed by Parliamentary confirmation.   You could avoid conflict of interest issues in that a MP happens to be at both times a representative of his riding and of his Ministry.   If I am a citizen of riding X, I want my minister to focus on the local issues and dealing with pertinent legislation, not trying to manage the budget and deal with the nightmare bureaucracy that is the Department of National Defence.


What about a system in which the executive was chiefly in the Senate?  People could elect an MP to represent their riding in the commons, while they could elect to Senate the people they want to see in the executive (and as the check/balance to the commons).  I think I would prefer the current location of the executive, but this is an alternative that keeps it with elected officials.

On the issue of provincially appointed senators, I agree with Infanteer.  A province with a majority government could see its legislature stack the Senate with members of the dominate party.  Better to let the people decide.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Aug 2004)

> What about a system in which the executive was chiefly in the Senate?  People could elect an MP to represent their riding in the commons, while they could elect to Senate the people they want to see in the executive (and as the check/balance to the commons).  I think I would prefer the current location of the executive, but this is an alternative that keeps it with elected officials.



Interesting idea McG.  A Prime Minister is selected to lead the House of Commons while a Governor General is selected to lead the Senate.  Perhaps powers would be split between the two, with one acting as a check and balance to the other.  It would be a binary system; akin to the dual consulship of the Roman Republic.  Maybe it can be a senior/junior relationship; something akin to the relationship between a CO and his DCO or a Platoon Commander to his Warrant (ie: clear boundries of control and support).


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2004)

A search for information about the US 17th Amendment may find articles which discuss why US Senate elections changed to a popular vote.  Some of the pros and cons may not be as valid in the information age as they were when the amendment passed.

If a province is too large for disparate interests to be adequately represented by a provincial government, I fail to see how a federal government could do better and can not reasonably accept that it can even be "just as good as" provincial government.  All it means is the provincial governments should in turn devolve power to regional districts and municipalities.  To move power and authority to continually higher levels of government responsible for every-increasing masses of land and people is merely a recipe for inertia, waste, and dissatisfaction among those forced to "compromise" (ie. cede their rights to others).  People will naturally find their own cultural divisions regardless whether you care to partition and name them or not.  The issue is whether cultural differences should be respected.

On compromise and best solution as a whole: these are not the same.  Communism represents the gold standard of compromise, but I do not consider it the best solution for the structure of an economy.  To seek compromise may result in a total measure of achievement which is less than that obtained if people are freer to pursue different objectives in different regions.  The "best solution on the whole" may be to allow provinces and communities more freedom to chart their own courses.

If we don't conduct "socio-political experiments", or rather permit governments the freedom to pursue them, how can we learn what the best solutions are?  Publicly funded and delivered health care is endlessly advertised as the best solution for Canadians as a whole.  Is that true, or is it merely an article of ideological faith?  What information exists to prove conclusively that we could not have more access and greater quality under something less than complete public ownership?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Aug 2004)

> If a province is too large for disparate interests to be adequately represented by a provincial government, I fail to see how a federal government could do better and can not reasonably accept that it can even be "just as good as" provincial government.  All it means is the provincial governments should in turn devolve power to regional districts and municipalities.  To move power and authority to continually higher levels of government responsible for every-increasing masses of land and people is merely a recipe for inertia, waste, and dissatisfaction among those forced to "compromise" (ie. cede their rights to others).  People will naturally find their own cultural divisions regardless whether you care to partition and name them or not.  The issue is whether cultural differences should be respected.



I think we are both arguing for the same endstate (ie: devolution of power), we only disagree on the delivery (ie: should local authority flow from a strong national government or a strong provincial government).  We could probably exhaust ourselves running in circles with this issue.



> On compromise and best solution as a whole: these are not the same.  Communism represents the gold standard of compromise, but I do not consider it the best solution for the structure of an economy.  To seek compromise may result in a total measure of achievement which is less than that obtained if people are freer to pursue different objectives in different regions.



Don't you think that some measure of compromise is required to sustain a viable democracy?  In Athens, where every citizen was a landowning male Athenian, the lack of diversity allowed for less divisiveness amongst the citizens (although a good portion of intrigue still existed)  Regardless of regional location, the diverse nature of the average Canadian's ethnic and socio-economic background is bound to lead to many opinions, requiring a level of compromise within the public sphere.



> The "best solution on the whole" may be to allow provinces and communities more freedom to chart their own courses.



What is the point of having a federal government in Canada at all then?  If we are going to give most decision making capabilities to provincial governments, should we not just break things up into 13 independent states, leaving extra-provincial matters to ad-hoc arrangements between provinces as they see fit.



> If we don't conduct "socio-political experiments", or rather permit governments the freedom to pursue them, how can we learn what the best solutions are?  Publicly funded and delivered health care is endlessly advertised as the best solution for Canadians as a whole.  Is that true, or is it merely an article of ideological faith?  What information exists to prove conclusively that we could not have more access and greater quality under something less than complete public ownership?



I would argue that this is a matter of raising the level of understanding and participation of the average Canadian citizen.  Anyone who's looked into the issue at all understands that the current system is fraught with problems.  Even the most ardent socialist cannot deny waiting lists and scarcity of medical resources and technology that is increasing in cost.  If more Canadians bothered to look at their health care system and understand how it works, I think you would see a greater debate in the public sphere.

My guess is the answer to the question lies in a stronger grounding in civics and responsibility rather then a matter of dealing with federal-provincial relations.  Time to send the kids to Mr Dubois' "Moral and Political Philosophy" class....


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > The "best solution on the whole" may be to allow provinces and communities more freedom to chart their own courses.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of having a federal government in Canada at all then?  If we are going to give most decision making capabilities to provincial governments, should we not just break things up into 13 independent states, leaving extra-provincial matters to ad-hoc arrangements between provinces as they see fit.


Because as a federation we have a stronger international voice.  As a federation we can afford the tiny military that we do have.  The country has a larger (& more open) economy than would exist if it were 10 smaller countries.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2004)

>requiring a level of compromise within the public sphere.

Yes; the question is how large the sphere should be on any issue.

>What is the point of having a federal government in Canada at all then?

For some people (apparently not very many in Canada any more), the point is to defend the essential interests of the nation among other nations and guarantee the essential liberties of people ("negative" rights) so that they can pursue their own lives.   For other people, the point is to ensure all Canadians are the same and to arbitrarily pursue social outcomes ("positive" rights), which in turn necessitates erosion of essential liberties (aka "compromise").   The worship of sameness is not, contrary to recent portrayals, a Canadian value - it defies the whole spirit of "confederation", "two founding nations", etc.   Who is qualified to decide what is best for others?   Who has an inherent right to impose their view of what is best upon others?

A confederation of provinces (sound familiar?) with nearly all of the authority residing with the provinces would suit me fine. Why does federal government have to be big government, or bigger than provincial government?

Simply increasing Canadians' awareness of political process and specific policies will not yield best outcomes.   Different approaches to problems must be tried.   This is impossible unless the power to impose policy is removed from higher levels of government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2004)

>Because as a federation we have a stronger international voice.  As a federation we can afford the tiny military that we do have.  The country has a larger (& more open) economy than would exist if it were 10 smaller countries.

Then surely we would be better off joined to the United States.  We would share in the benefits of a more powerful shared military, a larger economy, and a stronger international voice.

If you have reasons to believe Canada should remain distinct, then you should be able to defend distinctiveness with those reasons; and if you do, you must either:

1) Accept that there is no reason that distinction should not be extended to interprovincial relations and provincial powers within a federated government of limited authority;

2) Demonstrate why that distinction should be reserved for the 49th Parallel; or 

3) Admit that your line of reasoning is intellectually inconsistent.


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Then surely we would be better off joined to the United States.   We would share in the benefits of a more powerful shared military, a larger economy, and a stronger international voice.
> 
> If you have reasons to believe Canada should remain distinct, then you should be able to defend distinctiveness with those reasons;


I was not defending Canada being distinct.   I was arguing against dissolution (Infanteer asked why not rip the country appart, he did not ask why not merge with the US).  In that respect, my line of reasoning  is not intellectually inconsistent.  It just never attempted to address the issues you later raised.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2004)

Seen.  I perceived your remark incorrectly.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2004)

It seems that Ralph is ready to push ahead in Alberta and hold another Senator election.  While I think it is a waste of money doing this without an agreement between the provinces and federal government, maybe this will inspire our new PM to take a closer look at the issue.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Sep 2004)

I could see this idea getting more steam under the minority government.  I think two parties, the Bloc and the Conservatives (which have over half the seats), would like to move towards an elected senate in order for their traditional regional support base to gain more say in a Parliament dominated by Ontario and could possibly pressure Martin into allowing this to move forward.


----------



## Torlyn (11 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I could see this idea getting more steam under the minority government.  I think two parties, the Bloc and the Conservatives (which have over half the seats), would like to move towards an elected senate in order for their traditional regional support base to gain more say in a Parliament dominated by Ontario and could possibly pressure Martin into allowing this to move forward.



You've got that right.  If you look and CDN history, minority governments, while not lasting more than 2 years (on average) do seem to get more things done...  And in regards to the bloc & the conservatives, I was surprised that there hasn't been more collaboration between the two.  I know that there has been a shift in the Bloc to a more liberal-esque platform, but I believe you've got a point that if the conservatives & bloc align on these issues, they may force martin to actually do something about it.

McG - Alberta has done it before, and Mulroney appointed the elected Senator in 1990, but that was a political consideration in return for support with the Meech Lake Accords. Stan Waters was the senator, a one-time Reform party member, who (unfortunately) served for only a short time until his death in 1991.  Alberta still has two standing "elected" senators (Bert Brown & Ted Morton) for the seat vacancy from 1999 (which was filled as a patronage appointment by Cretién)  Given that we still have two senators-in-waiting (not sure how long they retain that particular title) I wonder if Paulie will do anything, except in the methods stated by Infanteer.

T


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2004)

Well, the Conservative/Bloc Throne Speech amendments call for â Å“a citizens assembly to review electoral reform.â ?  I had hoped they might have put forward an amendment calling for the government to explore an elected Senate.  This would be consistent with the Conservative's western support base, and the Bloc must be cognizant of the fact that any move toward proportional representation would see their seats drop.  Even a more vague call for Senate reform would have fit with the NDP platform.

I think the way we elect our members of parliament works (no electoral reform needed), but it needs to be complimented with an elected Senate.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Oct 2004)

Yep.  I don't think we need to invent any new mechanisms to strengthen democracy in this country; within the Offices of the GG and the Senate we have offices that can be retooled if necessary.  The key is to find a PM who has the cojones to loosen the iron grip of the PMO on policy making (and hence losing his own power) and put government function over personal ego.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2004)

I think the PM is going to get a lot of "encouragement" from the opposition to give up some powers.  And once powers have been lost the PMO will face an uphill battle to get them back.

On the other hand the struggle for power to control the agenda is neverending.

Cheers.

By the way, I am with those that think our instutions and their constitutional powers are largely in balance.  I wouldn't change the institutions.

I do think that a  combination of the Aussie Rules (single vote transferrable Commons and a split appointed/Proportional Rep Senate) combined with and elected GG would make for a nice balance.


----------



## Boydfish (23 Oct 2004)

My two cents:

#1 - _House of Commons._  Elected based strictly on population, with no "grandfather" or "balancing" adjustments.  That means that the 7 million people in BC and Alberta get the same amount of seats as the 7 million in Quebec, unlike now, where Quebec has 75 and BC/Alberta have 64.  One vote must be equal in every part of the confederation.  I refuse to accept any system that values ones person's vote over another simply because of where they live.

If we use Quebec as a template number of 93,333 for each MP, then the seat distribution looks like this:

British Columbia - 43, up from 36
Alberta - 32 seats, up from 28
Saskatchewan - 11, down from 14
Manitoba - 12, down from 14
Ontario - 122, up from 106
Quebec - 75, unchanged.
New Brunswick - 8, down from 10
Nova Scotia - 10, down from 11
Newfoundland & Labrador - 6, down from 7
Yukon - 1, unchanged.
NWT - 1, unchanged.
Nunavut - 1, unchanged.
PEI - 0, down from 4(I'll get to this in a bit, but fear not, oh great potato farmers by the sea)
Total: 322, up from 308

The seat totals would be adjusted by the most recent census in every "zero" year.

#2 - _Senate._  Equal, "selected" and effective.  Each province gets 5 senators and each territory gets 1 senator.  Instead of fighting over if they should be elected, appointed, chosen by lot or whatever, each province selects it's own method for how it comes up with the 5 people they send.  If Quebec and Ontario want appointed ones, they appoint. If BC and Alberta want elected, they elect.  Simple, no?

The Senate becomes the check on tyranny of the majority.

#3 - _Governor General._  I mentioned this in another thread, but the GG position is disbanded and replaced in function by the provincial LG's.

#4 - _Prince Edward Island._  In blunt terms, it's too small in geography and population to be a province.  It skews seat totals and representation, which leads to the current circumstances where a vote in PEI is worth three times as much as a vote in BC.  Either PEI ends up under or over represented as a result, most often over.

On the other hand, the idea of scrapping provinces due to inconvienience is not a practice that I'd support or want to create a history of doing.  The other nine provinces shouldn't be able to vote a tenth out of existence and I won't even dignify the idea of the confederal government being given such an authority(The provinces make up the confederation:  Without the confederation, the provinces are still there, but without the provinces, the confederation is nothing.).  The next Trudeau or Cretin would have the confederation reduced to Ontario, Quebec and "dem other places" in no time.

As a one off suggestion, I'd say move the confederal "seat of government" to PEI from Ottawa.  Just like the US and Australia, the "seat of government" would have no local representation beyond municipal government, instead relying on the obvious economicl benefits of having the confederal government located there.

It would neatly remove the problem of a small municipality sized province, but in such a fashion that would prevent future abuse by confederal or ganging up by the other provinces.


----------



## bossi (23 Oct 2004)

My thanks to Boydfish for crunching the numbers, since it was one of the issues I wanted to address.

I feel for PEI, however ... it has a population roughly the size of Scarborough, Ontario ...
(i.e.sorry spudsters, but ... size does matter).

Also - I'm against the NDP brainfart idea of proportional representation in the House of Commons, simply because of the instability it has caused in other national governments (e.g. Italy - how many governments since 1945 ... ?)

Presently the Senate consists of patronage appointments, stacked by whichever party was in power ... pathetic, in other words.  Similarly, the ridings seem to be divided whenever it suits the governing party ... instead of an impartial, transparent system.

We do need a system of checks and balances - the unadulterated arrogance of "Papa Doc Crouton" must not be allowed to repeat itself (can you believe it?  He spent $15 million of our tax dollars on travel during his last two years in office ... plus the Challenger jets that were ram-rodded through at the end of the fiscal year ... plus the billion dollar boondoggle gun registry ... and our Navy STILL doesn't have replacements for the SeaThings ... simply because some snot-nosed Liberal party pollster fartcatcher who wears red suspenders to bed at night came up with the catchphrase "... Me, I drives a Chevrolet, nots a Cadillac ..." instead of admitting that the North Atlantic is just a teeny bit more dangerous than taking the taxpayers for a ride ...)


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2004)

More movement in the wrong direction:



> *Ottawa may open debate on electoral reforms*
> By BRIAN LAGHI
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> 15 Nov 04
> ...


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2004)

> PM vetoes Alberta's Senate proposal
> By BRIAN LAGHI and KATHERINE HARDING
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail (19 Noc 04)
> 
> ...


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (18 Dec 2004)

Canada could definitely stand to undergo further democratic reform, and implement some of the proposals made: a Triple-E Senate, A form of Proportional Representation in terms of the Electoral Regime or the Single-Transferable Vote System, as well applying a more controlled and fixed system, like in the United States, for the calling of elections (as of present, the Prime Minister with the approval of the Governor General can call an election at any given time during his/her period of office).

As mentioned, the method in which the American people choose their head of state is more democratic than that of Canada: the American populace is able to, at the grass-roots, choose who will head their part of choice, instead of having the political party choose for them.


----------



## Gilligan (19 Dec 2004)

Okay, so there is a stability issue with PR, but, SMP is expensive, and isn't truely representative of the population.  Sure under PR there would be less in the lines of constituencies, but, because of the formation of coalition governments, those who believe that some of the fringe parties (which some have excellent platforms by the way) are given at least 1 seat in the house.  And, on top of that, SMP is a two party system, and is outdated in Canada by a longshot....we just have too many parties and too many people pissed off with what we have....maybe a senate reform would work, I'm not so sure.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

We are circling around an issue which is the real killer of democracy here in Canada, and in many other nations as well: Career Politicians.

No matter what arrangements we propose, as long as people are motivated by greed, fear, lust for power and all the other factors we remember from Maslows hierarchy of needs, they will "work the system" for their benefit, not ours. Gold plated pensions and 20% pay hikes are the most obvious symptoms, but really, any sort of innovation which would crack open the door and allow some other group to gain some control is vigorously resisted.

The Greeks of the Classical period used a system of random drawings from the eligible population to create their assembly, jurors, civil service posts and often "Generals" (alternatively, Generals could be elected by the assembly. Each Polis was different). Since the drawing of lots was done on a yearly basis, there was a built in term limit; after a year, the odds were someone else would be selected for the higher level posts. One year was enough to do a job, but not really enough to learn how to manipulate the system. Only skilled orators and demagogues could consistently sway the assembly and be elected to posts like General, but even then, their actions were always under fairly close scrutiny.

While having a lottery might not be the best way to get MP's and Senators in todays world, the idea of strict term limits and accountability would certainly go a long way to curbing abuses. As an example, City Council in Phoenix Arizona is constrained to a two term limit, and taxes apparently have not risen in the last 11 years! Having a constant stream of "fresh blood" and ideas coming through the ranks of Government would probably crack open many of the mental log jams which hinder Canada (you can pick which log jam to break).

My suggestion; each elective office can only be held for two terms. This would give people enough time to take on fairly large projects and see them through, and a person who was interested in a "long term" career in politics would have to win their Commons seat twice, then run for senate and win that seat twice.


----------



## RCA (19 Dec 2004)

The problem with term limits is that you wash away the good with the bad. The are many MPs plugging along doing the work they were elected for and doing a good job for their constitants.

Set term limits on Cabinet postions would be more effective. That is were the power corrupts thing happens.

Electors vote for their local MP (or MLA, Mayor., whatever). Thats the term limit. Don't like his policies or direction, out he goes. Move away from party loyalty. Its the electorate who need to become more involved not setting artificial limits


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

There is no ideal system, true, but consider our disfunctional Medicare system is still being debated in terms framed in the 1960's, and US Social Security is based on assumptions current in the 1930's, so a little new blood is needed. As well, "the good" will be valuable in any other career path they choose, so having a time out for a term in office will not hurt them.


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Dec 2004)

A couple of ideas, just off the top of my head.

Eliminate the Party System. 
Directly elect our PM who's job it would be to create a coalition from the other elected MP's to form his cabinet.
This means that we would have to rethink our current confidence measures in the House of Commons in essence making every vote except perhaps the budget a free vote. This would allow MP's to vote with their constituents instead of some party line.

Retain the Senate but institute Alberta's Triple E resolution. In order to save on cost and to represent the provinces, have the election of Senators done on a PR system that is tied directly to the results of the federal election. The Proportional Senators "elected" through the PR system are then selected from a list compiled by the Provincial Legislature.

I know many here have a problem with the PR system but I think it is a better way to go, it is certainly more democratic. Under STV constituancies still exist, just on a larger scale. The complaints that individuals would loose touch with their MP's in my opinion is not well founded and I think having a multi member constituancy could* help* that connection. For example let's just say that you are a Libertarian but none of your guys were elected. You would have the freedom to approach any of the 2,3 or 4 MP's elected in your riding on any issue. You could approach a Conservative candidate about governmental interferance in business and a Liberal MP on questions of the legalization of Pot.

As far as stability goes The Republic of Ireland has had a fully functioning STV system since the 1920's and their parliaments have been stable. Malta also has a PR system and they have a 2 party state so the balkanization of political views does not necessarily have to happen and will only happen if the people want those choices available.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2004)

I don't get it.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Eliminate the Party System.
> Directly elect our PM who's job it would be to create a coalition from the other elected MP's to form his cabinet.
> This means that we would have to rethink our current confidence measures in the House of Commons in essence making every vote except perhaps the budget a free vote. This would allow MP's to vote with their constituents instead of some party line.





> For example let's just say that you are a Libertarian but none of your guys were elected. You would have the freedom to approach any of the 2,3 or 4 MP's elected in your riding on any issue. You could approach a Conservative candidate about governmental interferance in business and a Liberal MP on questions of the legalization of Pot.



You say eliminate the political party system and then you advocate STV on the basis that more party participation would strengthen democracy.

The reason I oppose most PR variations is that they only serve to strengthen the role of parties.  I am not really a fan of the parties as they only weaken representative democracy and encourage group-think.


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Dec 2004)

Infanteer, I guess I wasn't clear I wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party, Liberal Party or Conservative Party but of ideological points of view which people may hold.

While a pure PR List system may strengthen the party system because the party itself decides how candidates appear on the list the STV does not as it is the individual voter who decides which candidate they feel will represent them the best.

BTW, the elimination of the party system will never happen, they are too ingrained into the psyche of the populous and they are too powerfull as institutions. It might be possible when forming a democracy but not once one has been in existence since 1867

I personally believe that what some see as a drawback of the STV system (the proliferation of parties) is actually a bonus. To have more points of view in our house of commons representing the varied and diverse points of view of the people of Canada is a good thing not a bad one. Also for the people a minority or coalition is a good thing as well, no four year dictatorships, no Cretien style vanguard party to impose a my way or the highway brand of non-leadership.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2004)

I don't see how you could eliminate the party system. In terms of the Constitution, parties are not mentioned at all. In a practical sense, parties represent the gathering of people with common interests. Liberals, for example, are interested in getting and controllong your tax dollars for their purposes  :rage:.

PR systems, encourage small parties with limited constituencies, and have historically resulted in fragmented coalition governments which are not stable. First past the Post is designed for accountability, but as we see here in Canada, this is not a garunteed outcome. The American Electoral College system ensures candidates must reach to and appeal to a broad range of constituencies, in the 2000 election Al Gore gained most of the urban vote (and hence most of the popular vote as well), but because his message did not appeal to middle and rural America, he didn't win the electoral college votes in most of the American States, and so lost the election. A look at the map of "Red" vs "Blue" states shows a similar pattern repeated in 2004.

Perhaps rather than argue about how we elect our governments, we focus more on what we want our governments to do, and how they achieve these goals. Bloated government payrolls and officials who refuse to be held accountable are two huge problems which won't go away under any system, but can be attacked by voter action rather than voter apathy.


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> PR systems, encourage small parties with limited constituencies, and have historically resulted in fragmented coalition governments which are not stable.



Stable is a relative term. Ireland has had stable governments under the STV since the 1920's each lasting 3 to 4 years. Malta also has a stable 2 party system under STV.



> First past the Post is designed for accountability



I'd disagree with this statement, it is designed to give the party a clear cut mandate to rule in spite of the % of people who vote for it nationaly. SMP also penalizes small parties and overrepresents regionaly based parties. Obviously accountability is not something we have here in Canada, on that we can agree. Gun registry anyone?



> Perhaps rather than argue about how we elect our governments, we focus more on what we want our governments to do, and how they achieve these goals. Bloated government payrolls and officials who refuse to be held accountable are two huge problems which won't go away under any system, but can be attacked by voter action rather than voter apathy.



Good point. Sounds like an interesting thread.


----------



## McG (27 Dec 2004)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Directly elect our PM who's job it would be to create a coalition from the other elected MP's to form his cabinet.


Interesting option (and I would suggest the deputy PM should probably be chosen the same way as the PM); however, potentially destabilising.  Being the only nationally elected seats in the House, the GG would not have the option to look to another party leader in the event of a non-confidence vote.  The country would automatically be sent to a vote.  Could it also lead to a majority opposition?  Would it work & has it been done anywhere else?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The reason I oppose most PR variations is that they only serve to strengthen the role of parties.


I think a PR system would strengthen the role of small parties at the expense of the current powerful parties.

I still think the best approach is to continue to elect MPs in the same fashion that we always have.  It ensures that every MP is accountable to a defined constituency (if we Canadian's have not been holding our specific MPs accountable that is another storey).  I like the idea of a PR (or even STV) Senate.  This chamber would see more parties, reflecting a broader cross-section of Canadian society, it would reduce the strength of the powerful parties in both houses, yet it would not have the option of a non-confidence vote against the government.  With the Senate as a buffer on the power of the powerful parties, there may be an increased tendency to vote independents as MPs (vice strategic voting for the MP supporting the desired PM) and thus increased accountability of all MPs to constituents.

. . . or maybe I'm blinded by some sort of utopian optimism.


----------



## McG (20 Jan 2005)

It seems that PR systems are becoming more popular at the provincial level.


> *Partial proportional voting urged for N.B.*
> Province following on moves by Quebec, B.C., PEI and Ontario to consider changes
> Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050119.wnewb0119/BNStory/National/


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Jan 2005)

Hi all, this topic is sort of a response to the PR/Elected Senate topic. It is a fairly long essay but I thought it might be worthwhile to post it here as some people have bought the First-Past-The-Post myth hook line and sinker and it offers a different perspective.

Although I think this is unlikely, for reference purposes (and coppyright) the essay is mine so if you want to use any of the information in it formally please PM me for permission.

Enjoy

*Straw Man Arguments:
 A Comparison of Electoral Systems in Ireland and the United Kingdom*

	Supporters of the Single Member Plurality (SMP) systems are often prejudiced against the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, or any other method of proportional representation for that matter, based on the perception that all such systems create a balkanization and proliferation of political parties.  Another point of criticism of STV, is that the systems proportionality causes governmental instability through the lack of clear majorities, which in turn results in continuous coalition governments. 

	This essay will focus on the electoral systems of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In it I will prove, through a most similar systems analysis that many of the prejudices against STV such as the balkanization and proliferation of minor parties and inherent instability of governments that use it are not valid arguments against the Irish STV system.

	In order to effectively compare the voting systems used by the subject nations they must first be explained.  The SMP system, also called First-Past-The-Post, is the most simple to calculate and understand of all electoral systems.  Under this system votes are cast for a single candidate in single member constituencies.  The candidate who receives the largest number of votes, regardless of the actual percentage of the total votes that number represents, is declared the winner.  The use of this system is equivalent to a nation running as many separate elections as there are constituencies within the country.  Some of its perceived strengths are seen as its ability to create single party governments, the creation of coherent parliamentary opposition and as being seen as benefiting broadly based political parties.

	The STV system is a system of Proportional Representation (PR) in which voters cast ballots in large multi-member constituencies by ranking candidates in order of preference.  The number of votes a candidate receives is compared against a set number, based upon the number of votes cast, called the quota. 

	There are three main formulae for calculation of the quota: the Droop Quota , Hare Quota  and the Impreiali Quota .  Of these the most commonly used formula is the Droop Quota, which is used by the Republic of Ireland.  

	In the first round of counting under an STV system, Process A, the voter's first selection is counted.  Should any of the candidates receive a number of votes equal to or greater than the quota they are declared elected, once elected a candidate can not receive any more votes.  If a candidate is elected with a surplus of votes, those surplus votes are redistributed by using the second choice listed on the ballots.  The selection of which ballots are counted again can be done by selecting them at random or by counting each ballot fractionally.  This process is repeated until there are no more candidates that have votes in excess of the quota.  Any candidate who achieves the quota from votes redistributed in this manner is also declared elected.  In the next step, Process B, the candidate with the least amount of votes after the first round is eliminated and his or her votes are reallocated according to the second choice listed on the ballot.  Once a candidate has been eliminated he or she can not get any more votes.  Once the reallocation of votes is complete the procedure begins again with Process A and continues in this matter until all the seats in the riding have been filled . 

	There are three main comparisons I have chosen to examine between the UK and Irish systems.  They are the questions of proliferation of minor parties, the representation of voter choice and the predisposition of STV toward coalition governments and their perceived instability.

*Proliferation of Parties:*

	The first point of comparison I examine is the depiction of STV as a fractious system, which causes the proliferation and balkanization of political parties when compared to the more restrictive electoral requirements of an SMP system.  Upon examining the two nations, with regard to this perception, the immediate and glaring incongruity is that in the United Kingdom, there are over 10 times as many registered political parties than in the Irish Republic.

	In the United Kingdom there are nine major parties, in addition to these there are 114 minor parties registered, ranging from the traditional parties such as Labour and Conservative to nonsense parties such as the Church of the Militant Elvis Party .    As of the general election of 7 June 2001 only 9 of the 123 registered parties are represented in the UK House of Commons.   Ireland on the other hand has eight major political parties, seven of which are represented in the DÃƒÂ¡il Éireann (Irish Parliament) since the general election of 17 May 2002.  There are no minor parties formally represented in the DÃƒÂ¡il though there are fourteen members that sit as independents. 

	This disparity in numbers contradicts the notion that STV creates numerous minor parties.  Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that the difference in numbers of registered parties in the two nations is due to the application of more or less stringent registration processes and not necessarily a result of the type of electoral system.  

	In the United Kingdom the regulations governing the registration of political parties is fairly simple and straight forward.  It requires only minimal rules and regulations be followed, such as the completion of an application form giving details of the party name and at least two party officers.  Where in the UK the party is to be registered and whether the party will have any accounting units.  Also required is a copy of the party's constitution, a financial scheme showing how the party will comply with the financial controls and a modest registration fee of  £150.00. 

	Ireland on the other hand has much more stringent registration requirements which restrict the process to more serious and well formed political movements.  These regulations include provisions that a certain number of registered voters must be members of the party and the party must have a member of it elected to the DÃƒÂ¡il.  Irish law also requires that annual meetings be held and the party must have an executive committee.  On the other hand, there is no fee to register a party and unregistered parties are entitled to fight elections, but the name of the party will not appear on the ballot.  

	Thus the stricter registration laws in force in the Republic of Ireland, combats the proliferation of political parties, which is one of the main arguments used by those that support SMP over STV.  The SMP system used in the UK on the other hand, achieves it's much touted governmental stability through the election process, specifically the non-proportional allocation of seats in a First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

*Voter Choice*

	Perhaps the most attractive element of the STV system, as an alternative to SMP, is the more complete representation of voter choice.  Under a First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system, only the candidate who wins the most votes in a riding is elected.  This means that should one candidate receive 48% of votes and another receive 47.9% of votes the candidate who received 48% would be elected.  The other candidate, although his percentage of the vote was almost identical, would loose, resulting in "wasted votesâ ?.  On the other hand, in a STV system with its multi member constituencies, both candidates would most likely be elected and more of the people of the constituency would have a voice in parliament. 

	It must be noted that neither SMP nor STV requires a candidate to win a majority of votes cast in order to be elected.  But under STV a significant majority of the votes cast do count toward electing candidates, thus representing a majority of the votes cast, as well as a proportional representation of the people's vote within the multi-member constituency.  

	Ireland is divided into 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies ranging in population from 108,717 to 47,641 registered electors.   Taking one of these ridings as an example, and comparing it to a similar sized riding in the UK will demonstrate the more complete representation of the public vote achieved under STV.

	In the Irish riding of Cavan-Monaghan with an electorate of 87,595 and 61,847 valid ballots cast, the quota was set at 10,308 votes.  Multiplying the quota by the number of candidates for the riding (5) shows that of the 61,847 valid votes, 51,540 voters had a hand in electing the representatives for that riding.    This number represents 83.3% of the votes cast, meaning only 16.7% of valid votes were wasted and did not count toward the election of a member of the DÃƒÂ¡il.

	In contrast to this, in the UK riding of Isle of Wight with 63,482 total votes cast, the winning candidate received 25,223 votes representing only 39.7% of votes.   For the other 60.3% of votes the voter's choice did not count toward the election of the representative and were wasted. 

	Further comparison of the most recent general elections in Ireland and the United Kingdom reveals that on average, 71.4% of all votes cast in Ireland assisted in electing a representative.  Conversely, in the UK, the average representative was elected to the House of Commons based on an average of 51.3% of votes cast in each riding.  

	These figures are based solely on the votes cast, not on the number of registered voters.  When the national voter turnout for these elections is taken into consideration the number of voters casting votes which assisted in electing representatives is significantly reduced. 

	For the most recent general elections, only 59.38% of eligible voters in the UK voted compared to 62.57% of voters in Ireland.  Combining these figures with the percentage of votes that assisted in electing a representative reduces the percentage of voters actually assisting in electing a representative to 44.67% for Ireland and 30.46% for the UK.  While certainly not a triumph of democracy for either system, obviously the advantage should be granted to the STV system for it's more complete representation of votes and the voting public.

*Coalitions and Weakness*

	Another criticism of the single transferable vote system is that it leads to coalition governments, which results in governmental instability, when compared to first-past-the-post.  However, comparison of the two nations in question shows that these problems are inconsequential.

	From a purely historical point of view coalition governments are not the norm in Ireland, since 1923 there have only been 9 coalition governments formed out of the 26 general elections held.  Since 1989 there has been no single party which has enjoyed a majority in the DÃƒÂ¡il, and coalitions do seem to be becoming the norm.  

	This political reality does not lead directly or inevitably to instability though.  Irish coalitions have displayed considerable longevity, remaining in power for an average of three and a half years which is longer than non-coalition Irish governments, which on average have lasted approximately 2.9 years.

	While historically the UK has not tended toward coalitions, it has had 3 coalition or "National Governmentsâ ? since 1918, each of which was in response to a national crisis, World War 1, the 1930's depression and World War 2.    The need to show solidarity in government during crises by forming coalitions of political parties seems to indicate that the reason behind it is to represent the people and political will of the nation better than is possible under normal circumstances.  This exception demonstrates the inclusive nature of coalitions and far from implying weakness or instability emphasizes their strength and utility.

	The inference that coalition governments are unstable is also given as a reason not to employ STV as an electoral system.  This perception too has been exaggerated in favor of SMP.  The United Kingdom and Ireland have conducted 16 general elections since 1945.   The shortest lived government among the two nations was the UK's minority Conservative government of Prime Minister Edward Heath in 1974.  After failing to form a coalition with the Liberal Party, PM Heath resigned, allowing the Queen to commission Labour leader Harold Wilson to form the government.  The minority Labour government of PM Wilson lasted 8 months, and was replaced by a slim Labour majority in October of the same year. 

	This average of the lengths of terms enjoyed by the respective governments reveals that there is only a slight difference when the two nations are compared.  Since 1945, the United Kingdom has averaged a Parliamentary election every 3.5 years whereas the Irish have conducted elections for the DÃƒÂ¡il Éireann every 3.37 years.  Calculated in days the UK on average elects a new parliament every 1277 days and Ireland every 1199 days a difference of only 78 days.   

	Going back farther to Ireland's independence, the Irish republic has conducted 26 general elections since 1923 and the UK has conducted 22 for an average length of 3.15 and 3.72 years respectively.

	The above averages can not be attributed to differing lengths of administrative terms as Irish law requires elections to be held every seven years.  However, statute has limited the length of terms in Ireland to five years, which is equal to the length of term enjoyed by the UK parliament.

	In conclusion, the exaggerated claims made against the Single Transferable Vote system in favor of Single Member Plurality appear to be nothing more than a straw man of personal preferences and prejudices.  With regards to the UK and Ireland, it appears that in the case of party proliferation that the problem is a product of national electoral laws and not the electoral system used.  As for inherent weakness and instability of STV due to its tendency to cause coalition governments, this has been proven insignificant.  The drawbacks of STV versus SMP with regard to these difficulties are counteracted by the ability and willingness of the elected members of the government to work with other political parties and thus persevere, in spite of political ideologies, for the sake of stable national government.

© Martin Gasser 20 Jan 2005


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2005)

Interesting essay and rather thought provoking. I do have some questions about the conclusions that are drawn here, however.

1. Ireland's SVT system does not produce unstable coalition governments, but virtually every other nation which uses some form of PR does. Italy is the most notorious example, but Israel also comes to mind for fracticious coalitions. Is it possible there are cultural factors at work here i.e. the vast majority of Irish people already have a "cultural" consensus about a broad range of issues?

2. If culture is not the answer, the rigorous requirements for forming a political party and registering it might go a long way to explain what is happening. Once again, there has to be some sort of consensus to work together in a political party, supporters of the "Monster Raving Loony Party" or the "Parti Rhinoceros" would have a difficult time getting off the ground in Ireland.

3. The historical reason for "First past the Post" is the one elected representative is accountable directly to the people of his riding. We certainly have drifted far away from that principle here in Canada, but in theory, initiatives like voter recall or referendums could bring accountability back. What is the accountability mechanism in SVT?

I will be going over this again in greater detail tonight (beware, beware!), since a lot of other questions are bubbling just below the surface.


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Jan 2005)

a_maj,

1.  In Israel the % of popular vote required to get a representative elected is very, very low (somewhere around 1%  IIRC) This again in my view is a fault with the electoral laws not the system. Germany on the other hand with it's mixed proportional system requires a party to achieve 5% of the popular vote. Extrapilate that to our most recent vote and only the Green Party would have been entitled to PR.

I can not say if there are cultural factors at work in Israel but I know that STV was chosen for Ireland specifically so that the minority Protestant population there would not be overwhelmed by a "tyranny of the majority"

2.  Yes, what you have described counters another criticism of STV, which is the perception that it allows "extremeist parties". My personal belief is that the electorate in Canada is smarter and more moderate than they are given credit for and will for the most part be self policing on this issue.

3.  The short answer is the same mechanisim we have now  which is to say none. STV does not preclude accountability (any more than FPTP) though. What you are talking about is once again the electoral laws/process not the system itself.

A couple of points of my own now which I didn't address in the essay.

Another country that uses STV is Malta which, get this, is a classic 2 party system! although it has made subtle changes to STV for utility. This again exposes theStraw man arguments for FPTP. Germany also uses a PR system, is stable and has limited political participation through electoral law and not electoral innequality like FPTP.

I find it insulting that in the article about NB's proposed electoral reform one of the talking heads that responded suggested that the electorate wasn't intelligent enough to understand the system. What complete and utter crap!  This is just another piece of BS which is often spouted by the main political opponents to PR which happen to be or belong to...  The same mainstream political parties that are often over-represented in the HoC by FPTP.  

Give me a room full of average voters and 10 minutes and I can explain STV so that even the most sound proof individual will understand how it is employed.

Yes Italy has problems with PR but I believe that is a cultural problem (for lack of a better word). Canadians are by in large much more middle of the road than Italians.  I realize that this is a generalization and no I cant prove it right now but that is my opinion.

Unfortunately I may not be able to respond to many more posts here as I'm heading off to Gagetown for a course but I'll do my best to respond once I return.

Cheers
Reccesoldier.


----------



## McG (20 Jan 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The first point of comparison I examine is the depiction of STV as a fractious system, which causes the proliferation and balkanization of political parties when compared to the more restrictive electoral requirements of an SMP system. Upon examining the two nations, with regard to this perception, the immediate and glaring incongruity is that in the United Kingdom, there are over 10 times as many registered political parties than in the Irish Republic.
> 
> In the United Kingdom there are nine major parties, in addition to these there are 114 minor parties registered, ranging from the traditional parties such as Labour and Conservative to nonsense parties such as the Church of the Militant Elvis Party . As of the general election of 7 June 2001 only 9 of the 123 registered parties are represented in the UK House of Commons. Ireland on the other hand has eight major political parties, seven of which are represented in the DÃƒÂ¡il Éireann (Irish Parliament) since the general election of 17 May 2002. There are no minor parties formally represented in the DÃƒÂ¡il though there are fourteen members that sit as independents.
> 
> This disparity in numbers contradicts the notion that STV creates numerous minor parties. Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that the difference in numbers of registered parties in the two nations is due to the application of more or less stringent registration processes and not necessarily a result of the type of electoral system.


Your conclusion, that restrictive party registration systems are the true check against a proliferation on parties in government, is mostly accurate but is lacking in depth.

Yes, restrictive party registration processes will reduce the number of parties that can eventually compete at the polls.   However, if this becomes a bureaucratic process (and I can't think of any other way to do it) then it actually restricts the voter's options at the polls.   SMP is superior when it comes to restricting the number of parties that actually get into government in a society that if overflowing with parties (I think your 9:123 ratio shows this fairly well).   Unfortunately, as you alluded to, the voters that do not vote for the winner of the plurality will essentially have lost their vote.   An option would be to use preferential ballots in single member constituencies.   This would ensure that the majority of voters preferred the winner to the next most preferred candidate.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ireland is divided into 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies ranging in population from 108,717 to 47,641 registered electors.


I think these numbers are critical in the analysis.   The fact that these constituencies are small, will in itself limit the chances of success of fringe parties.   It will take a much higher percentage of the vote for a party to win one seat (or more) in a 3 - 5 member constituency.   In Israel, there is one pan-national constituency of over 100 representatives.   Clearly, the percentage of votes required to win a seat in this system is much lower.   In Canada, the Irish model would usually see fringe parties drown out at the constituency level against the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and even the BQ.   The Israeli model could see less than 1% of the population elect a fringe party, and the increased chances for fringe parties to make small victories could lead to more votes for these types of parties (and thus the "Balkanizationâ ? and instability of government).   The problem with small multi-member constituencies is that they would continue the tendency of the SMP system to over-represent regional parties in the House of Commons (the BQ and early Reform demonstrate this). 




			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I find it insulting that in the article about NB's proposed electoral reform one of the talking heads that responded suggested that the electorate wasn't intelligent enough to understand the system. What complete and utter crap! This is just another piece of BS which is often spouted by the main political opponents to PR which happen to be or belong to... The same mainstream political parties that are often over-represented in the HoC by FPTP.


 I think the comment was about a mixed PR and FPTP system that the comment was about.   Germany is a mixed system.


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Jan 2005)

MCG,

Electoral law is definitely bureaucratic and in my opinion it should be in a Weberian fashion. Although I'm rather Libertarian I see nothing wrong with ensuring that political parties have more substance than two stoners would be able to come up with while eating the best Kraft Dinner they've ever had. 

As long as the requirements were not based on some punitive monetary fee or innacessable (for starting parties) portion of electorate support I see nothing wrong with ensuring a quality of choice over a quantity of it.

I think presonally that the Irish constituancy size would work for Canada. One thing that should be remembered about STV is that it only produces proportionality within each individual constituancy. There will still be a slight non-proportionality in the national outcome but certainly not to the extent that there is now.

My last point was that none of the PR systems is beyond the mental capacities of any person who has it explained to them. The people who seek to ensure the FPTP status quo spit this little gem out any time someone suggests PR because it threatens the stranglehold they have due to the democratic failures of SMP.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Your conclusion, that restrictive party registration systems are the true check against a proliferation on parties in government, is mostly accurate but is lacking in depth.
> 
> Yes, restrictive party registration processes will reduce the number of parties that can eventually compete at the polls.  However, if this becomes a bureaucratic process (and I can't think of any other way to do it) then it actually restricts the voter's options at the polls.  SMP is superior when it comes to restricting the number of parties that actually get into government in a society that if overflowing with parties (I think your 9:123 ratio shows this fairly well).  Unfortunately, as you alluded to, the voters that do not vote for the winner of the plurality will essentially have lost their vote.  An option would be to use preferential ballots in single member constituencies.  This would ensure that the majority of voters preferred the winner to the next most preferred candidate.
> I think these numbers are critical in the analysis.  The fact that these constituencies are small, will in itself limit the chances of success of fringe parties.  It will take a much higher percentage of the vote for a party to win one seat (or more) in a 3 â â€œ 5 member constituency.  In Israel, there is one pan-national constituency of over 100 representatives.  Clearly, the percentage of votes required to win a seat in this system is much lower.  In Canada, the Irish model would usually see fringe parties drown out at the constituency level against the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and even the BQ.  The Israeli model could see less than 1% of the population elect a fringe party, and the increased chances for fringe parties to make small victories could lead to more votes for these types of parties (and thus the â Å“Balkanizationâ ? and instability of government).  The problem with small multi-member constituencies is that they would continue the tendency of the SMP system to over-represent regional parties in the House of Commons (the BQ and early Reform demonstrate this).



McG beat me to the punch. Looking at the historical evidence, it seems the trade off is at the level of "compromise" for want of a better term. FPTP requires the representative or the party to appeal to the widest number of voters in the rideing or district. SVT or other PR systems would seem (Malta notwithstanding) to promote the growth of more narrowly focused parties. 

If I was to run as a Libertarian in Canada, I would have difficulty since the vast majorety of voters preffer middle class entitlements such as government monopoly Health Care. If I was to work withing the Conservative party, I would have to compromise somewhat, but their message is more appealing to the voters, and hence I would have a better chance as a candidate to run on the Conservative platform. The Conservatives have room for my point of view, so long as I am also willing to work with them.

In a PR Canada, I have less reason to compromise my beliefs (maybe a good thing), and I would be much more apealing to the small number of Libertarians out there. Assuming I crossed the vote threashold, I would now be one of a very small number of Libertarian MPs in a Pizza parliament. Do I represent my riding? all the Libertarian voters in Canada? the Party? These are the practical issues that have dogged PR. Myself, I would like to think the person I voted for represents me and my ridings interests to parliament (alas, the MP is a Liberal, so he represents Ottawa to our riding instead), PR would seem to disconnect that relationship, especially if there was a national or pan national electoral list.

Bottom line, every system has its merits and flaws. I can imagine 10 or 20 years after Canada adops a PR systemn there will be agitation for the adoption of FPTP, with detractors saying how difficult that would be for voters to understand....


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Jan 2005)

a_maj,

Do you believe that your MP realy represents your constituancy now? 

Another one of the problems with FPTP is that it produces 4 year dictatorships through Majority governments. In a coalition government there is a requirement to take other points of view into account or else the coalition will splinter and the government will fall. Compromise is supposed to be a function of government not an opposite of it.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2005)

Sorry, I thought I was clear that my MP does NOT represent me or anyone else in the riding.

The elected dictatorship can be addressed by finessing other elements of the system besides the electoral method. Swiss style referendums to propose legislation from outside the house, voter recall, even alternating electoral cycles (such as the US Senate, where half the senators are up for reelection every two years) will put the public right in Parliaments face. 

How to get there without an armed revolution? I don't know. We could wage a multi-year propaganda campaign through the Internet, or the financial mismanagement of verious governments could cause a financial disaster and voter revolt (London, ON is gearing up for this since council cannot dicipline their spending and have proposed 10% tax hikes three years in a row now). Maybe an asteroid will fall from space and strike Ottawa. As you say, there are enough people who know how to game the current system and beniftit from it to mount a sustained defense of FPTP.


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2005)

If you do not like FPTP, then preferential ballots are another option that would allow us to keep with our single member constituencies.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2005)

Sign me up for the preferential ballot also known as the Single Vote Transferrable with single member constituencies.   I like accountability and it gives a clear decision - most folks in the constituency either like or can tolerate the winner.   

As to regionalism, what's so bad about that?   The whole rpremise of our system is that the house is made up of representatives from 366(?) regions.   It is a geographically based system.   It is designed to reflect the fact that Urban BC issues are not the same as Rural Ontario or the Backcountry of Nunavut.   These characters are all sent there to work out practical compromises that they think will benefit most Canadians most of the time.   Every few years we get to decide if we like the compromises they have made.

Now as to the Senate and the Governor-General and the Lieutenant-Governors, there I am much more open to proportional representation or even some sort of collegial system where they are appointed or elected by the provinces and the federal parliament and government. - As long as their powers are constrained as they currently are.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> As soon as the position becomes elected it will be politicized.  One of the essential virtues of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen doesn't owe anyone any favours, is immune to political pressure, and is above the divisiveness of politics.  The minute you start choosing the person for the office, which really means electing him or her at some level, then you've got yourself another politician.  And we have plenty of those already.
> 
> ...



Is the German president overly political?  How about the Indian president or the Israeli president?  There are several Westminster style parliamentary republics, with _selected_ presidents.  I refuse to accept that Canadians are so venal as to be unable to manage.

If you think my (or McWhinney's, take your pick) proposal for _morphing_ into a regency is scary, here is my proposal for Senate Reform, by stealth.

On being appointed, Prime Minister Harper writes a few letters:

"¢	First, to each provincial premier outlining (not _proposing_) his plan for Senate Reform;

"¢	Second, to each senator -

o	Outlining his proposal, and

o	Demanding each senator's resignation, to be effective the day of the next general election in the province (s)he represents.

Next: the proposal; on the same day as he sent the letters, he goes public and tells Canadians that, starting soon, they will elect their senators when they elect their provincial governments.  He will explain that senators will be elected, province by province, using a simple system of proportional representation: each provincial party will submit lists of candidates for the Senate of Canada when they go to the polls in their respective provinces; senators will be *appointed, by the Prime Minister of Canada - as required by the Constitution*, from those lists, based on the share of the popular vote earned by each party; senators will, before being appointed, provide the Prime Minster with a letter of resignation, effective at the next provincial general election (this will be a new, practical, requirement for being appointed to the Senate).  He will explain that, almost certainly, a few senators will refuse to resign, preferring that they be allowed to continue in their illegitimate, appointed, _pork barrel_ politics, patronage sinecures.  Most will, sooner rather than later, change their minds after they understand that they will be _illegitimate_ - toothless old hacks, flacks and bagmen.  It may take 20 years to complete the whole process but, at least, it has begun.

In response to questions he will say that while he prefers some form of provincial equality he cannot see how to manage it without turning the Senate into a 250 seat body, something he does not intend to do.  He will also say that he plans to use his power to increase the senate, on a regional basis, to appoint six new senators - one from each territory (selected by the territory, in some form to be agreed) and three others, elected every three or four years by the _Assembly of First Nations_, the _Inuit Tapirisat_ and the _Metis National Council._

Prime Minister Harper will explain that he will establish a new _constitutional convention_ requiring that senators appointed to the cabinet must be elected; he will respect the Senate's right, even duty, to amend or delay legislation but he will not accept that a defeat in the Senate on a matter of _confidence_ in the House of Commons would mean a defeat of the government.  As now a bill might be rejected by the Senate but, if it is passed again by the House then the GG will sign it into law.

The point is that there are many things which can be done to reform our _institutions_ without amending the Constitution; reforming the Senate and ditching the _monarch_, in favour of a Canadian regent, are just two of them.


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> On being appointed, Prime Minister Harper writes a few letters:
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



Senators are appointed by the Crown, _on the advice of_ the Prime Minister.  You can't have the PM demanding the resignation of 100 people appointed by the Crown and making his own unilateral changes to the way they're appointed.  It's to prevent _exactly_ that kind of thing that we have an apolitical head of state above the PM.  Without the Queen, who would stop a PM from running amok and reinventing the government to suit his own purposes?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Senators are appointed by the Crown, _on the advice of_ the Prime Minister.   You can't have the PM demanding the resignation of 100 people appointed by the Crown and making his own unilateral changes to the way they're appointed.   It's to prevent _exactly_ that kind of thing that we have an apolitical head of state above the PM.   Without the Queen, who would stop a PM from running amok and reinventing the government to suit his own purposes?



Of course the Prime Minister can *demand* the resignation of senators; it is an overt political act: just what partisan, political prime ministers are meant to do.  What he cannot do is fire them.

When they have resigned and when new ones have been elected, the Queen â â€œ or the Regent â â€œ can appoint them _on the advice_ of the PM, just as the Constitution says.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

All-in-all, short of changing our Constitution, I like Mr Campbell's proposal except for a few issues:



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> He will explain that senators will be elected, province by province, using a simple system of proportional representation: each provincial party will submit lists of candidates for the Senate of Canada when they go to the polls in their respective provinces; senators will be *appointed, by the Prime Minister of Canada â â€œ as required by the Constitution*, from those lists, based on the share of the popular vote earned by each party



I think the Senate is a better place to discuss putting PR, but I still disagree with the principal of Proportional Representation as it further mires our politics in the "Party".

What if I want to run for the Senate as an Independent?

Can a Senator be booted from the Party Caucus and still hold his seat, considering that he was put there by people ticking a Party name on the nomination?

Who decides who gets to be put on the Senate list?   What choice would one have if you wanted a Liberal Senator but didn't want Art Eggleton and the rest of the political hacks that the Party decided to accord the top spots to represent your interests in the Senate?

To me, it seems that we've voted for "people" as opposed to "parties" for centuries and it's worked.



> appoint six new senators â â€œ one from each territory (selected by the territory, in some form to be agreed) and three others, elected every three or four years by the _Assembly of First Nations_, the _Inuit Tapirisat_ and the _Metis National Council._



I feel that elected Representatives based upon ethnicity is fundamentally wrong for a few reasons:

-   From a moral standpoint, I refuse to believe that our liberal democracy should afford some sort of special standing on a certain ethnic group whether this standing is advantageous or discriminatory.   Viewing people differently is wrong either way you cut it - saying "Natives get their own Senator" is just as wrong as saying "Coloured folk to the back of the bus".   As well, the organizations you empower to select these "ethnic Senators" are privileged organizations which are closed off to many Canadians - not a good thing in my books with regards to participatory democracy.

-   From a historical standpoint, I can't see anything that should entitle Natives to extra political representation within Canada.   God knows the "Indian Industry" is good at pushing the "time immemorial" spiel (the Supreme Court seems to have bought it), but for all intensive purposes we are all immigrants to North America and all societies (Europeans with other Europeans, Europeans with Natives, Natives with other Natives) have feuded, fought, and bartered the territory within Canada in the past.   European's started the major cities in Canada which are now beakons to minority immigrants - should we give those with European heritage access to a "reserved" positions within City Council?   Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it?

-   From a structural point of view, we effectively give Canadians who have Native heritage *two* voices in the Senate (both in their province/riding and in their ethnic based *interest group*) while all other Canadians have only one.   It may seem like peanuts, but it is an important one that flies in the face of representation.


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer,
Would you be more comfortable with some type of multimember constituency that allowed the voter to vote for the individual or for the party?   

While I generally do not agree with PR systems, I could see a multi-member transferable vote system working for municipalities currently of more than one constituency (2 â â€œ 4 MPs).

Because of the population density of cities, it could become easier for citizens to identify with the Liberal representative of London ON or with the Conservative representative of London ON.  Dispersion in rural areas does not lead me to believe this would work well outside of cities, and it would not be fair to produce mixed urban/rural multi-member constituencies.

As far as the Senate is concerned, it is probably best suited as a multi-member constituency system (with each province forming a constituency).


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Would you be more comfortable with some type of multimember constituency that allowed the voter to vote for the individual or for the party?
> 
> ...



That's an interesting idea.   Wish I'd thought of it.

My views on the Senate derive from my beliefs that:

"¢	In a federal state there must be a bicameral legislature.   One House (which I prefer to call the _National Assembly_ (rather than the time honoured, traditional House of Commons - which speaks to an important part of _English_, maybe even _British_ political history) needs to represent all the people, as unhyphenated Canadians, in rough equality.   (This is something which will take eons to accomplish in Canada because of PEI's four Senate seats which, according to the un-amendable Constitutions, means PEI has four HoC seats, which means that unless we have 1,200+ members in the HoC then a vote in PEI is worth four or five in Toronto: not equal, not democratic, not at all!)   The other chamber, the Senate, must represent the _equal_ (in constitutional terms) _partners_ in the confederation: the provinces.

"¢	Representation in the Senate should reflect the roughly current views of the people in each province; thus to reflect, in the Senate of Canada, the political preferences of Ontarians, in Ontario, Albertans in Alberta, etc.

The same end might be accomplished with multi member constituencies.

With specific reference to a couple of Infanteer's points:

"¢	The lists, in a simple PR list system, would be prepared by the provincial parties.   I believe that _list management_ might become an important tool; some people, at the top of some lists, are almost guaranteed a Senate seat - once they make the top of the list.   Who gets there might have a significant outcome on the provincial general election; if a _near the top_ senatorial candidate is a despised old political hack or bagman then his very presence night drive voters away; conversely if the (likely) third place party puts a real *star* candidate close to but not at the top then people might be persuaded to vote for that third party's candidates for the provincial legislature just to send the popular _*star*_ to the Senate in Ottawa.

"¢	I think that caucus solidarity would be badly damaged - which would not be a bad thing.   It is not clear, to me, that, for example, BC Liberals would, automatically, all join the federal Liberal caucus.

"¢	I share Infanteer's distaste for _reserved_ seats - no matter what the group; but, if any group is _entitled_ to seek _special status_ in our government then it must be aboriginals.

In any event, I remain convinced that real reform is possible without amending the Constitution.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Well, after the political hub-bub with the Federal Government, BC's electoral reform, and various discussions on here, my current ideas on a better arrangement right now are:

- Parliament, consisting of 2 Houses (call them what you want).

- An Upper House (Senate) which is, as McG mentioned above, formed of multi-member constituencies.   The Senate must be "Triple E" - *Elected, Equal, and Effective*.   This means that the Senate must be:

        = nominated in constituencies by the citizens of Canada.   I think that a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system that was recently rejected in British Columbia would be an ideal set-up for a Senate.   Divide each province into two and give 5 Senate Seats to each area (ie: in BC, have Greater Vancouver with 5 seats and the rest of the Province with 5 seats).   In an STV system, parties are permitted to run multiple candidates and independents can run as well (getting around problems with PR systems).

        = Equally representative of the regions of Canada (akin to the US Senate).   The Senate is broken as long as Ontario and Quebec get half the seats - essentially, the Senate is representing population, which is a job of the House of Commons.   I guess the exact breakdown is up in the air, but I imagine it could be layed out with 10 votes for each province and 2 votes for the territories (thus, a 102 member Senate).

        = An effective part of Government; the Senate can propose legislation, block bills, and acts as a legitimate check on the Prime Minister by approving of Appointments.

-   A Lower House that is responsible to represent constituencies of equal amounts of citizens (yes, this means that PEI loses some seats).   This will probably be very similar to the current layout - the Lower House forms Cabinet and the Prime Minister is the head of government.   I would like to see arrangements to reduce the grip of the Party and increase the role of ordinary MP's from all parties (perhaps eliminating the confidence vote?)

- An elected Governor General to act as the Head of State.   Whether the GG remains as a representative of the Monarchy is a completely separate issue that is irrelevant here; what I am looking for is, as I've stated a few times on these forums, a legitimate Head of State for Canada with a GG.   The "Elder Statesman", the GG will be elected by Canadians for a longish term (6-10 years) and will only be able to sit for one term (to avoid seeking the politics of seeking a re-election).   The specifics are debatable, but I see the elected GG as a legitimate "last resort" to intercede in Parliament - they will not be very active politicians and should not have to run on policy platforms as they are reactive and are elected to perform the Constitutional duties of the Head of State in order to act as another check on the office of the Prime Minister.   

A very important duty is the Governor General as the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces.   All soldiers, in their oath, swear obedience to the Head of State, not the Head of Government.   If the Head of State (the GG, representing the Queen) is elected, then their is absolutely no ambiguity in the fact that their exists legitimate and democratic civilian control over the military.   As well, the Chief of the Defence Staff is the only Government Official who has the legal right to go around government and to his superior, the Governor General, if he feels the Defence of Canada is being neglected due to the muckraking of Parliament.

Well, just a few thoughts after observing the Government in action - thoughts?

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2005)

If the Americans can make do with 100 senators, I don't see why we need so many.

Perhaps the GG could be elected by the senate from among the senators.

I still lean toward letting each province decide how to elect/appoint its senators.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the Americans can make do with 100 senators, I don't see why we need so many.



That is true, the number is up for debate - I just used 100 off the top of my head.   Does 52 Sound better (5 per province and 2 for the territories)?



> Perhaps the GG could be elected by the senate from among the senators.



Another possibility, with some interesting consequences to contemplate, such as:
- The CDS (and the CF) is managed by the DND but the "CofC" goes to the Senate?
- One House of Parliament has the Head of State while the other has the Head of Government - does this mean that the GG gets some new powers by being the head of a (now effective) Legislative Branch?

However, I still lean to a seperate office.   As I said above, I'm not to sure I want the GG to be a very partisan office, which they would be by default by being from Parliament.



> I still lean toward letting each province decide how to elect/appoint its senators.



Possible, but I still don't like it because government appointments have not impressed me.   Take BC for example - would we want all of BC's Senators being chosen by the Liberal Government that, until recently, had 98% of the seats or the NDP government before it that held a mandate without even achieving the plurality of the popular vote?   I feel that people will lose faith in the accountablilty of the Senate if it can be percieved as an extention of the Provincial government.

Elected by the citizens of a Province using a STV system seems attractive for the Senate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2005)

My purpose in having the provinces decide would be to impose a check, above Parliament, which more directly represents the interests of the provinces and further empowers the provinces relative to the federal government.  Given that, I see no reason for a provincial not to directly appoint senators (subject to the term limits) - it promotes unity of purpose and accountability.  The BC senators, for example, should represent the interests and wishes of the government of BC.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Ahh, I see - I should of guessed that, considering our past _tete-au-tete_ over Provincial governments.

I do not wish the Senate to represent the Government of BC, bringing teh dynamic of a incestuous relationship between the Provincial and Federal governments (I view myself as a Canadian, not a British Columbian); I'm not interested in seeing the fiefs claw more away from our Government.  I desire Senators to represent me and the other constituents, albeit in a slightly different manner and makeup than my MP.  I want to vote for my Senator(s) rather than having them appointed - this way, if there is a problem with the Senate, than we have only ourselves to blame....


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 May 2005)

My personal feeling on the Head of State is that no matter who it is they should be apolitical. they should not have or have had any formal affiliation to a political party or be an outspoken idealogue for any party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2005)

I believe, I'm pretty sure and I'm repeating myself â â€œ but no apologies, that a federal state needs a bicameral _national_ legislature:

1.	One chamber must represent the people in (roughly) equal number â â€œ a major flaw in the Canadian system which allows a PEI vote to count for four or five times a Toronto vote; and

2.	The other must represent the _partners_ in the federation: the provinces.

That's why I, too, favour electing the Senate from the provinces.  I believe that Senators should be elected at every provincial general election â â€œ by some system which reflects the will of the people â â€œ i.e. for Ontario, right now, the Liberals would have 12 senators (46+% of the votes in the 2003 general election), the Tories would have 8 (34+%) and the NDP would have 4 (14+%) and Nova Scotia would have 4 Tories (36+% of the popular vote in the last general election), 3 Liberals (31%) and 3 NDP senators (also 31%).

 I have explained elsewhere how to start the process of _legitimizing_ the Senate by _persuading_ (shaming) senators into resigning and then appointing only senators elected (who, also, submit resignations before being appointed).  It would take a while but it took our US neighbours several years to get from the first _generally_ elected senators (1904) to the 17th Amendment (1914).

I would prefer an equal senate but that is too difficult, now, and the whole thing need not come at once; an elected Senate will become 'effective' (legitimate) and equality can follow â â€œ as it often does.

The idea of electing a head of state â â€œ say every six or seven years â â€œ by the Senate, maybe even from the ranks of Senators, has some appeal â â€œ if the GG then, immediately resigns her (maybe his) Senate seat and moves over to Rideau Hall.  Perhaps the Senate could both nominate (from their own list of distinguished Canadians) and elect the GG every few years.

----------

P.S. Don't forget that I do not want Charles to become King of Canada so I want the GG to become a _regent_ â â€œ standing in  for an unselected monarch.


----------



## Dare (21 May 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> P.S. Don't forget that I do not want Charles to become King of Canada so I want the GG to become a _regent_ â â€œ standing in  for an unselected monarch.


I think there would have to be a lot more changes than just that to attain your goal.


----------



## McG (24 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A Lower House that is responsible to represent constituencies of equal amounts of citizens (yes, this means that PEI loses some seats).   This will probably be very similar to the current layout - the Lower House forms Cabinet and the Prime Minister is the head of government.


This single member constituency could also be selected based on a transferable vote.  The lowest candidates would be dropped one at a time and their ballots transfered based on the voters' ordered preference.  The winning candidate would be the one that earned the higher preference of the majority of the voters.


----------



## Zartan (19 Dec 2005)

Since there's an election going on, I thought it might be appropriate to put forward my idea for an elected senate. I think it would be an excellent step in the reforming of our government structure, which seems to be driving more and more folks bonkers (the west wants in, etc.) However, I also believe it could help in inter-government relations, in addition to national unity.

I believe that the House of Commons, in itself, does what it is supposed to do, in terms of representation. Everyone's vote is worth the same. But since their is so much talk of under representation to the regions of the country with less people, a triple E senate, I believe, would cure a number of problems of national unity. My model, though not quite triple E, would also provide the provinces with more power at a federal level, so, hopefully, this would bring about the killing of two birds, while also acting as a balance to the power of the reigning party. 

Here's how it goes: 

Elected body: 
- Every province elects 8 senators, representing an equal geographic area. This will result in 80 senators. 
- Every territory elects a senator, representing the whole territory. This will result in 3 senators, and 83 in total. 

Non-elected body: 
- Every provincial and territorial government dispatches a deputy to sit in the senate, to represent and promote the will of their respective governments. This will result in 13 senators, and 96 in total. 
- Each party represented in the House of Commons dispatches one deputy to sit in the senate, to promote the will of their party. Under the last government, this would result in 4 senators, bringing the grand total to 100 senators. 

Notes: 
- All elected senators are independent candidates. The original senators were ment to provide a sober second thought, and being free from party lines will better allow that. 
- Senators will be elected through first past the post. Given how they are independent, proportional balloting I don't see how it would work. 
- If the senate did have a party system and proportional representation, would it not be just a more or less carbon copy of the house? 

That's the base of it; it still needs to be fleshed out, but that's my idea. What do you think?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2005)

Zartan said:
			
		

> I believe that the House of Commons, in itself, does what it is supposed to do, in terms of representation.



The House of Commons is inadequate because it is a single house that has centralized all of Parliaments power into a single body.  It is impossible for this single body to serve as a universal outlet for the democratic will of the Canadian people.



> - Every province elects 8 senators, representing an equal geographic area. This will result in 80 senators.



The number is debatable - I've thought 6 would be a good number for each Province.  An interesting side proposal would be to divide the Senators up within each province as well to help split coverage and accountability up (for example, in BC have 3 Senators for Central/Northern BC and 3 Senators for Greater Vancouver and the Island).



> Every territory elects a senator, representing the whole territory. This will result in 3 senators, and 83 in total.



I'm not too sure if you want to have a wide disparity between senators in Provinces and Territories - this defeats the regional nature of the Upper House.  Sure, Territories will get less based upon their separate status, but not much.  6 per Province and 2 per Territory - thus 6 Senators would represent a "Northern Province" in a Senate of 66.



> Every provincial and territorial government dispatches a deputy to sit in the senate, to represent and promote the will of their respective governments. This will result in 13 senators, and 96 in total.



Why should provincial/territorial governments get a seat?  I disagree with this idea; there is no need to allow Provinces to get their hand in federal legislation - infact, I'd argue that this is an unconstitutional reach of provincial politicians into Federal jurisdiction.



> Each party represented in the House of Commons dispatches one deputy to sit in the senate, to promote the will of their party. Under the last government, this would result in 4 senators, bringing the grand total to 100 senators.



The Green Party runs candidates in every riding - why should they not get a seat under this proposal?  Conversely, the Bloq is highly concentrated, only really representing a certain percentage of Quebec-based voters, so why should they get one under this proposal at all?  What (or whom) decides if political parties get a seat in a Legislative house based upon the sole fact that they are a Party?

I disagree with this idea as well - political parties are not Constitutionally recognized constituencies and there is no reason to empower them as such.  As Brad Sallows pointed out earlier:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As has been pointed out on several political blogs, the whole "party representation" issue is a red herring.  Political parties don't really have any particular constitutional standing.  Parliament is composed of riding representatives who are directly chosen by riding electors (voters).  Party affiliations are an afterthought which helps to simplify governance (ie. figuring out which clique can control Parliament or the balance of power in Parliament), and there are some institutional characteristics that have been grafted on over the years (eg. funding based on party status).





> All elected senators are independent candidates. The original senators were ment to provide a sober second thought, and being free from party lines will better allow that.



No point trying to do this - Senators are going to be Legislators, so they should be able to run on platforms that highlight their platforms.



> Senators will be elected through first past the post. Given how they are independent, proportional balloting I don't see how it would work.  If the senate did have a party system and proportional representation, would it not be just a more or less carbon copy of the house?



I think the STV model works best for the Senate, with each province (or half province) being considered a Multi-member constituency.  *I believe in Senate reform as necessary for fixing the democratic deficit in Canada, but we don't really need to rewrite the playbook for this; the Australian Senate serves as an excellent model for a functioning regional-based Upper House:*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate



> But the proportional election system within each state ensures that Senate incorporates much more political diversity than the lower house, which is basically a two party body. Consequently, the Senate frequently functions as a house of review, intended not to match party political strength in the lower chamber but to bring in different people, in terms of geography, age and interests, who can contribute in a less politicised manner to the process of legislative enactment.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2005)

Furthermore, the Senate and the House of Commons are only two of three parts of the Parliamentary equation, and I believe that reform of the third body is essential as well.

The failing of our Constitutional order is that it allows unwritten convention to overtake the written "rules of the game" leading to unintended consequences.   I'm all for changing the rules of the game, but let's be upfront and clearly show how they work; if anything to avoid a reply of the "Confidence" vote/no-vote we saw in the spring.

One of the "unintended consequences" I believe has occurred is the shape of our political landscape today.   Our Westminster tradition (which has its strengths and is a tradition we should be duly proud of) is underscored by the principle of the *Supremacy of Parliament*.   Forget the fact that federalism in Canada has underscored this (a contradictory and yet necessary function), the heart of our national government is in Parliament.

Constitutionally, Parliament is defined as the following in the BNA Act:

_17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons._

Thus, Sovereignty is a three part deal in Canada.   Unfortunately, unintended consequences have evolved Parliament from the "Sovereignty of Parliament" into the "Tyranny of the Commons" (clearly described in Simpson's The Friendly Dictatorship).   This "friendly tyranny" has managed to usurp the rudder of Canada by ensuring that power is concentrated two-fold; power that rightly is shared amongst Parliament is wielded by Commons and all this power centralized into a winner-takes-all party system that has the Party leader at the Apex of the structure.   The true sovereign voice of the people, the _vox populi_, is ignored as party machinery finds a clever way to rule through unintended concentration of power that is unprecedented in the Western Democracies.

I believe the general solution to be *Checks and Balances*.   Critics will deride the system of checks and balances of as "American" - but they are not; they've existed before.   One only has to view the structure of the Greek polis or of the Roman _Res Publica_ to see checks and balances at work.   I'd argue that checks and balances aren't even "Republican" in nature - Westminster Parliamentary government is built on the foundational check and balance of the _Magna Carta_.   English (later British) rule has always been a battle of checks and balances - when the system was usurped, civil war rang out with a tyranny of the monarch (Charles I) and a Tyranny of the Commons (Cromwell).   Obviously, the balanced middle ground is the desired endstate.

Checks and balances can be, in my opinion, reinvigorated in Canada by simply reinstituting the Constitutional imperative that Parliament be composed of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Commons.   I've tried to rationalize a way to do so with as little change to our Constitutional structure as possible.

The Governor-General is the ideal office for true executive head of the State (whether she be the Queen's representative or not is another debate irrelevant to this discussion   ).   My reading of the Constitution (more specifically, the BNA Act) leads me to find   main duties for our Governor General:

Heads the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Section 11)
Appointment (which includes, but shouldn't, Senators) (Section 14)
Command of Armed Forces (Section 15)
Reservation - a fancy word for Veto (Sections 54, 55, 56, 57)
Unfortunately, unintended consequences have seen these duties fall by the wayside or be given to the Prime Minister (who isn't even mentioned in the BNA Act) in the name of "ceremonial".

Regardless, I think these 4 powers are excellent in defining the scope that a modern, real Governor General should have.

*The Privy Council:*   An odd organization that could be useful if modernized.   The PC is essentially the "Executive Council" for government.   It includes the GG, Cabinet (current and former), Chief Justices, and a variety of other characters who are accorded a spot for either pressing or honorary reasons.   The Queen's Privy Council for Canada should essentially be restructured as the "Cabinet".   It should contain the GG, the PMO, Ministers, and other important advisers and heads of agencies (for example, something akin to the US National Security Council, the Bank of Canada, etc, etc).   A more detailed discussion would be required to ascertain the role of a GG in this body (is it to retain a reserved, observer status?   Active member?) but it should be an organization that actively meets in whole or in part to govern Canada, and the GG should be part of this regular meeting (as the Constitution intended).

*Appointment:*   This is an important power - one that can help to eliminate cronyism and patronage if stripped away from the Prime Minister and his party hacks.   Make the power of appointment similar to that of the US, where the GG selects the person and the Senate approves of the selection to ensure a democratic "check and balance" is maintained.

*Command of the Armed Forces:*   This is a seemingly minor one, but I think it is very important.   The CDS is, alone among senior government officials, guaranteed by law direct access to the Governor General.   This relationship highlights the fact that deployments and missions are enacted by Parliament and executed by the GG - legislation sending the Forces away involves a final nod from the GG to the CDS (who, by law, is the only one allowed to give orders to the CF).   As head of our Armed Forces, the GG is responsible for ensuring that our military doesn't unduly suffer from negligent politicians (through reservation).

*Reservation:*   The equivalence to the American President's veto - and an essential power I think needs to be brought back.   The veto allows the GG to put a check on run-away houses, especially Commons which is the only legal source of Money Bills.   Reservation is, like the President's veto, a serious issue.   Again, like the US, the allowance of an override through a 2/3 majority vote in both houses should be included to ensure democratic imperative and act as a further check and balance.

Four key powers for our Head of State - four that are good at balancing out the relationships within Parliament (as constituted by Law) and yet unobtrusive to the daily running of the State.   Obviously, popular vote is required to give these powers the moral force of the _vox populi_.   With that in mind, I advocate the following:

1)   The Governor General be elected by a simple popular majority (no fancy electoral systems).   If a primary vote doesn't yield a winner, take the top two into a run-off.

2)   The Governor General be a long-term post, perhaps 8 or 10 years with no ability for re-election.   This measure will ensure that the position has, as the executive head of state, a real enduring quality (much like our Monarchy) and that the politics of re-election don't interfere with the ability to perform the duties.

3)   That the Governor General be that of an "Elder Statesman".   More of a representative (to foreign governments) and an observer.   The GG won't have legislative power and can't propose Bills.   As well, depending on how Cabinet-Privy Council would be structured, I'm not sure they should interfere too much in the running of the State (if Cabinet votes are required they have one vote) - they should attend to be aware of what is happening in Canada (especially for National Security and what not) so as to have an understanding of policies that they must give Royal Assent to.

4)   The Governor General's appointment powers need to be examined.   Judges, ambassadors, heads of Crown Corporations are given.   What about Cabinet members?   In the US, Secretaries are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure, would the same work for Canada.   Unlike the US, which constitutionally forbids legislators from holding executive posts, our Westminster system conventionally gives Cabinet ministries to MP's.   In Canada, they all come from Commons, but there is nothing in law that says that Ministers can't come from the Senate or be private citizens.   As well, members of the Privy Council have a term that is defined as "time to time", which implies that they serve at the Governor General's pleasure - this means that if voted out they can still legally serve in Cabinet.   Conversely, if busy as an executive, are not these MP's and Senators neglecting their important jobs as representatives in the Legislature?   All these are valid points and, in the spirit of the best person for the job (as opposed to Art Eggleton), need to be considered in detail when addressing the scope of the GG's power of appointment.

5)   Perhaps the GG should be recallable?   Maybe by a 4/5's majority by both Houses?   Definitely an Impeachment clause.

Thus, a popularly elected GG serving as an effective Head of State acts as the third "check" in Parliament.

Commons loses power in this (along with a Triple-E Senate) structure, but it still maintains it's primacy by being the only body that can propose Money Bills.   This is good, although maybe it should now be given to all of Commons and not just to Cabinet members in order to encourage more debate and individual action on the Commons floor.     The Prime Minister should be a position that is Constitutionally enshrined as the Head of Government - I believe that there is still many important things for the Prime Minister to do along the lines of the day-to-day affairs of the State.   In defining the PMO, his duties should be outlined.   I think Commons should be mandated to votes every 4 years.   As well, I think we should lose the convention of Commons as a House of confidence in order to allow more free voting and dissention on the floor.   Remember that Edmund Burke quote, we have to work at eliminating factionalism and encouraging work towards the interest of Canada as a whole.

Anyways, just more thoughts for the grist mill.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2005)

> Quote
> Every provincial and territorial government dispatches a deputy to sit in the senate, to represent and promote the will of their respective governments. This will result in 13 senators, and 96 in total.
> 
> Why should provincial/territorial governments get a seat?  I disagree with this idea; there is no need to allow Provinces to get their hand in federal legislation - infact, I'd argue that this is an unconstitutional reach of provincial politicians into Federal jurisdiction.



Now Infanteer, I thought you and I just discussed this recently and I agreed with me that you were wrong. ;D

Ottawa was originally hand-servant to the "independent" colonies.  The Senate was to represent their interests in Parliament and federal legislation.  Otherwise why would the seats have been apportioned geographically in the first place.


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2005)

It seems the poll has been wiped clean.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now Infanteer, I thought you and I just discussed this recently and I agreed with me that you were wrong. ;D
> 
> Ottawa was originally hand-servant to the "independent" colonies.



It's my Republican "more perfect union" thing.  Ottawa was not (and shouldn't be) a hand-servant - Canadian politicians specifically tried to avoid this in 1867 while looking at what had just went on down South over the same issue.  



> The Senate was to represent their interests in Parliament and federal legislation.  Otherwise why would the seats have been apportioned geographically in the first place.



The Senate has never worked this way - look how it is constructed; seats are apportioned by "Region" and not "Province".


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Governor General [should] be elected by a simple popular majority (no fancy electoral systems).  If a primary vote doesn't yield a winner, take the top two into a run-off.


That is awfully expensive when a preferential ballot could allow an "automatic" run-off with out the cost of reopening the polls, continued campaings, delays in taking office, etc.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is awfully expensive when a preferential ballot could allow an "automatic" run-off with out the cost of reopening the polls, continued campaings, delays in taking office, etc.



I have no qualms against spending money to get things done right - if Canada is willing to bear the burden of funding parties, ensuring bilingualism, paying for ceremonial guards, running elections more frequently for minority governments, and a host of other things that keep democracy ticking then there is no problem with organizing a second run-off election if necessary.   The cost of an election is a drop in the bucket compared to a host of other things in which we could cut if we were worried about money.

A preferential ballot is not the panacea that many make it out to be.   It can be used effectively in multi-member ridings to give a more proportional balance to the election, but it only seems to complicate a straight-forward election of a single candidate to represent a single constituency (Canada).   A majority vote will ensure that no controversy arises in an election of more than one candidate and creates a clear-cut, legitimate successor to the office.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Dec 2005)

"panacea"
hey I got your big word right here:
thesaurus
your becoming more of an officer everyday
pardon me its the sleep deprivation talking


----------



## Dog (22 Dec 2005)

The major issue I have with our electoral system, is that many formerly-rural ridings have since been conjoined with urban centres, and now no matter how many of the rural residents vote, they are always vastly outnumbered but the urban voters. I know my old riding was staunchly conservative until it was almalgamated with the urban centre of Cornwall..... ever since, the MP has been elected within the city, and the voters from the farms, and rural areas as far away as a 45 minute drive are no longer represented, or campaigned to.

Since 60% of the Canadian population lives in an urban centre, rural voters are essentially irrelevant now.... which is stupid.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Just getting back to Infanteer's concern about the provinces interfering in "federal" jurisdiction 

Section 22 - the 1867 Constitution Act



> 22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:--
> 
> 1. Ontario;
> 2. Quebec;
> ...



Pretty clear to me that the Senators REPRESENT the provinces.  Section 23 on qualifications say they must reside in the province they represent.   Ergo it seems to me that the provinces have always been intended to have a voice in the central government's legislation.

They were appointed - but not necessarily on the advice of the prime minister alone. The GG could act alone, on the advice of the Privy Council, on the advice of the Commons (not the PM - no mention of a PM at all) or could accept advice from the provincial legislatures for whom and to whom the GG was responsible via his deputies, the Lieutenants-Governor.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Pretty clear to me that the Senators REPRESENT the provinces.  Section 23 on qualifications say they must reside in the province they represent.   Ergo it seems to me that the provinces have always been intended to have a voice in the central government's legislation.



They represent the provinces, not the provincial governments.  The difference is crucial; one between *interstate federalism* (provincial government representation in Parliament) and *intrastate federalism* (bringing regionalism within the central institutions).  I fully believe in a provincial voice in federal affairs (intrastate federalism); I argue that the current method of dividing seats up into "regions" is unfair, hence my support for a Triple-E Senate.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

So you would have two provincial voices with the ear of the executive?   You would have both the provincial governments, speaking on behalf of their legislatures and presumably the citizenry as well as the Senate, independently found from the provinces (appointment or election) and thus also speaking for the provinces but independently of the provinicial governments, offering advice and opinion to the executive, the Governor General?  You would then only have the PM acting with the support of the Commons offering "federal" advice?

Remember that the rules say the GG decides - and I think we both think that is a good thing - the only problem has been the usurpation of the GG's power by the PMO by declaring that the GG is an illegitimate figurehead imposed by a foreign ruler.

If the GG were "re-legitimised" by whatever method, and able to act independently with the advice and consent not just of the PMO but also the Privy Council (apolitical expertise selected personally by the GG but with no legislative power), the Senate (provincial ambassadors offering advice and consent on Commons legislation), the Commons (the nation at large and law makers in central jurisdiction) AND the provincial legislatures (directly or indirectly via the Senate) then many of our checks and balances would fall back into place.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So you would have two provincial voices with the ear of the executive?     You would have both the provincial governments, speaking on behalf of their legislatures and presumably the citizenry as well as the Senate, independently found from the provinces (appointment or election) and thus also speaking for the provinces but independently of the provinicial governments, offering advice and opinion to the executive, the Governor General?   You would then only have the PM acting with the support of the Commons offering "federal" advice?



Yes.  The provincial governments should deal with Parliament on matters pertaining to provincial-federal relations or joint duties.  However, our central, federal government needs provincial input to allow regional interests to balance out Commons.  With a dysfunctional Senate, most Canadians seem to rely on their provincial governments to "stick it to Ottawa", which just creates tension and confusion over who should be doing what.  Providing a Senate (organized along the lines of the Australian model) would give Canadians a legitimate federal body to do so in.  While not being a fix-it-all solution, I think a proper Senate would take the air out of things like Newfoundland oil, the Parti Quebecois, and Ralph Klein telling Ottawa to shove it and eliminate the quasi-feudal order that has overtaken the federal relationship in Canada.



> If the GG were "re-legitimised" by whatever method, and able to act independently with the advice and consent not just of the PMO but also the Privy Council (apolitical expertise selected personally by the GG but with no legislative power), the Senate (provincial ambassadors offering advice and consent on Commons legislation), the Commons (the nation at large and law makers in central jurisdiction) AND the provincial legislatures (directly or indirectly via the Senate) then many of our checks and balances would fall back into place.



Roger.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

> I think a proper Senate would take the air out of things like Newfoundland oil, the Parti Quebecois, and Ralph Klein telling Ottawa to shove it and eliminate the quasi-feudal order that has overtaken the federal relationship in Canada.



Frankly I like the idea of Ralph, or Jean Charest or Danny Williams being able to tell Ottawa to "shove it".   Anything less results not in a "quasi-fueudal order" but a feudal order.     

Now if you mean that a properly functioning Senate could reduce the need for the provinces to point the direction to the highway and invite the federal government to take advantage of the clubs recently approved by the SCOC, then I am with you.

But just as you as an individual cherish your freedom to say no, and just as many argue that they need arms to allow them to say no, so the provinces have and need to retain the right to say no.

Everything has consequences but democracy is about the freedom to act.   The consequences will follow whether or not you are aware of them, willing or unwilling to accept them.   The fear of consequences generally keeps most people in line most of the time.

This innate fear tends to act as a natural check on the impulse to act.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Frankly I like the idea of Ralph, or Jean Charest or Danny Williams being able to tell Ottawa to "shove it".   Anything less results not in a "quasi-fueudal order" but a feudal order.



I also like it when Ottawa tells provincial leaders who can't seem to figure out the big picture to shove it.   I can't stand petty premiers fighting over the table scraps.



> But just as you as an individual cherish your freedom to say no, and just as many argue that they need arms to allow them to say no, so the provinces have and need to retain the right to say no.



Not in matters of federal jurisdiction - there is a reason that the "rules of the game" lay out a proper federal-provincial relationship.   I'm arguing for a strong Senate so as to fix this and get provinces and Ottawa disentangled.   When I put on the uniform, there is a Canadian flag on my shoulder; not BC or Quebec.   As far as I'm concerned, that is where national leadership comes from and it doesn't need to be undermined by Provincial governments.

I fail to understand this view that Provinces are some sort of protectorate against the Federal government.   Constitutionalism, not federalism, moderates the affairs between a citizen and his government.   The fact is that my interests are no better served in Victoria than they are in Ottawa.   Infact, judging by a unicameral house and an even more disproportionate allocation of seats, I'd say the province is an even poorer representative for me politically....


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Here's a heretical thought - people, not laws, control the actions of people.  Laws moderate their controlling actions but it is not laws alone that control.  AND.  For people to exert control, to exert force, they need a power base from which to work.  I like the idea of balancing the Feds with the Provinces.  They are both me.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Huh?

Anyways, this one is swerving off topic - we are talking about Parliament here.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Disagree.

Not swerving off topic.

Parliament is a forum where people exercise and negotiate power.  They agree to laws on how that power can be exercised.  We have access to two parliaments (provincial and federal) both responsible to their electorate (me) and both constraining a common executive (the GG and her deputies the Lieutenants Governor all acting in the name of Her Majesty).

Just as there is one taxpayer regardless of which level of government is authorized to act as agent for the funds, there is also only one powerbroker, the elector.

Frankly I think parliamentary reform is a bit of a red herring.  That implies constitutional reform.  The rules as described in 1867 aren't a bad set of rules - probably as good as any other compromise.  It is in the execution that our governments have failed - and in the usurpation of the GG.  

The entire concept of our governance is based on a non-partisan military commanded by the GG, a non-partisan civil service presided over by the GG, a non-partisan advisory group (the Privy Council) and a non-partisan GG and Lieutenants.  The politicians act as brakes on the GG.  The GG and the Solicitor General, Adjutant General, Comptroller General all act as breaks on the politicians - when legitimated.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A preferential ballot is not the panacea that many make it out to be.   It can be used effectively in multi-member ridings to give a more proportional balance to the election, but it only seems to complicate a straight-forward election of a single candidate to represent a single constituency (Canada).


On issues such as this, I don't believe in a panacea.  However, I do believe the preferential ballot deserves closer attention.  It should be the standard when electing MPs, and it would be desirable when electing a GG aswell.

When you consider the number of parties in this country (and the potential number of independant candidates), there may not be any clear-cut top two candidates to go to a run-off.  At the very least, a preferential ballot could add clarity to who should go on to the next round.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Frankly I like the idea of Ralph, or Jean Charest or Danny Williams being able to tell Ottawa to "shove it".


There should be no need for primiers to be doing this if senators elected by the province's population are sitting in Ottawa as part of a check on the lower houses power.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

> Quote from: Kirkhill on December 22, 2005, 10:01:14
> Frankly I like the idea of Ralph, or Jean Charest or Danny Williams being able to tell Ottawa to "shove it".
> There should be no need for primiers to be doing this if senators elected by the province's population are sitting in Ottawa as part of a check on the lower houses power.



Agree entirely McG.   If there is an effective voice then discussions don't reach the level where it becomes a "take it or leave it" proposition.  On the other hand, knowledge that the upper house has the backing of powerful premiers would tend to make the lower house more likely to pay attention I would think.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> On the other hand, knowledge that the upper house has the backing of powerful premiers would tend to make the lower house more likely to pay attention I would think.


I would think more authority would come from having the upper house backed by the electorate (elected by the provinces' population & not appointed by their Premiers).


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

Also possible.  Then a province's voters could play off their Premier against their Senator(s).  More checks and balances - but this time they might effectively be seen as an "internal" discussion, pitting eg Albertan against Albertan vs Albertan against Canadian.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2006)

Run-off voting might seem fair, but it reinforces the 'voting against' problem we have in Canada.  Its greatest benefit would be to all the soft NDP voters whose greatest worry during elections is making the correct guess between risking a NDP vote or propping up the local Liberal.  If you want to swing Canada permanently into socialism, support run-off voting - Liberal/NDP coalitions unto the end of the economy.  I believe the lure of conscripting others' money is already strong enough; no more encouragement and advantage are necessary.  If Canadians in general had a strong, well-ingrained self-reliance backbone - a culture which viewed the notion of voting to acquire a share of someone else's labour as a distasteful proposition - then run-off voting might be sensible.

OTOH, given the direction we seem to be heading, maybe it's best to accelerate the pace so we can reach the likely culminating point and acquire some serious motivation to each rethink how we view our neighbours' freedom.


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Run-off voting might seem fair, but it reinforces the 'voting against' problem we have in Canada.


I anticipate that run-off elections or preferential balots would encourage voters to go with thier top preference as a first choice.  The need for the stratigic vote would be eliminated/reduced because as one's third party preferences fall from the balot, eventually one's vote would transfer to thier stratigic alternative. (Though for many the stratigic choice may also be thier number one preference).

Parties currently earn money toward the next campaing for each vote recieved in an election.  I would see this money distributed based on the number of first preference votes cast for any party.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jan 2006)

I would like to see the money removed entirely.  People who want to control government with their "faction" can damn well pay for it themselves, without any tax breaks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2006)

Earlier this week the _National Post_ ran an informative, if quite wrong-headed, series on the ever popular subject of Senate reform.  The series was too long to reproduce here but Andrew Coyne’s _response_ is not.  Here it is, from today’s _Post_, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Fear of a democratic Senate
> 
> *Andrew Coyne*
> 
> ...




I want to use this as a springboard to suggest that it is not just _*Senate Reform*_ which is required, we, Canada, need to introduce some form of _representative_ democracy with a few fairly basic principles such as, just for example, *one person : one vote* in elected legislatures.

I understand that many Canadians believe we have a liberal, democratic, _representative_ democracy; I also understand that many Canadian believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.  All those myths, Santa slides down the chimney, Canada is a representative democracy, the tooth fairy leaves money are equally well founded.

Consider, just for example, *one person : one vote*.  A voter in Cardigan PEI had, in the 2006 general election, a *vote* worth about 3 times that cast by a voter in Calgary-Nose Hill or over 2.5 times that cast by a voter in Chatham Essex-Kent in Ontario.  Remember, we are not talking about very small populations in our vast, remote Arctic lands – Cardigan is a lot like Chatham Essex Kent except that it has way, way less than half the population but the same political ‘value’ in Ottawa.

There is a reason why PEI votes are so valuable: PEI has four Senate seats and, according to our Constitution, no province may have fewer MPs than it has Senators.  To change that particular provision of the Constitution requires the *unanimous* consent of the national parliament and all ten provincial legislatures.

One of the reasons so many people oppose Senate reform is that they perceive that a Constitutional amendment would be required and they agree, amongst themselves, that meaningful Constitutional reform regarding the _nature_ of the state (including parliamentary representation) is impossible under the 1982 Constitution.

So, should we give up, quit, _cut and run_?

*No!*

Meaningful democratic reform: creating a fairly modern _representative_, secular, liberal democracy, is possible.

First we need to recognize that, except for a very, very few special ridings in the Yukon and High Arctic we *need* – *URGENTLY* need – real representative democracy which will be based on the idea that for 95+% of Canadians one person’s vote will be worth roughly the same as any other person’s vote – say plus or minus 20%.  There is, in my opinion, a simple and, relatively, cheap and easy way to do this, without amending the Constitution: increase the number of MPs to about 1,000.  This requires serious, *apolitical* rebalancing of seats within provinces – a Toronto Centre vote is ‘worth’ 1.5 times more an Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing vote within Ontario.  We should settle for one MP for about every 25,000 to 35,000 residents or every 25,000 registered *electors*.  That means PEI needs 4 MPs, just as it has today, and just as it is Constitutionally required to have.  Alberta needs 91, that’s 3.25 times its current allotment of 28 and Ontario needs a whopping 335, 3.1 times its current 106 – that’s more MPs for Ontario than there are seats in today’s HoC just to provide Ontario with *equal* representation.

Now, I can hear the screams already: *There are already too many of those overpaid, pampered bums.  We can’t afford more!*

Yes we can.  Let’s say that each MP ‘costs’ about $1,000,000 per year – salary, benefits, staff, parliamentary library, etc, etc – that’s probably a bit high, but that’s OK.  So we spend as much as $300 million now – about of 0.2% of the budget.  Could we not:

•	Triple the number of MPs;

•	Increase the parliamentary staff by, say, only 60%, increasing the staff budgets to, say, only $300 million, therefore;

•	Reform how MPs work, how they are supported (fewer staff for each), how committees are managed, and, and, and … because so many MPs will require new ways of working; and

•	Cut their salaries and staffs, a bit, so that we spend, let’s say $750,000 per MP and thus spend ½ of 1% of the budget on _democracy_?

Is ½ of 1% of the national budget really too much for a functioning democracy?

We can reform the Senate, too.  I have explained, here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-218220.html#msg218220  here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-200811.html#msg200811 and here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-200450.html#msg200450 how I think our Prime Minister should go about it.  My proposal would institutionalize an existing measure of inequality.  Alberta has 2.9 million voters and only six senators, Nova Scotia has only 750,000 electors but it gets 10 senators – that’s a 5:1 disparity.  Only Québec is _fairly_ represented I the Senate of Canada – it has a bit less than 25% of the senators for a bit less than 25% of the population.  Atlantic Canada is grossly over represented and Canada West of the Ottawa River is grossly underrepresented.

We *should* have a equal Senate – because it should represent the equal partners in the federation: the provinces.  That, too, requires unanimous agreement and is, consequently, probably a practical impossibility.  It may have to be sufficient, for now, to make the Senate elected, which may take 20 years to accomplish, completely.  An elected Senate will make itself _effective_: one of the reasons the _National Post_ authors opposed democracy!  Equality might have to wait for political maturity in Canada, maybe that will be a 22nd century phenomenon.

Edit: typos


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Mar 2006)

Two more arguments by extension to bolster your cause Edward:

Your 1000 member parliament would work and be affordable if it explicitly followed the "jury" format.  That is to say that a jury is a body of common citizens, peers of the accused and accuser, that sit in judgement with no particular skills beyond their common sense.  They represent the community interest and are there to ensure that the community believes that justice has been fairly done.

MPs in parliament need be no more than those Jury members.  Like those jury members they do not need a personal staff to help them in their decisions.  They do however need informed advice and opinion such as is supplied by a judge and lawyers in court.  In parliament that information, normally dug out by the MP's staff or party staff, should be supplied by Parliament's staff - eg Auditor General, Library, etc.... Take the MP's staff budget away and apply to a central pool such as the GAO or CBO in the States.

Let the MPs finance their political staff that keeps them elected themselves.

I like your 1000 MP parliament because it dilutes the power of the Government.  It would be difficult to justify creating 501 Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.  At that point the Back Benches hold the power.  Nicely done.

Related - I think I saw something recently on the Dutch Parliament where Ministers sit in the House but can't vote on legislation.  They can propose while the MPs dispose.  They Government has to find its majority from the non-governing MPs.  I thought that a nice touch.  The MPs can still fire the Government if they don't like their performance.

WRT the Senate:

I don't think we have to rely on maturity to achieve reform.  I have little faith in that as a concept.  Adults more often than not seem to be oversized five year olds.  

I do think that from time to time it is necessary to throw the cat among the pigeons and let events take their course.  Especially if the cat-thrower has a view of the end-state they wish to achieve.

It is hard to convince people to move away from a comfortable status quo.  It is much easier to get them to act when the status quo is not comfortable.  Sometimes it is necessary to create discomfiture, even if there is an element of risk associated with an unintended outcome.

When do you intend to throw your hat in the ring?

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2006)

A 1.000 man parliament is somewhat of an amusing concept (until you consider it would be twice the size of a current Infantry battalion!), but from a historical perspective, the idea of a 1000 man citizen "Jury" makes more sense.

In the classical Athenian _ekklesia_, the assembly acted as a jury for the most part, smaller groups elected or appointed by the assembly such as the _strategoi_ and the _boule_ did most of the actual work, and submitted the results to the assembly for confirmation. A full explanation can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

For the most part, the faults in the Canadian system are not based on the way the institution is built, but rather how it is run. Tweaking the number of MPs, or even having an elected Senate will not really alter the outcome so long as Paul Martins, Jack Laytons or Caroline Parishes get elected and remain in office for long periods of time. Perhaps the only certain way to restrain office holders is to follow the examples of the ancient Athenians, or modern Americans: strict term limits. In Athens, a citizen could only serve on the _boule_ twice in a lifetime, and similarly, the President of the United States can only serve two terms. Enforcing term limits for elected officials prevents the formation of an insular "parliamentary elite" who have spent a large fraction of their lives in office and have no real world experience anymore. Ossified ideas get tossed out with ossified parliamentarians, and new ideas are allowed to flourish.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Mar 2006)

I think the Senate in particular could benefit if its members were elected to one single term.  With no follow-on career in politics there would be little advantage to towing the party line.  Hiring people at the end of their "working" career would also impact on the degree of partisan activity.


----------



## Five-to-One (28 Mar 2006)

Someone should provide a rough outline of what each option means, I dont believe many people understand what proportional commons means.

Would definitly help the vote turn turnout and give us a better idea of the majority opinion


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2006)

A fairly comprehensive review of why PR and other "alternative" voting systems get pushed (and why we should push back):

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/  31 March 2006



> *Proportional representation *—
> recommended by 4 out of 5 activists!
> 
> Note the most vocal proponents of proportional representation: invariably they are activists or advocates for special interests. Why is this? Ask yourself what special interests have to gain from political representation. But begin with the question of what they have not gained from the current political system — nothing less than their political objectives, of course. Frequently frustrated by their failures to achieve their objectives, or the slow implementation of those objectives, activists for political interests mischievously recast their complaints as failures of a democratic model. But, as Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, reminded Ontario's select committee on electoral reform in October of last year:
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2006)

If you want a concrete example of the power of PR look at Iraq.

The voters there voted for a slate (a party of parties if you like).  The electors often didn't have a clue who the candidates for the parties were nor the parties in the slate.  Now the people that control those votes have been slagging each other since December/January? ( It's been so long I can't remember anymore) trying to finagle seats for friends and the best perqs available.  3 or 4 months and no end in site with the terrorists chuckling as they let the Iraqis enjoy the benefits of "Democracy".

The same thing has happened in most other countries that have accepted PR.  The Pary Apparatchiks decide who stays and who goes not the electors.  In New Zealand, where it is apparently a split house, (some members elected directly and some appointed from the party lists) electors have been treated to the sight of directly elected members being chucked out on their rump for doing a piss-poor job of representing them only to discover that the party reappoints them.  Their party backed vote could potentially veto the wishes of the electors that chucked them out in the first place because of their opinion.

Maybe First Past the Post - Winner Take All is not the best system, I am willing to hear arguments for systems to guarantee the Member has a majority of electors (run-offs or ranking), but it has to come down to one riding, one member, elected by the constituents, and all members elected on the same basis.  If you want to represent other interests - well the Senate and the Provincial legislatures offer possibilities to find different voices representing different constituencies.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Apr 2006)

Another problem with PR- 

Sure going with PR would get marginal parties, like the Greens some seats in our Parliament.  What people seem to forget is that it could also elect parties like (just making this up)- The Anti-abortion Party of Canada or the New Nazi Party of Canada or even the Anti-Immigration Party Of Canada.  In other words, single issue, not very nice parties that are currently held onto the sidelines because they cannot get a critacl mass in any one place.  In PR, these little guys can end up holding the balance of power and extracting some nasty concessions to get it.

Our current system may not be perfect, but it is not bad. It forces compromise and washes out some of the more radical ideas (witness the morphing of the Reform into the Conservatives). It could probably be improved safer and easier with an elected senate, based regionally or provincially that would act as a check/balance to Parliament.


----------



## McG (30 May 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sure going with PR would get marginal parties, like the Greens some seats in our Parliament.  What people seem to forget is that it could also elect parties like (just making this up)- The Anti-abortion Party of Canada or the New Nazi Party of Canada or even the Anti-Immigration Party Of Canada.


This might come true if we are talking about national proportional representation.  However, the risk can be reduced through multi-member constituencies.


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2006)

> *PM demands Senate reform, 'not a report'*
> 07/09/2006 5:07:59 PM
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060906%2fharper_senate_060906&showbyline=True


----------



## McG (20 Sep 2006)

Ontario: the first to whine for more power in the Senate.


> Abolish Senate or give us more seats, says Ont.
> Updated Wed. Sep. 20 2006 11:24 AM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2006)

What are these guys fumer-ing?  Give Ontario more seats?  They should have less.  The Senate shouldn't be a representation of population; that's what we have the House of Commons for.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2006)

Les lecons are commencing to pay off are les?  ;D

You've got to know that Ontario knows a good thing when it sees it.  They're not going to give up their seat at the trough without a fight. 

The only solution to the 7-50 formula (7 provinces & 50% of the population) is for all you young Westerners to have more kids.

Get at it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Sep 2006)

Someone remind Ontario that they already have rep-by-pop in the House of Commons.  They seem to have forgotten.


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2006)

The senate should be elected and each province should have an equal amount of seats. (Does that mean PEI has 24 senators twiddling their multiple thumbs?)

Each province should also have an equal number of seats in the Commons. Then the issues get resolved geographically rather than thru population density.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2006)

I wonder what would happen if Harper were just to say that he will accept as nominees those that the provinces put forwards.  Those provinces that choose to elect their senators could then go ahead.  Those opposed could either not appoint a senator or else explain to their provinces why other provinces do get to choose their representatives.

If they choose not to participate and offer nominations then the elected senators will have the floor to themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2006)

As I read the Constitution (  http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#legislative ) (§21/36, §23 and §32 being all important) the Governor in Council (the PM, really) operates with nearly complete discretion; (s)he can appoint as many (up to the limits described in §22 and  §26/28) or as few senators as (s)he wishes.  I can see (and I checked Forsey a couple of years back) no restrictions on how the PM selects or fails to select.

If Harper decides that he will appoint only elected senators then the provinces have two choices (after the obligatory court challenges): elect senators or go unrepresented.  The former leads, inevitably, to an elected and effective Senate, the latter to abolition.

I repeat (see my comments from 18 months ago _ff_) that a federal state needs a bicameral legislature so abolition is the wrong answer.


----------



## Old Guy (22 Sep 2006)

So, if Canada had a Senate with two senators from each province, and a Commons with each province represented according to population, what does that do to the existing balance of power within the Federal government?  Your current arrangement guarantees a concentration of power.  A Senate set up as suggested would contribute to a separation of powers, like the US.  Allowing each province to determine how their senators are selected is a good idea, by the way.  That's how it started in the US.  State legislatures appointed senators for a long time before we turned to direct election of the Senate.

If the PM is a member of the majority party in the Commons and the Senate happens to have an opposite majority, either of a single opposing party or a coalition, doesn't that cause a separation in power structure?  I'm not sure it would make any difference, but it's worth considering.

Based on what I've seen of Canadian politics, an upper house is needed to offset the smothering effect the populous provinces have on national politics.  If an upper house is elected via proportional representation and/or according to population, the end result will be a further fracturing of east from west and probably along other lines I don't understand from where I sit.

James Madison, one of the prime movers behind the US Constitution, was convinced that the various branches of government had to be separate and that they would naturally serve different constituencies.  He felt that the natural result of such separation was that the branches would tend to collide.  In those collisions lay the safety of the people from their own government.  The necessity for compromise in such a situation tends to smooth out the truly radical initiatives and provide the most inclusiveness for any decision.  In practice, it's messy, but it works.  Mostly.  The Founding Fathers thought a lot about how dangerous a government could be to its own people and took stringent steps to limit that power.  Efficiency is not the name of the game in government, no matter what moron insists that it is.  Hitler created a fairly efficient bureaucracy.  They efficiently slaughtered millions in death camps and saw to the deaths of millions more from battle, starvations, and disease.  

Just thinking out loud.  

jim 

jim


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2006)

This is from today’s (13 Dec 06) _Ottawa Citizen_; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=32f730ac-e1cf-49a3-bff9-8321db4df5f0&k=57929 


> Harper may consult electors on their Senate preferences
> 
> Tim Naumetz, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
> Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
> ...



If consulted in any direct, meaningful way I will reiterate my position:

•	No change, *for now*, to the _equality_ of Senate representation – that would require reopening the Constitution, a prospect which, while welcome to me, personally, ought not to be on the agenda of level headed Canadian politicians;

•	All currently serving senators to be invited to submit a letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next (applicable) provincial general election; and

•	Provinces to be advised that, in addition to respecting all the current senatorial qualifications, the PM will select only senators elected on a proportional basis during a provincial general election who, in advance, provide a letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next provincial general election.

This would result in an elected Senate.  Imagine that, an elected legislature in Canada, in the 21st century!  Not overnight, of course: some serving senators would refuse to resign right away – but they would surely reconsider as soon as they (the (mostly Chrétien) appointees) were outnumbered and rendered toothless by the elected senators.  It took the US several years, starting just after the turn of the last century, to get from an appointed to a fully elected Senate.

The newly _elected_ Senate would, soon, become _effective_, too – elected politicians tend to do that ort of thing.

This system would play havoc with the current caucusing system.  I did a very rough calculation over a year ago and I *guesstimated* that an elected (by my system) Senate of Canada, _circa_ mid 2005, would look like this:

•	Bloc Québecois – 8
•	Conservatives – 30
•	Green – 1
•	Liberal - 40
•	NDP – 18
•	Other/Independent* - 8

Cleary the Liberals would be unable, on their own, to block government bills but the Liberals plus the NDP _could_ form a majority _coalition_ *IF* all the Liberals caucused together.  But, it is not clear to me that the BC Liberals, for example, would caucus with the federal Liberals.

My elected Senate becomes a ‘House of the Federation’ and, effectively, undercuts (but does not totally negate) the ongoing, interminable federal/provincial first ministers’ conferences.

Being, broadly, representative of provincial legislatures, the Senate (elected on my terms) could be expected to give the government-of-the-day real heartache on matters in which the federal government has intruded into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

--------
* Includes unaffiliated senators from the Territories (one each), one from Alberta and 4 (mostly Action Democratique) from Québec.


----------



## warspite (13 Dec 2006)

Well the bill has been tabled...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/13/harper-senators.html



> Dion calls bill "completely irresponsible"
> Dion said changes to the Senate should address more pressing concerns.
> 
> He said the current system doesn't make sense because a province like Nova Scotia is represented by 10 senators, while a province like Alberta, with about five times the population, only has six senators.
> ...


Well I agree with Mr Dion. Lets go mess around with the constitution and redistribute the senate seats justly... and while we're at it lets redistribute the seats in Parliament too, more Parliament seats in the west... *HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT MR DION*?


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2006)

Parliamentary ridings are re-organized within ten years of the latest census.  Since Alberta/BC combined now have a greater population than Quebec, any forward thinking Eastern politician should be agreeing with the latest senate reform proposal, not fighting it.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 Dec 2006)

I like the idea of Senate reform as proposed but I would not like the 8 year term. The full life of a Senator gives that person the ability to work according to best interrest since they don't need to be elected again or get the permission from the PM.

To ensure the fairness of representation we should have a change to the regional Senate representation with special interest at large positions to represent the first nations. I would suggest that the country have 6 regions based on the natural regional boundaries vice the current regions. 

20 seats - Pacific - BC
20 seats - Western - Alberta/Manitoba/Sask
20 seats - Upper Canada - Ontario
20 seats - Lower Canada - Quebec
20 seats - Eastern - NB/NS/PEI/NF
3 seats - Northern - Yukon/NWT/Nunavut
2 seats - Indigenous peoples one from the west and one from the east

Just a thought. On that note hats already in the ring.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2006)

I don't mind the 8 year term, so long as it is a single term with no re-election.   I think that gets to the same place that you want to be - limiting the politicking.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2006)

> _He said the current system doesn't make sense because a province like Nova Scotia is represented by 10 senators, while a province like Alberta, with about five times the population, only has six senators._



The Senate need not be a body that represents population - we have the House of Commons to serve that purpose.  We don't need two houses doing the same thing.

As a regional body, the Senate is well constructed to counteract popular voice with regional voice (essential in large countries like Australia, Canada, or the US).  I would prefer a system like the Aussies or US, which assigns each state an equal amount of Senators.  Even the regional model (assigning equal Senators to each region) would be functional - we only need to retool the current regional model to one representative of the 21st century, as the current model is grounded in 19th century Canada with Upper and Lower Canada, the West, and the Maritimes.  Unfortunately, either of these distribution plans involve Constitutional amendment.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2006)

Having thought about it some more, I'm now unconvinced there needs to be any federal body that is rep-by-pop.  We just went through a lot of fuss over cultural ("nation") identities.  It's beyond dispute that there are distinct regions and peoples in Canada, each content to live life in different flavours.  It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Having thought about it some more, I'm now unconvinced there needs to be any federal body that is rep-by-pop.  We just went through a lot of fuss over cultural ("nation") identities.  It's beyond dispute that there are distinct regions and peoples in Canada, each content to live life in different flavours.  It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house.



As a Canadian soldier, I'm not to sure I'm interested in moving to one of 10 different "nations" every few years and having to readjust.  Having some affinity from Vancouver to Halifax beyond a mere roundtable session in Ottawa is nice.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2006)

"It's unclear that there's any compelling reason for Toronto to have the power to make PEI live the way Torontonians like to live.  We'd be fine if each of the 10 provinces were represented equally in one federal house."

- A sure recipe for civil war or the UDI of 'oppressed' majorities.  A bi-cameral system with one rep-by-pop and one regional rep works fine.  The devil will be in the details.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2006)

>A sure recipe for civil war or the UDI of 'oppressed' majorities.

Civil wars don't start because people are allowed to be themselves in their own lands.  Civil wars start when one part of a nation gets tired of other parts telling its people how they should live - especially with regard to moral and cultural preferences.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >A sure recipe for civil war or the UDI of 'oppressed' majorities.
> 
> Civil wars don't start because people are allowed to be themselves in their own lands.  Civil wars start when one part of a nation gets tired of other parts telling its people how they should live - especially with regard to moral and cultural preferences.



Amen Brother Brad.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2006)

"Civil wars don't start because people are allowed to be themselves in their own lands.  Civil wars start when one part of a nation gets tired of other parts telling its people how they should live - especially with regard to moral and cultural preferences."

- Which is exactly what would happen if we had ONLY a house where the ten provinces were represented equally.  PEI, NB, NS and NF - 1.5 million people, max - ramming through legislation such as a 'New NEP' over BC and AB - 7 million people.  

A house based on regional rep alone would only work if we were a loose federation without the ability to legislate how the rest should live.  But then, we would not be a country if we did that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Dec 2006)

>- Which is exactly what would happen if we had ONLY a house where the ten provinces were represented equally.  PEI, NB, NS and NF - 1.5 million people, max - ramming through legislation such as a 'New NEP' over BC and AB - 7 million people. 

Seeing as AB (or AB+BC) would be outnumbered in both a rep-by-pop and rep-by-province body, and 4 of 10 provinces wouldn't be a majority - at least 2 of the others would have to join in the cawq-fest - your objection isn't particularly compelling.  However, I do in fact prefer a bicameral system.

>But then, we would not be a country if we did that.

How do you figure?  As I see it, as long as a collection of jurisdictions share armed forces they are pretty much a country.  All the rest is dressing.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But then, we would not be a country if we did that.
> 
> How do you figure?  As I see it, as long as a collection of jurisdictions share armed forces they are pretty much a country.  All the rest is dressing.



Maybe not. Collections of shared jurisdiction are a confederation (or a confederacy), and the binding power of their collective armed forces may or may not be all that is needed to bind the people together. The Delian League was plagued by constant revolts, and the biggest problem faced by the Confederate States of America was the various States wanted to go off in their own directions (with their own armed forces) rather than carrying out a unified war plan. (As an aside, the Union wasn't much better in the beginning, [America was properly known as "These United States"] but the Republican Administration laid the foundation of the modern bureaucracy in order to mobilize the military, economic and natural resources for the war effort).


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2006)

As an aside (and this may warrant its own thread), what neccesarily makes the Province any better at securing it's citizens from the policies of a distant majority?  Canada has some pretty big provinces, many with both regional and urban/rural divides.  Would a citizen of, say, central British Columbia be anymore satisfied with Vancouver or Victoria pushing through legislation than PEI imposing its will on Confederation (to stick with your example  ).  This suggests to me that our definition of region may be antiquated and inadequete.  I know I've broached this before, but I feel that the maximum distance a person will travel to do commerce and other social function is roughly 100km.  Perhaps a large variety of government function should be devolved down to a level like this, a new 'polis' if you will.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2007)

Well we can at least see the direction the wind is starting to blow:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/harper_provides_sign_that_canada_is_becoming_a_grownup_country



> *Harper provides sign that Canada is becoming a grownup country*
> Posted by Joel Johannesen
> 
> Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper today appointed the twice voter-elected Bert Brown to the Liberals’ Canadian Senate division.  He will sit as a Conservative.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (21 Apr 2007)

Great news!  A step in the right direction!


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Great news!  A step in the right direction!



Not everyone agrees, of course.....



> *Bert Brown's red chamber*
> Colby Cosh, National Post
> Published: Friday, April 20, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## warspite (21 Apr 2007)

Excellent article


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2007)

Pragmatic incrementalism is the tradition of Westminster.  Solutions for all eternity are the province of the Constitutionalists - that way they keep themselves busy constantly rewriting new Constitutions.  Lessee: Sargon, Hammurabi, various Pharaohs, Moses, Justinian, Code Civil, Napoleon, Multiple French Republics......  The Americans have a neat variation on a them they "carved a Constitution in stone" then kept on hand a body of stone-cutting scribes to constantly update the stone and read it back to the masses.  Trudeau's acolytes seem to like that variation.  Of course Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe all have Constitutions but the say exactly what the Bossman says they say.

Parliamentarianism is about the pragmatic tyranny of the majority in order to minimize conflict.  It adjusts to the realities of the day.  It doesn't/shouldn't spend time looking for eternal verities.  That is the job of the clergy, both secular and religious.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Apr 2007)

It should be noted that until Oregon started electing senators, the US Senate was appointed by each individual state.

EDIT to add:  Incrementalism works!


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Earlier this week the _National Post_ ran an informative, if quite wrong-headed, series on the ever popular subject of Senate reform.  The series was too long to reproduce here but Andrew Coyne’s _response_ is not.  Here it is, from today’s _Post_, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ----------
> Fear of a democratic Senate
> ...



I am bumping this up because of this article, reproduced here from today’s _Globe and Mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070517.wpop0518/BNStory/National/home


> Tory bill unfair to Ontario, McGuinty charges
> *Formula would cost seats, Premier says*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI AND KAREN HOWLETT
> ...



There are some interesting, albeit slightly misleading graphics in the print edition … old adages about _”lies, damned lies and statistics”_ apply there.

Premier McGuinty is (partially) right – Ontario, with 15 more seats by 2021 (10 in 2011 and 5 more in 2021) is *worse* off than it should be but Mr. Van Loan is also correct – Ontario is substantially better off than it would be if nothing is done.

The basic problem is: Canada’s democracy is locked into a 19th century mould thanks to a Constitutional amending formula designed to frustrate democratic reform.

I’m a bit of a purist: while I accept that it may be necessary to provide additional money and staff to MPs from e.g. Nunavut to aid the Member in representing his (or her) huge, remote riding, I do not believe that the _*value*_ of a Nunavut voter can be more than three times that of the ‘average’ Canadian voter and four times that of some Canadian voters in some major urban centres.  That’s fundamentally undemocratic and it ought to be absolutely unacceptable in a country that wants to be a functioning, liberal democracy.  That it is not a major _cause célèbre_ in Canada is indicative of the very, very low quality of Canadians as citizens.  *We are, broadly, stupid, lazy, greedy, envious and ill-educated.*

The Constitution does not allow discussion of democratic reform without opening the whole kit and caboodle – including the basic structure of the state.  No government in its right mind wants to reopen debates about trading fish for freedom and the like – the Constitution Act of 1982 (the work of a numskull prime minister and his bungling, sycophantic justice minister) enshrines 19th century conservatism for a 21st century nation-state.

I know no one likes the idea of more and more politicians but, as Mrs. Thatcher was wont to say: “There is no alternative.”  The system is broken.  It is worse than broken: the system disenfranchises *most* Canadians – a handful of Canadians in Atlantic Canada, the prairies and the North are over-represented while the majority in Ontario, Alberta and BC, especially in urban centres in those provinces, are grievously under-represented.  The basic _principle_ of and the fundamental *right* to equality are sacrificed on the alter of temporary electoral advantage.

A federal state, like Canada, needs a bicameral legislature:

•	One chamber (the Senate in Canada) needs to represent the _equal_ partners in the federation – the provinces;

•	The other chamber (the House of Commons) ne3eds to represent the citizens, equally.

Equality is a key principle.  Prince Edward island *IS* equal to Québec.  Both are provinces.  Each, as a province, is entitled to the same _voice_ in the nation’s affairs.  That why the Senate needs to exist – as a _house of the provinces_.  Québec is, equally, entitled to a greater voice than prince Edward Island because it has more people – that’s why the HoC needs to provide (roughly) equal representation for each and every citizen.  A school teacher in Churchill River (SK) is not *worth* more than a shopkeeper in Trinity-Spadina (ON).  Each must have an equal voice in the nation’s affairs.  When, as in Canada, they do not then the state of democracy is arrested, even retarded.  That (a retarded demcracy) ought not to be _good enough_ for citizens, not even for Canadians.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 May 2007)

First off I'd like to invite Edward to get out of my OODA cycle. ;D  What you have written sir is much more succinct and intelligible than I could have and you have struck most of my high points.  

I do have some thoughts of my own to add though, starting from the top down...

The Governor General:  In my opinion this position has become little more than a useless hangover of a pre-WW1 Canada.  It stems from an era of British global dominance as well as an English desire to maintain a grip on "the colonies" when we as a nation were too timid to stand up and be counted.  Today the GG is to a functioning head of state what the Yugo is to automotive excellence.  

Needless to say I would like to see us make this a true elected head of state, embodying all the stately functions as well as giving it the political license to speak for Canada and Canadians outside of the country.   The illiberal, ceremonial and functionary status of this office as it is today is an insult to the concept of a liberal representative democracy.

The election of the Governor General should be a simple form of PR, each party or independent should enter a single candidate with a first round of voting and a runoff between the top two finishers to decide who gets the job.

The Senate:  Overall Edward has stolen my thunder on this issue I will add however that in addition to the equal representation of all the provinces (4 Senators per) I would add into the mix an additional 4 Aboriginal Senator seats to represent Canada's first nations as an equal partner in Canada.

Senators would be chosen on province wide votes with the top 4 candidates on a FPTP ballot being sent to the Red Chamber

The HoC I would like to see based on PR, STV to be exact, this is still doable with Edwards 1 vote for 1 person, it just means that PEI would most likely be reduced to a single Riding (electing 4MP's)

Now, to make it all work...

Here is where most of you are probably going to think I've fallen off my barstool (it wouldn't be the first time)

First the functional relationships.

1.  The Governor General being primarily concerned with the big picture, Canada's place in the world, national defence, International treaties, alliances and general Diplomacy would be paired with the House of Commons, which would also be constitutionally focused narrowly on those types of issues.  

This in my opinion is the logical course.  MP's represent ridings but they also (currently) have the responsibility to decide Canada's role, relationships and responsibilities to the wider world, but then they also get their fingers stuck in provincial pies leading to a single house of parliament trying to be everything to everyone.  A Jack of all trades and master of none is what we the people are left with.  So let's take internal National issues off their plate.  Lets let them focus their effort and best work to work with the head of state and develop a unified, holistic and coherent Canadian international policy.

2.  The Prime Minister is, or should be a National figure.  I see his job as first among equals as the protector and prime representative of the constitution.  The constitution is a NATIONAL document and as such deals specifically with Canada's internal workings and the relationships between the provinces and territories and the Federal government.  The constitution does not deal with the rest of the planet, only our small part of it.

The PM should work with what we now know as the "Council of the Federation", that is to say the provinces, but not as dictator to the provinces as is now the case during "first Ministers meetings" but as an honest broker to facilitate inter-provincial agreements.  There is currently so much inconsistency and provincial discrepancies that it is often easier for goods and services to move North and South between individual provinces and the US than it is for the goods to move east to west between provinces.

Also the PM would, in my mind, work with the Senate as the senators are the Provincial guardians of their rights within the constitution.  I believe that once the international responsibilities have been removed that this job could be done effectively with the PM and 44 Senators and the Federation of The provinces working together.

So what would all this jiggery-pokery mean?  Well if you've been paying attention you see that I've cerated 2 separate unicameral houses. With no-one checking their work this means that each house would have to be very diligent in crafting legislation but with the scope of that legislation narrowed it would allow for a little more expertise than currently found.  All legislation would still require the GG's ascent and the GGO would be expected to exercise due diligence prior to that ascent.

Now for my rant...

The Constitution:  The constitution is or should be a living document, but we Canadians have become so gun shy in dealing with it that we have failed to reform the things that are more than reformable.  The amending formula is not a one shot deal.  In areas of purely Federal responsibility the federal govenment needs only the approval of the HoC, in areas shared by the Fed and one province only the fed and that province need approve of the change.  The only time that 3/4 of the provinces and the fed has to approve is when the changes involve all the provinces and the feds.

It is also a fallacy that opening the constitution on one issue opens it for all issues.  Just like any other piece of legislation the legislation is written for one a particular issue.  Yes, someone can try to alter it in committee but should that happen then all the originating party has to do is write it out again, work with it or scrap the deal as it is.  It's called negotiation!  Our MP's and MLA's have to get over this one shot, my way or the highway mentality.  Why on earth would we as a nation spend literally years debating same sex marriage but reduce Federal Provincial relationships and responsibilities to a take it or leave it proposition?

Since I'm ranting already...



> All three parties in Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion this week calling on the House of Commons to back down on the measures outlined in the democratic reform legislation.
> 
> Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also went on the attack yesterday, accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of reducing Quebec's political clout in an effort to appease members of the Conservative base who opposed the government's recognition of Quebec as a nation.



Now, who says Quebec isn't hell bent as a province (all 3 parties in the QNA) to blackmail the RoC.  Gilles, Mario, Jean, thanks for the empirical evidence fellas.  Equality is not Quebec uber alles.


----------



## RangerRay (21 May 2007)

I have to say, Mr. Campbell, that I agree with much of what you said.  Representation in the HoC should be based on population, and representation in the Senate should be divided equally amongst the provinces, with less representation from the territories, so that the two can balance each other off.  I too feel that we need more representation (i.e. politicians), not less.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (22 May 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I have to say, Mr. Campbell, that I agree with much of what you said.  Representation in the HoC should be based on population, and representation in the Senate should be divided equally amongst the provinces, with less representation from the territories, so that the two can balance each other off.  I too feel that we need more representation (i.e. politicians), not less.



I think the Senate needs a major overhaul, as an Albertan, in a highly Conservative province, we have 5 Liberal senators and 1 conservative. Mitchell has pushed through the Kyoto bill, obviously not even thinking about how it will impact Alberta. Why should anyone in Canada not be able to vote for who should represent them in the Senate? Why should do nothings get to sit for years in the Senate, without any accountability to voters? Who actually thinks that the PM should have the right to appoint their buddies to the Senate. Pass the brown bag.


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I will add however that in addition to the equal representation of all the provinces (4 Senators per) I would add into the mix an additional 4 Aboriginal Senator seats to represent Canada's first nations as an equal partner in Canada.



I think giving people political rights based upon ethnic/racial background is the absolute worst thing to do, especially in an egalitarian democracy.  "Super"-empowering any group (by giving them not only a vote for being a citizen but one based upon race) is just as bad as disenfranchising people for the same reason; someone else in the body politic loses out due to their ethnic background.


----------



## McG (25 May 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think giving people political rights based upon ethnic/racial background is the absolute worst thing to do . . .


+1


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 May 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think giving people political rights based upon ethnic/racial background is the absolute worst thing to do, especially in an egalitarian democracy.  "Super"-empowering any group (by giving them not only a vote for being a citizen but one based upon race) is just as bad as disenfranchising people for the same reason; someone else in the body politic loses out due to their ethnic background.



Normally I would agree but not in this case.  Canada's Aboriginals and their interests are NOT represented in our parliament, and leaving their dealings with the federal government to corrupt chiefs and band leaders will only get us more of the same (Oka, Caledonia, summers of protest).  

This initiative would take the majority of power away from the band and put it in the hands of elected representatives.  Let me be clear, the election of these 4 Aboriginal Senators would be a *democratic practice*, no wishy washy meeting of elders, smoke a peace pipe or some such nausea, we do not want to perpetuate the worst of aboriginal governance.

No one in the body politic would loose anything by recognizing the third solitude of this country.  As a block they would be 4 senators out of 44, a voice for sure but definitely not an overpowering one.


----------



## McG (25 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Normally I would agree but not in this case.  Canada's Aboriginals and their interests are NOT represented in our parliament, and leaving their dealings with the federal government to corrupt chiefs and band leaders will only get us more of the same (Oka, Caledonia, summers of protest).


I would argue that the aboriginals would vote for local parliamentarians and provincial senators.  No other ethnic group has specific representation in national government.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This initiative would take the majority of power away from the band and put it in the hands of elected representatives.


I don’t see how this would be achieved.  Senators do not replace provincial governments, and aboriginal senators would not some how be empowered to goven the many communities across the country.

Perhaps if all reserves across the nation were grouped into one territory with its own territorial government.  That would create an elected body with power over local chiefs.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2007)

I see the issue of PR or some form of SVT is beeing mooted in Ontario as a referrendum for our next election in October. It has occured to me that the "debate" is quite sterile since the issue is being framed as "either/or" between PR and First Past the Post.

Some issues might simply be resolved by taking them right off the table; jurisdictional limits should be observed and enforced ("Your city council overspent their budget and dosn't want to raise taxes? Sorry, the Provincial legislature dosn't cover your shortfalls")

Other alternatives exist as well, such as the electoral college system in the United States, which the founding fathers developed as a way to prevent mob rule (it is irrelevant in a Presidential election who has the greatest popular vote, this way cities and large states do not overwhelm the voters in rural areas and small states). Swiss style citizen referendums (or US ballot initiatives) are another potential means of breaking the political "establishment's" monopoly on the legislature.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2007)

What determines who qualifies as an aboriginal voter?  Don't assume the current rules for band membership necessarily apply.  As long as I'm a resident of a political jurisdiction (municipality, province), I'm qualified to vote there.  Where the exercise of political power is involved, there can not be a guild guarding membership of the privileged.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's online edition of the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting _comment_ by former Pierre Trudau advisor Brian Flemming:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070605.wcomment0605/BNStory/National/home


> *Web-exclusive comment*
> 
> Stephen Harper's turn
> *Every prime minister has a chance to remake Canada in his image and it's not too early to see this one's direction*
> ...



Even allowing for Flemming's political bias, this is a remarkably one-sided piece.

Flemming cites §24 & 32 of the Constitution; they say:



> Summons of Senator
> 
> *24.*  The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
> 
> ...



I'm not a lawyer but I fail to see how these clauses require the PM to act expeditiously; to act, yes, to act quickly, no – but I'm happy to be corrected.  I understand why Sen. Banks and Sen. Moore want Harper to act against his own policy and appoint unelected senators.  They, Banks and Moore, oppose an elected Senate.  I wonder if Banks, Moore and Flemming have the balls to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask it to perpetuate an undemocratic, appointed legislative chambre.  Nothng, I think, would make Mr. Harper happier.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2007)

It's a good thing that article's premise isn't bias.....gee.....


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Jun 2007)

This


> rather than imposing his undemocratic, Reformist ideology on the Red Chamber


has got to be the most laughable example of faster than a tornado spin I have ever seen put to a sentence.

Somehow Flemming sees the election of senators as being _*un*_democratic?

un-freaking-believable


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2007)

It seems Ontario voters will be asked to weigh in on some sort of PR system this election. Not surprisingly, I havn't come across any discussion as to what sort of system is being proposed; it seems like PR supporters are trying to sneak something in since they havn't made gains in other parts of the country.

Anyone have more details?


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Jul 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> It seems Ontario voters will be asked to weigh in on some sort of PR system this election. Not surprisingly, I havn't come across any discussion as to what sort of system is being proposed; it seems like PR supporters are trying to sneak something in since they havn't made gains in other parts of the country.
> 
> Anyone have more details?



http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/2007/05/another-doomed-attempt-at-democratic.html


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2007)

Now that MMP has bitten the dust, I would like to point out that PR and related systems are geared to providing more power to political parties. The MMP proposal was particularly blatant: the "list candidates" were to be from a closed party list. Voters don't even get an indirect say in who represents them from the list.

While the current FFTP system provides majority governments without majorities of the voters, it does offer (in theory) accountability of the elected member to the voter. In order to retain the direct link between representative and voter, we need to agitate for something other than PR or a PR variation. Some possible things to propose:

Voter recall
Elimination of party whips and whipped votes in the house
Redistricting
Much smaller ridings (and therefore many more seats in the house)
Electoral College (prevents rural ridings from being "swamped" by more populated urban ridings due to weightings)
Swiss referendum system

I'm sure other systems are out there, and I am also certain that people who want to empower parties even more will fight tooth and nail against them.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2007)

I much prefer the Run-Off system as used in France: (They do somethings right - cheese is pretty good, wine is so-so).  It results in a clear majority, keeps the decision in the hands of the electorate and results in accountability to the local voters.

It is a bit more expensive than our single FPTP vote, it requires two trips to the polling booth.

But it is simpler to explain than the equally effective and cheaper "ranking" system.  That's the one where you rank your candidates 1,2,3...... Candidate with the "Fewest" points wins (1=1, 2=2, 3=3...  5 Firsts = 5 points, 2 Seconds = 4 points, 4 Thirds = 12 points for a total of 5+4+12 = 21 points).  Maybe that could be the follow-on project.


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But it is simpler to explain than the equally effective and cheaper "ranking" system.  That's the one where you rank your candidates 1,2,3...... Candidate with the "Fewest" points wins (1=1, 2=2, 3=3...  5 Firsts = 5 points, 2 Seconds = 4 points, 4 Thirds = 12 points for a total of 5+4+12 = 21 points).


Shouldn't the points be higher for being voted highest ranking (vice more points for being ranked last)?


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Oct 2007)

Not all proportional systems increase the power of the parties.  By power I mean their ability to decide who is elected, STV for example.  

The real question I have is how was the citizens coalition group chosen?  By whom, and how were they able to give up their day jobs for a year to do it?  Sounds like a hand picked group with personal interests, plenty of spare time which speaks of established wealth.  Sounds like a group that had more in common with the establishment than the rest of the people in the province.

That coupled with the piss poor explanation and education of the issue by the government led to an inevitable outcome.  

My conspiracy riddled mind says the established parties didn't want to change the status quo so they first selected the method of PR which would increase their power and then threw the rest of the game by only half-heartedly explaining it.


----------



## RangerRay (19 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Electoral College (prevents rural ridings from being "swamped" by more populated urban ridings due to weightings)



I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.

My $0.02... 

Edit to add:



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The real question I have is how was the citizens coalition group chosen?  By whom, and how were they able to give up their day jobs for a year to do it?  Sounds like a hand picked group with personal interests, plenty of spare time which speaks of established wealth.  Sounds like a group that had more in common with the establishment than the rest of the people in the province.



Here in BC, the members of the Assembly were randomly selected from the voters list, and letters went out inviting them to attend.  Those who could participate did.  I believe they were able to get 2 people per riding to participate.  Most appeared to be retired ordinary citizens.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Oct 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.
> 
> My $0.02...



+1.

The Americans and the Aussies do it; why can't we?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the points be higher for being voted highest ranking (vice more points for being ranked last)?



I think it works either way MCG.  "Low man wins" has the advantage of being the identical calculation regardless of how many people are in the field.  "High man wins" means you have to count up the number of candidates in each riding and let every "First" equal the number of candidates .  2nd Place = n-1, 3rd = n-2....I think  ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.



Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, _waaaay_ too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.

Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.


----------



## observor 69 (21 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.



+1


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, _waaaay_ too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.



Yes (and this should be addressed) but there is only 4 PEI ridings while Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have how many ridings - this goes to the heart of RangerRays point; over 1/3 of all Canadians come from 3 relatively small geographical areas and that an triple E senate will act to counter this trend.



> Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.



+1


----------



## RangerRay (21 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, _waaaay_ too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.
> 
> Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.



I agree completely.  If we are to have a true Triple E Senate, then the representation in the Commons should be a true representation by population.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes (and this should be addressed) but there is only 4 PEI ridings while Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have how many ridings - this goes to the heart of RangerRays point; over 1/3 of all Canadians come from 3 relatively small geographical areas and that an triple E senate will act to counter this trend.



So your vote should be worth less just because you or I, like the overwhelming majority of the people in the whole bloody world, live in an urban area?

There is no point, except: *One person, one vote*, roughly - give or take, say, 25%.

If we are going to have something akin to a real, grown-up, liberal democracy then PEI should have only one seat in a 300+ seat HoC or, if PEI *must* have four seats - as the Constitution says it *must*,* then we need a 1,200 seat HoC to accommodate Constitutional necessity.

----------

* The Constitution says no province may have fewer seats in the HoC than it has senators. PEI was given four senators back in 18_nn_ so it cannot have fewer than four MPs.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So your vote should be worth less just because you or I, like the overwhelming majority of the people in the whole bloody world, live in an urban area?



Well, I come from a rural area.... 



> There is no point, except: *One person, one vote*, roughly - give or take, say, 25%.
> 
> If we are going to have something akin to a real, grown-up, liberal democracy then PEI should have only one seat in a 300+ seat HoC or, if PEI *must* have four seats - as the Constitution says it *must*,* then we need a 1,200 seat HoC to accommodate Constitutional necessity.
> 
> ...



Of course this needs to be addressed - hence my "and this needs to be addressed" caveat in my previous post.  I was only adding further substance to Ranger Ray's claim that there is an inherent unbalance to the House of Commons due to the nature of Canada's population distribution (irregardless of whose vote means more) and that a properly functioning Senate can act to rectify this.

Irregardless of whether a PEI'er's vote is worth one Torontonian vote or three Vancouverite votes, those 4 (overweighed) votes will be drowned out in Parliament.  A Jane and Finch or a East Hastings street solution may be what a majority of the people in Canada want, but it may not be the best for a majority of the country.

A triple E Senate, bringing equality to the provinces in the Upper House, may be something that will convince PEI to let go of its 4 seats in the Lower House in order to allow equality of the electorate....


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2007)

More on the politicing behind senate reform:

http://langhjelmletter.blogspot.com/2007/10/screw-that.html



> *Screw that*
> 
> I know that Senator Hugh Segal is a Conservative and that he helped Harper get elected. But with this proposal in mind, one shouldn't forget that he was appointed by Paul Martin.
> 
> ...



And the proposal:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/23/4599413-cp.html



> *Survivor: Senate? Tory wants you to say if senators should be voted off the Hill*
> By John Ward, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> OTTAWA - A Conservative senator wants voters to decide whether to put Canada's sleepy upper chamber into permanent repose.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2007)

With all possible respect to the good senator, the worst thing we could do would be to _consult_ Canadians. As the article points out, too many Canadians – an *overwhelming majority* of Canadians, I think – would vote to abolish the Senate. That would be an idiotic idea for a federal state but I have no doubt it would ‘win’ in any free and fair vote.

Canada is a federation; we cannot _fix_ that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a _partnership_ between *sovereign* political entities – the provinces in our case. *In theory* we might not need a _national_ (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the _sovereign_ partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a _’Council of the Provinces’_, something akin to the Senate.

The Constitutionally *required* model, however, calls for something akin to Britain’s _Westminster_ type of parliamentary democracy so we need a full blown federal legislature: HoC1 plus a _Senate_ – which must to be an elected chamber (which will, perforce, make it effective) and in which each province _ought_ to be equally represented.

Equality is a troubling principle for many Canadians. Although many (but not all) will agree with me that *one person/one vote* is an essential component of a mature, modern, liberal democracy (and is a component which is lacking in Canada and which makes us an immature, antiquated and illiberal democracy) they are less willing to accept *one partner/one vote* in the senate.

This _equality_ dilemma is not unique to Canada. The (British) authors of the (1949) German Constitution decided that the German _Länder_ could not be equal in the upper house, the _Bundesrat_ so the four smallest _ Länder _ (with less than 2 million people) get three ‘votes’2 each while the four largest (each with more than 7 million inhabitants) get 6 votes.

Interestingly the German _Bundesrat_ is not *directly* elected. *The Bundesrat is composed** of members of state governments; the members are appointed and recalled by the state government. They may be represented by other members of their state government.* This is, in my opinion, an acceptable format for a modern, liberal democracy.

I will restate what I think is the *ideal* model for a Canadian Senate:

Composition: 100 Senators –

Seven per province, (70)

One per territory, (3)

One per each of three _first nations_ oerganizations: Assembly of First nations, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Metis National Council, (30)

Twenty four _National_ senators (24) 

Appointment: by the Prime Minister according to the following rules:

1.	The PM will appoint only elected senators, as follows:

The seventy _provincial_ senators will be elected during provincial general elections on a ‘simple’ proportional representation system (14.3% of the popular vote elects on senator – the first off the party’s list of senatorial candidates. The inevitable _extra_ goes to the party which elects the government.

The three territorial senators will be elected during territorial general elections.

The three _first nations_ senators will be elected for four year ers by their respective organizations.

The 24 _national_ senators will be elected, again by simple proportional representation, during federal general elections.

2.	The PM will appoint only those elected senators who submit a signed etter of esignation effective he next appropriate election.

3.	The PM will appoint only those elected senators who meet the other qualifications for appointment set out in the Constitution of Canada.

Responsibilities: the Senate will have almost equal powers with the _National Assembly_. The exception is that the Senate may not introduce a _money_ bill and the _National assembly_ may reintroduce a money bill which was defeated in the Senate and it will receive Royal Assent (without further Senate consideration) one being passed by the _National Assembly_ for the second time.

As a matter of _constitutional convention_ the cabinet should include ministers from the Senate for those portfolios which _intrude_ into areas of provincial jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution of Canada.


I think prime Minister Harper could get part way there right now, without any Constitutional considerations. I have explained how before, here, nearly a year ago and earlier in this thread.

The _equality_ bit is harder. It requires an amendment to the Constitution – one which I am not convinced is within the realm of political possibility in Canada. Assuming Québec is not to ‘lose’ anything then we need to have 240+ senators – that’s 24 from PEI. With a possible respect to Islanders: are there 23 other Islanders you really, really want to send to Ottawa to legislate for us all?

Anyhow: we need a Senate because:

•	It is constitutionally *required*; and

•	A bicameral legislature is a necessary part of as proper federation.

Since we need a Senate we should strive to make it democratic – *elected* and, if we understand the concept, *equal*. As soon as it is elected it will make itself *effective*.

----------
1.	Which I believe should be renamed as the _National Assembly_ – we don’t have a Canadian _nobility_ so we cannot have _commoners_ either, can we?
2.	Each Länder can send as many (or as few) delegates as it wishes to the Bundesrat but it has _n_ votes – based on population.


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2007)

That is probably the best outline for change I have heard to date....nice.


----------



## RangerRay (24 Oct 2007)

An interesting proposal.  I wonder if the PM reads Army.ca?  ;D

One concern I have, as someone who lives in the western colonies, is where the 24 "national" senators come from.  Under this system, is it plausible that all 24 could be from one province or region?  Or are they spread out amongst the provinces and territories?

Are the senators elected provincially from provincial parties or federal parties?  I have seen some proposals that senators come from provincial parties, which would create a hodge-podge of a senate, IMHO.  For instance, here in British Columbia, both the BC Liberals and the BC Conservatives (fringe party) have no ties to their federal namesakes.

I say you should book an appointment with the PM to sell this idea, Mr. Campbell!


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canada is a federation; we cannot _fix_ that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a _partnership_ between *sovereign* political entities – the provinces in our case. *In theory* we might not need a _national_ (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the _sovereign_ partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a _’Council of the Provinces’_, something akin to the Senate.



I can't think of any really successful confederation in history, the United States was a weak and bickering confederal state until the Constitutional convention adopted and ratified the American Constitution and established "These United States" as Federal Republic. The Confederate States of America suffered many of the same defects as the original confederation, and it would be interesting to speculate on how long that form of government would have lasted had the Confederacy won the Civil War. The Swiss Confederation is in name only, the government is established and run on federal lines.

The alternative is Empire; which eliminates the "sovereign" part of the subordinate political entities.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> With all possible respect to the good senator, the worst thing we could do would be to _consult_ Canadians. As the article points out, too many Canadians – an *overwhelming majority* of Canadians, I think – would vote to abolish the Senate. That would be an idiotic idea for a federal state but I have no doubt it would ‘win’ in any free and fair vote.



Agreed.  I'm a believer in the Burkean notion of Representative Democracy - you elected me, now let me do my job.  Consultation is not a requirement for our represenatives to do their job.  Apply the same principle to our efforts in Afghanistan.  Why consult the Canadian electorate?  If so, ask the average Canadian to:

1.  Put Afghanistan on a map.
2.  Explain it's geography and ethnic make-up.
3.  Desribe the difference between the foreign "Talibanism" and the traditional Sufism that has existed in the country for centuries.

You get the point.



> Canada is a federation; we cannot _fix_ that without a wholesale, top-to-bottom, turn it inside out revision of the Constitution. A federal state is a _partnership_ between *sovereign* political entities – the provinces in our case. *In theory* we might not need a _national_ (federal) legislature so long as there is some way for the _sovereign_ partners to work together to manage the federation – in other words we might need only a _’Council of the Provinces’_, something akin to the Senate.



Yes, but:

1.  I am opposed to the idea of allowing the Provinces to appoint Senators.  This merely replaces political appointees of the Federal government with political appointees of the Provincial governments, which promises to make affairs in Parliament just as, if not more, acerbic.  It may work for Germany, seeing how it was designed to accomadate the forging of the German states, each with an independant history with different politics, religion, etc, etc, into a whole in 1871 (the post WWII constitution simply reaffirmed this).  The United States tried this and found it was unsuccessful, resulting in the XVII Amendment.  The Australians, who have the same basic federal system as us - far flung, relatively empty regions and a few, populace cities - didn't even bother with it, going for an Senate elected by the voters upon federation.  Giving the provinces this power would, in my opinion, give the provincial governments unprecedented power in Parliament and upset the balance of our federal system.  I suppose it could be argued that this would even be _unconstitutional_, as it gives the provincial governments say in matters that the Constitution puts firmly in the sphere of the national government.

I see a "triple E" Senate as acting as a stabilizing, counter-active element to the immense power of the provinces.  I can settle for one large, unresponsive bureacracy in Ottawa, but I am loathe to sign more of the country to the ten large, unresponsive fiefdoms that constantly bicker and whine about their own interests as opposed to those of Canada as a whole.

2.  I thinking giving Canada's natives their own Senate seat is probably one of the worst thought out ideas in recent history and I fundamentally oppose it.  It pops up from time to time and I seem to remember seeing it in a book by Jeffrey Simpson.  As I said earlier when Reccesoldier put forth the same idea, _"I think giving people political rights based upon ethnic/racial background is the absolute worst thing to do, especially in an egalitarian democracy.  "Super"-empowering any group (by giving them not only a vote for being a citizen but one based upon race) is just as bad as disenfranchising people for the same reason; someone else in the body politic loses out due to their ethnic background._

Not to mention the obvious can of worms that Brad Sallows mentioned which is who among the Canadian native population would be entitled to this "extra" say in govenrment.  Status, card-carrying Indians or are natives without status out of luck because they lack a government card?  If so, are we going to accept the minimal degree of ancestry that qualifies for status - I believe it is something as flimsy as 1/8 ancestory, so we'd be entitling someone to an extra seat based upon a single grandparent.  How about Metis and Inuit, who are not defined as "Native" in the Indian Act, do we include them as well?  Natives that live on reserve only, or off reserve.  How about those who marry a Native and move onto the reserve?

The politics of ethnicity are so complicated that giving it a political outlet would be disasterous to the ideal of an egalitarian liberal democratic order.  In an increasingly pluralistic society in Canada (we even have an E channel!) race is becoming more and more irrelevent (I don't define myself by the fact that my Grandfather stepped off a boat from a Nordic country) and the politics of bloodlines have, thankfully, been consigned to the dustbin of the 19th century.

Anyways, just my opinion on that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> An interesting proposal.  I wonder if the PM reads Army.ca?  ;D
> 
> One concern I have, as someone who lives in the western colonies, is where the 24 "national" senators come from.  Under this system, is it plausible that all 24 could be from one province or region?  Or are they spread out amongst the provinces and territories?
> 
> ...



That (how do the _national_ senators get nominated? and how do elected senators caucus?) is, for me, the most interesting thing.

I expect that given a requirement for *equality* the parties will want to put the names of Ontarians and Québecers at the top of their senatorial candidate lists in an effort to appeal to those big provinces by offering them a bigger voice in the Senate.

It’s not clear to me that the federal political parties will be able to enforce anything like _discipline_ in an elected Senate – at least not in one elected using my model. BC _Liberals_ might decide to caucus with federal Conservatives as might _Action Démocratique_ senators – and there would be some in my model. Or, the ADQ senators might try to persuade the Alberta senators to join them in a _provincial autonomy_ caucus.

It would make politics fun again.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2007)

Destroy-and-save strategy isn't as crazy as it might sound
Referendum on abolishing the Senate would serve as a pretext for reform
L. IAN MACDONALD Freelance Friday, October 26, 2007
Article Link

Hugh Segal wants to abolish the Senate in order to reform it.

How's that again? Segal, himself a Conservative member of the Senate, was explaining the method to his madness over breakfast in Ottawa yesterday.

"The motion," he said, "requests that a referendum be held under the provisions of the Referendum Act of 1992 to abolish the Senate."

He would then campaign against his own motion.

He knows this process, as one of the authors of the 1992 Referendum Act, the enabling legislation of the Charlottetown referendum, when he was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Segal has a seconder for his motion - Lowell Murray, leader of the Progressive Conservative remnant in the Senate and former constitutional affairs minister during the Meech Lake period. To pass, it would require the approval of the Liberal-dominated Senate and the cabinet.

The latter is more likely than the former. Senate reform is Stephen Harper's second-favourite sport after hockey. Harper's office was given a heads-up on Segal's motion and had no problem with it. Neither did Marjorie Le Breton, government leader in the Senate and a member of the powerful cabinet committee on priorities and planning.

The Liberals would probably kill the motion on the floor of the Senate, but if it ever got to cabinet, Segal would propose a simple referendum question: "Do you favour the abolition of the Senate of Canada? Yes or No."

Having started the debate and framed the question, Segal would then campaign against his own motion. Huh? Well, what he really wants is a reformed Senate, preferably an elected one.

And he thinks the best way to do that is to "referendize" the issue of Senate reform. As Pierre Trudeau might have put it: He wants to go over the head of the constitution, to the people of this land.

It takes a little explaining.

In terms of a constitutional amendment, abolishing the Senate, like abolishing the Crown, would require the unanimous consent of Ottawa and the provinces. The provinces are unlikely to approve, least of all Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with their 10 senators, as compared with six for Alberta and B.C., with three and four times their populations, a huge sore point in western Canada.

But if a referendum were approved in all provinces, their governments could hardly oppose the will of the people. Referring to 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, Segal calls this "the de-facto Mulroney amendment - after Charlottetown, there can be no fundamental constitutional change without a referendum."

Then why propose to abolish the Senate, and why oppose your own motion?

Aha, Segal says.

It is, he says, like the 1980 Quebec referendum, where it wasn't enough for the No forces to oppose sovereignty-association in order to prevail. In his famous referendum speech at the Paul Sauvé arena on May 14, 1980, Trudeau made a solemn promise of constitutional reform.
More on link


----------



## McG (26 Oct 2007)

.... so, why not just put a senate reform question to referendum?  Why beat about the bush?


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> .... so, why not just put a senate reform question to referendum?  Why beat about the bush?



Where's the fun in that?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2007)

Constitutional reform does not have to be hard; many of these ideas have been mused about by Prime Minister Harper in the past

http://www.backseatblogger.com/2007/10/29/sleeper-issue/



> *Sleeper Issue*
> 
> I think that this has the potential to be the sleeper issue in any federal campaign(whenever the Fiberals find the political backbone that they’ve so publiclly misplaced).
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2007)

Harper would back plan for referendum on abolishing Senate
BRIAN LAGHI From Tuesday's Globe and Mail November 6, 2007 at 2:00 AM EST
Article Link

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper will support a move to put the future of Canada's Senate up to a nationwide vote if the government can't find a way to reform it in the meantime.

The Globe and Mail has learned that the Prime Minister would add his voice to those who would support a referendum that would ask Canadians whether they wish to abolish the Senate.

The idea was broached by NDP Leader Jack Layton on the weekend. Tory Senator Hugh Segal has also put forward the notion of a nationwide plebiscite.

“If it came to the House, it would be hard not to support it,” a source told The Globe
More on link


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2007)

I still think this is a backward approach that could very well destroy the Senate when the intent should be to fix it.


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2007)

Given the popularity of the abolish the Senate idea, I've added to the poll.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2007)

On one hand, one way of amassing the will to change is to first do without something for a while.

On the other, during periods of Liberal government in the House of Commons, how is Canada governed without a Senate any different from Canada with a Liberal-dominated Senate?


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2007)

> Tories will seek to abolish Senate if reforms blocked
> *The Conservative government said it will support an NDP motion to abolish the Upper House if two Senate reform bills are again blocked by the opposition. *
> CTV.ca
> 13/11/2007 8:53:25 PM
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071113/senate_reform_071113/20071113?hub=TopStories


----------



## bdog (22 Nov 2007)

My personal views would be for consesus goverment however given how strong the parties are that not going to happen so I think some form of PR is need


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2007)

PR also includes political parties, and even strengthens their role in Parliament at the expense of the electorate (who controls the Party lists of members who will sit in the house?).

There is a "consensus" of sorts in Canada; all the opposition parties espouse some variation of Socialism inside the "Socialist Democratic" framework, although for tactical reasons the Liberals are spending more time and effort to fend off their fellows to prevent being decimated at election time (battles among "family" members are the most bitter, after all). If you look closely, the Harper Government is also running a fairly Socialist Democtatic platform as well, with the only major shift away from that philosophy still in the wings (restricting government legislation and spending powers to areas of jurisdictional responsibility).

Why the partisanship is so bitter these days (in all democratic nations, not just Canada) has to do with the awesome stakes; billions of dollars in spending power and the ability to control massive sectors of the economy. People will do anything to win with those rewards.


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Nov 2007)

The powers and responsibilities currently assigned to government are the root of the problem.  Limit government to indispensable *public works and services* and let individuals sort out what of the rest they want, and are willing to pay for.

Government in my opinion should have responsibility for the military defence of the nation, establishing foreign affairs and relations, Law and the courts.  As for the rest it should have a very limited role in establishing attainable national standards for industry, business, education, transportation and all those other things currently set up as government ministries or parts thereof.

Alas, in Canada we oscillate between Liberals and Conservatives (both of which spend their time fighting over the mushy middle ground of politics), the chance of electing any radical party, and therefore seeing any radical change is slim to nil.

The government is best that governs least.


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

> BTW, Mr Harper only promised to advise the GG to appoint persons selected through popular vote. He didn't promise not to appoint others. In the end, the GG makes the appointment and has the power to ignore the PM on the issue. I know it's a power that has seldom if ever been exercised, but it exists none the less.



Exactly!

Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.  Is such a debate worthy of a new thread?


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Exactly!
> 
> Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.<snip>



Not for a freaking nanosecond!!!  The last thing I want is a unelected political appointment exercising control.  Pseudo-monarchy is a step back from freedom not toward it


----------



## stegner (15 Feb 2008)

> Not for a freaking nanosecond!!!  The last thing I want is a unelected political appointment exercising control.  Pseudo-monarchy is a step back from freedom not toward it



Howabout if the people were to elect the GG?


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Howabout if the people were to elect the GG?



So you would advocate what would almost amount to an American presidential system in Canada?  Not me. Less layers of Gov'mnt crap is what I want, not more.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.



No way.  The only time the GG should ignore the advice of the Cabinet is when the legitimacy of the government is in question (for example, if the Prime Minister were to fail to ask for an election at the end of his mandate).  The main role of a constitutional monarchy is to ensure the continuity of legitimate government, not to go off in its own direction.



> Howabout if the people were to elect the GG?



No; that would just give us another politician beholden to that fraction of the population that elected him.  Much of the benefit of an unelected GG is that the position is able to stay away from the seamy underbelly of partisan politics.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Feb 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> No; that would just give us another politician beholden to that fraction of the population that elected him.  Much of the benefit of an unelected GG is that the position is able to stay away from the seamy underbelly of partisan politics.



I agree, the GG should be above common politics.  However having said that, there needs to be a better way of selecting the GG so that we do not have retired political hacks and regulars of parties' cocktail circuits inhabiting Rideau Hall.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I agree, the GG should be above common politics.  However having said that, there needs to be a better way of selecting the GG so that we do not have retired political hacks and regulars of parties' cocktail circuits inhabiting Rideau Hall.



Perhaps the solution is for HM to receive a list of suitable candidates and have her make the appointment.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2008)

Suggesting the GG is above partisan politics is beside the point. The current appointing of the GG is a political patronage appointment, while having HRH directly appoint the GG hearkens back to a time when it was almost a family matter among the Royals.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Feb 2008)

Is there anything that the GG does that could not be spelled out in a constitution thus rendering her and her position obsolete?


----------



## stegner (19 Feb 2008)

> Is there anything that the GG does that could not be spelled out in a constitution thus rendering her and her position obsolete?



No-but any changes to the Office of GG would be a huge headache.   The Constitution would have to be amended as much of that office's powers are written there.  You would need unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the office also or to change the office. The prerogative powers would all have to be codified into statute or transferred to another political figure. Every law in Canada would have to be amended to remove Governor-in-Council and replace it with something else.  The Letters Patents would have to be rescinded by her Majesty.   One would also have to find a system to replace the Constitutional Monarchy which is no easy task.  Australia voted to become a republic and abolish the monarchy but could not agree on how to do it.


----------



## RangerRay (19 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Australia voted to become a republic and abolish the monarchy but could not agree on how to do it.



Actually, they had a referendum between the status quo (constitutional monarchy) and a republic with a president elected by Parliament.  PM Howard (a Liberal monarchist who inherited the Labor initiated referendum) worded it specifically to divide the republicans.  The present Labor government has promised to hold another referendum, which they will no doubt word differently.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> No-but any changes to the Office of GG would be a huge headache.   The Constitution would have to be amended as much of that office's powers are written there.  You would need unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the office also or to change the office. The prerogative powers would all have to be codified into statute or transferred to another political figure. Every law in Canada would have to be amended to remove Governor-in-Council and replace it with something else.  The Letters Patents would have to be rescinded by her Majesty.   One would also have to find a system to replace the Constitutional Monarchy which is no easy task.  Australia voted to become a republic and abolish the monarchy but could not agree on how to do it.



A fine summary, and the specific reference is:

Section 41 of the Constitution

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

    (a) 	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
    (b) 	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
    (c) 	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
    (d) 	the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
    (e) 	an amendment to this Part.

So, in order for the GG's powers to be changed unanimous consent is required, and in order to dispense with that requirement, unanimous consent is required. In short, two unanimous votes are required. This is commonly known as the Hatfield clause, and was written in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for us to become a republic. 

BTW, Hatfield's other constitutional claim to fame was that he wrote the notwithstanding clause.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Feb 2008)

This news story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, might just represent the thin edge of the wedge re: Canada as a constitutional monarchy  that shares its monarch with other realms in the echo of an old, faded imperial superstructure:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=317485


> Unwilling to swear
> *Ottawa champions an oath some new Canadians reject*
> 
> Joseph Brean, National Post  Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
> ...



So, we have two competing visions: Mr. Roach wants to help an old, maybe outdated, tradition to _”unravel”_ while the Government of Canada argues that what Mr. Roach wants the courts to do _“would require a wholesale constitutional change, on par with abolishing constitutional monarchy.”_

I find it interesting that the Federal Court did not reject the much discussed case brought by Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh  on constitutional grounds. Rather, it appears to have sided with the proponents of the _status quo_ on the grounds of administrative simplicity. That, it seems to me, gives hope to Mr. Roach. If the Federal Court cannot see its way clear to stand up, fore-square, for the _rights_ of the nation’s monarch then, perhaps, when her time comes, her succussors may have no such ‘rights.’


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2008)

Without looking at the relative merits of Canada as a Republic vs a Constitutional Monarchy, I suspect that things will not change simply because the ROI is too low.

Like Australia, there _may_ be the feeling that the current form of government is archaic, but there is no consensus on how government should be reorganized (just look at the swirling debate on Senate reform, which is a minor change compared to establishing a Republic). The Australians ended up with the status quo because there was no consensus or majority (or even energetic minority) able to push one vision forward.

Canada has an almost absurdly high "bar" for constitutional change, perhaps even higher than Australia, so there are two possible outcomes: 

a. the grumbling will subside after a time after some minor cosmetic changes, or:

b. there will be a build up of pressure which minor changes will not release, leading to a blow up of some sort as the demands for change become too great.

Based on history and observations of Canadian society (where politicians and bureaucrats can crap all over us without too much complaint) I suggest that the answer is a.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Feb 2008)

If  his contention that he must swear to HM is the issue, the court may decide that as the Crown is our constitutional head of state then there is no discrimination. If the case hinges on swearing an oath of loyalty where native born Canadians do not, the court may rule that it is reasonable for new Canadians to do so in order to legally bound loyal to their new nation. Native born citizens are legally bound loyal by virtue of their birth. It would be interesting to read how the complaint is phrased to get a better appreciation of what will be at trial.

As an aside, I wonder how this case would go over in the States. Not swearing the oath because of the American history WRT slavery would be an interesting constitutional case for them.


----------



## Neill McKay (21 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Is there anything that the GG does that could not be spelled out in a constitution thus rendering her and her position obsolete?



Not really.  Part of the GG's role is to respond in the event that the wheels fall off of the constitution itself.  For example, we could amend the constitution so that a general election would be held on a certain date every four years (obviating the need for the GG's current role in calling elections), but there would still be a need for someone to be able to prevent a corrupt Prime Minister from preventing the election from taking place.

By the nature of the position, the GG has responsibilities that do not easily lend themselves to being codified down to the last detail for every applicable scenario.


----------



## stegner (21 Feb 2008)

> we could amend the constitution so that a general election would be held on a certain date every four years


  

You don't need to amend the constitution to do that.  Such a provision has already been enacted in legislation last year and it is causing a bit of a legal debate highly relevant to our discussion here on the GG.  

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=301407



> Harper ready to ask GG to pull plug
> 
> If Senate stalls crime bill past March 1, spokesman says Prime Minister would ask Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2008)

Warning:  :deadhorse:


This _commentary_ by Michael Adams of _Environics_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, allows me to revisit one of my hobby-horses:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080326.wcoadams26/BNStory/specialComment/home


> *Commentary*
> 
> The seeds of electoral realignment
> *The urban-rural divide is overtaking region as a predictor of how Canadians will vote*
> ...



Off the top I need to reiterate that I am a card-carrying Conservative and a regular financial contributor to my party and I understand that what I propose will *not* serve the partisan best interests of my party – but it will serve democracy and Canada, so we Conservatives should be behind it, 75% of us anyway.

We must appreciate that the central thesis of democracy is: *government with the consent of the governed.* We, in Canada, use periodic elections to measure that consent.

Central to the idea of the “consent of the governed” is equality – we, all citizens, should be equal when we enter the voting booth; my vote ought not to be worth more than yours just because I am richer or better educated or white or because I served in the military. Equally yours ought not to be worth more than mine just because you vote in the riding of Egmont while I vote in Ottawa Centre. We do a pretty good job of ensuring that wealthy white males with medals do not get greater electoral _authority_ than poor women of colour but we fail, miserably, as democrats, at ensuring that a vote in Ottawa Centre is worth as much as a vote in Egmont.

The first problem is Constitutional. The Constitution (1867) requires (in §51/51.A) that seats in the HoC are allocated on a _’rep-by-pop’_ basis *except* that no province, not even PEI, may have fewer MPs than it has senators and (§24) PEI gets four senators so, no matter how small its population, it must have four MPs. Amending this part requires *unanimous* approval by the Parliament of Canada and all provincial legislatures (see: Constitution (1982) §42). Thus, absent a full blown _Constitutional congress_ – the kind that would, probably, make us a Westminster style federal *republic* (à la India or Germany) with only, say, five provinces (BC, Canada West), Ontario, Québec, Atlantic Canada) and some territories, we are going to remain in a situation where PEI gets four MPs – about one per 34,500 _residents_ (of all ages and regardless of citizenship).

Using that StatsCan data and their projections for the future and 1:37,500 and 1:42,500 factors (for the current situation and the 2025 situation, respectively) we can conclude that, if equality matters, seat distributions should be:

         Current Pop ('000s)/*Seats*   2025 Pop ('000s)/*Seats*
Canada   32,976.000/*881*          37872.6/*892*
Newfoundland   506.3/*14*          522.7/*12*
and Labrador  
Prince Edward   138.6/*4*          149.6/*4*
Island
Nova Scotia   934.1/*25*            997/*23*
New Brunswick   749.8/*20*          788.3/*19*
Quebec   7,700.80/*205*            8273.7/*195*
Ontario   12,803.90/*341*          15210.5/*358*
Manitoba   1,186.70/*32*          1306.9/*31*
Saskatchewan   996.9/*27*          980.9/*23*
Alberta   3,474.00/*93*            3789.5/*89*
British Columbia   4,380.30*117*      5732.7/*135*
Yukon Territory   31*1*            36.9/*1*
Northwest   42.6*1*             53.3/*1*
Territories
Nunavut   30.1/*1*             30.8/*1*

The first and most obvious objection is: *We don’t need more politicians!*

There is a simple work around for that, one which could be managed by parliamentary _convention_ rather than Constitutional change: two classes of Mps with two workloads. All MPs would be elected as _part time_ members – likely to serve in Ottawa for about 10 working days (two one week session) in each of three parliamentary seasons (mostly to vote on bills). All MPs would have an appropriate, but generous, _part time_ salary of, say, $1,500.00/’working’ day ($45,000/year) plus, say, $500.00/day ($15,000/year) for hotels, meals and incidentals in Ottawa (less for local members) and appropriate (business class) travel allowances for three or four round trips/year. Some members would earn as much as $75,000/year – a few (from Ottawa) would get just $50,000. The members themselves, in caucus, would elect about 25% of their membership to be _permanent_ MPs – these 225 or so members (far fewer than the 308 we have today) would be required to spend more than 150 days/year in Ottawa and would serve on committees, debate in the HoC, etc. They would get salaries at least as generous as we see today.

The alternative is to continue with a _retarded_ democracy – one which, intentionally, Constitutionally, enshrines _*inequality*_ as a fundamental value. If we are going to discriminate on the basis of _provinciality_ why not on the basis of education, or land ownership or gender? Why not, indeed, on the basis of race or creed?


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2008)

With everyone racing about on their favorite hobby horse this thread is starting to look like the chariot race in Ben Hur  

In the United States the Founding Fathers created an electoral college system as a way to minimize the differential powers that populous states would have over smaller, less populous states. Senator Clinton complained loud and long after their losses in 200 and 2004, but with perfect irony her supporters are now using the electoral college as a way of promoting Senator Clinton as the "more electable" candidate, since she has won the primary contests in states with more electoral college votes.

This only goes to show that there is no "perfect" system, clever people will find a way to wargame it and manipulate the system for their advantage. While Edward's proposal is one of the most original ideas I have ever seen on the topic (how many current back bencher's are "part time" MP's anyway?), I suspect the end result will be even more dysfunctional parliaments and parties. Imagine being Stephan Dion with a horde of "part time" MP's casting their lots behind Bob Rae or Justin Trudeau, for example. The wrangling over who gets the coveted full time seats and the horse trading that would go along with it would also either weaken traditional parties, or create ruthless "Party Dictatorships" in an attempt to maintain legislative control. Of course if the desired result is a paralyzed parliament that won't get in our way, then my hat is off in admiration and awe......

The real problem now isn't our elected representatives; it is the unelected ones who are working in the shadows and quite unaccountable to the taxpayers.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course if the desired result is a paralyzed parliament that won't get in our way, then my hat is off in admiration and awe......



Of course, it would be more likely that such a government would not be able to get *out* of our way.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ....This only goes to show that there is no "perfect" system, clever people will find a way to wargame it and manipulate the system for their advantage. .....



Maybe you have the seeds of the solution right there Thucydides.  Mess up the OODA loop.  All sorts of people of limited intelligence have figured out how to "game" the system (media consultants, lobbyists etc) precisely because the rules are written down and change at a glacial pace.  Imagine taking on Saddam with his playbook in hand and everybody adhering to the rules.

Perhaps the way to make the system fairer is to randomly generate a new rule book every 5 years.

In part that is why I voted for the Conservatives.  I don't necessarily consider them better people than the Liberals, although generally I prefer their ideas.  I just wanted the system shaken up so that people had to figure out who to call to get the favours they wanted.  In another 5 years or so I will want to do the same again.

And Edward's solution is eminently suitable for a 5 year run.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2008)

The ancient Greeks were no dummies, and certainly understood human nature as well as, if not better than, we do today. The classical _polis_ drew its legislature from randomly selected citizens, similarly juries and even an executive body known as the _Boule_, which set the agenda for the _ekklesia_. In order to prevent the growth of a ruling class, the _ekklesia_ and juries were redrawn on an annual basis, and in Athens at least, anyone who served on the _Boule_ was disbarred from ever serving on that body again.

Despite all these precautions, the system was prone to manipulation by demagogues within the assembly and juries, and externally in the cities which elected a sort of permanent staff for continuity (the _strategoi_) these men could use their own powers of persuasion or other inducements to maintain their hold on office for many years.

The modern incarnation of this idea (of which I am a proponent) is to have term limits for elected officials. The idea of someone having a career in politics should be denormalized, serving in public office should be considered a privilege or a short shift in your career progression. For people who truly wish to serve the public or the State, there are plenty of other options out there. This also ensures new people and fresh ideas circulate through the body politic, which is itself a good thing.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Mar 2008)

Speaking as someone who has grown up and continued to live in "rural" areas*, I fully support the idea that representation _should_ be rep by pop.

*But*, to counter act this new power to urban areas, there should be a true "Triple E" senate.  This, in theory, should act as a check on urban dwellers to prevent them from forcing urban solutions on rural areas for urban problems.

I do realise this is in my fantasy land, where the required numbers of legislators across the country would see past their self interests and agree to radically change the Constitution.  ;D

_*What constitutes a "rural" area as opposed to an "urban" area anyways?  A town of 10,000?  50,000?  100,000?  1,000,000? _


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Mar 2008)

To tell the truth I'm not nearly as concerned about the how and who of the HoC I'd be way, way more happy if we had hard, fast and enforceable limits on the ability of government to legislate outside of certain functions such as the rule of law, national security and policing.

Eliminate the bastards abilities to screw with our daily lives and their machinations will become less invasive, less persuasive and therefore the positions themselves will become less enticing to the elite.

Why become an MP if you are limited to the mundane when continuing in your career as a businessman/lawyer will garner you more money more power and more fame?

It's not the electoral system thats broken its the socialist/statist/collectivist creep that has ruined the democratic ideal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an entirely muddle-headed editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080522.wesenate22/BNStory/specialComment/home


> The back door is the wrong way
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...



The _Good Grey Globe_ admits that Prime Minister Harper: “cannot formally restructure the Red Chamber without a round of constitutional wrangling for which the country has little appetite.” But: It, cowardly and intellectually dishonestly, refuses to say that an elected Senate is a good thing. Instead it argues that the PM must perpetuate the current unelected legislature – a situation that is a constant blight on Canada’s claim to be a modern, liberal democracy.

The  experience of the United States is illustrative of the Harper approach. The US fought the issue of senate elections for about 50 years. Finally, in 1907, Oregon resorted to direct, democratic elections. Within only six years (1913) the US Constitution was amended (17th Amendment) to require an elected senate. I suspect the process will be similar here and I think Ontario and Québec will come on board quickly, albeit gracelessly.

The issue of an equal senate is more difficult and a constitutional amendment is required.

I believe that an equal senate *could* have 100 seats (vice the current 105): six from each of the provinces* and one from each territory (63) elected during provincial/territorial general elections for a term ending with the next provincial/territorial general election and 37 “federal” senators – elected on a proportional representation basis, during federal general elections, for a term ending with the next federal general election. This would allow the parties to lard their senatorial candidate lists with Québec, Ontario BC and Alberta people. *But*: I fear that is unlikely and that the best we *might* be able to accomplish is a system in which we have 149 senators:

24 each from BC (up from 6), AB (up from 6), ON (no change) and QC (no change) = 96;
10 each from SK(up from 6), MB (up from 6),  NB (no change) and NS (no change) = 40;
6 from NF (no change) = 6;
4 from PEI (no change) = 4; and
1 from each territory (no change) = 3.

---------------------

* Which, unless other sections were amended would that PEI would need to have six MPs, further exacerbating the equally anti-democratic problem with our parliament: unbalanced representation


----------



## a_majoor (22 May 2008)

But why would we need so many senators? The United States has only 2 per State. If we want to avoid deadlocks we could say 3 per Province, or 5 if PEI won't give up their 4 senators, but certainly no more than that.

If nothing else, a leaner, meaner senate with only 33 senators (or 65 at 5 per province/territory) would have manpower issues which would limit the amount of issues that could be given "sober second thought". This in turn should have the effect of throttling the HoC into passing far less legislation per session, since legislation would have to pass through a very narrow senate "gate".

Admittedly, the Congress and Administration of the United States has evolved all sorts of evasive manouevres to pass big blocks of legislation without "sober second thought" and there is no reason to suppose that we would not evolve analogues to "earmarks" and other trickery, but then again, it was always up to "we, the people" to monitor the performance of our elected representatives and hold them to account. *Freedom is a self help project!*


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> But why would we need so many senators?



Because, I suspect, neither Ontario nor Québec would be willing to have the same number of seats as SK, MB, NB, NS, NF or, heaven forbid, PEI. In fact, I'm guessing that they think a 6:1 ratio against PEI is about right; it's hard to blame them.

I doubt BC will settle for less than ON or QC and I doubt AB will settle for less than BC.

Thus we end up with four big, 24 seat provinces, four medium, 10 seat, provinces, and five small, 1-6 seat provinces.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2008)

Thucydides, 

I think I would go one step further and blend the Senate with the Privy Council.   The Privy Council, as I understand it is a group of unelected advisors to the Crown (Government), usually ex-politicians, but not always.

I think a large confabulation of individuals with diverse backgrounds as a chamber of sober second thought is a great idea.  However only elected members can vote.  The rest of them get to sit in comfy chairs with bottles of scotch and pontificate.


----------



## McG (22 May 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The rest of them get to sit in comfy chairs with bottles of scotch and pontificate.


Sign me up for "the rest"!


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2008)

I'll see you there.....


----------



## Reccesoldier (23 May 2008)

The thing that struck me about the article was the fabrication that a voluntarily elected Senate would be more powerful. But in the same breath the article goes on to say that constitutional talks would have to take place in order to make any real changes to the Senate.

WTF over.  

Is there some sort of magic in a simple vote that, presto-chango makes the work done by elected members more important, more noteworthy or more powerful than the exact same work done by unelected former government cronies? 

I see baffling with BS is alive and well in the MSM.


----------



## Neill McKay (23 May 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think I would go one step further and blend the Senate with the Privy Council.   The Privy Council, as I understand it is a group of unelected advisors to the Crown (Government), usually ex-politicians, but not always.



The Privy Council includes all members of the Cabinet, all living former Prime Ministers, and several others.  For most purposes the Privy Council and the Cabinet are about the same thing.  When you head the term Governor-in-Council, the Privy Council is what's being referred to.  In practice, Governor-in-Council actions are taken by the Cabinet.

Cabinet meets regularly but I don't think the rest of the Privy Council meets very often, if at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2008)

The Privy Council, _per se_, is larger that noted by Neill McKay. Here is the current list, from the PCO.

Former MND Paul Hellyer appears, at a quick glance, to be the _dean_ (senior member) having been appointed in 1957 - when he was appointed Associate Minister of National Defence by Prime Minister St. Laurent. He only barely beats out HRH Prince Philip who was appointed about six months after Hellyer. The Hon. John Abbott appears to be the junior member, having been appointed last fall.

I think the correct appellation for the cabnet is "The Committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."


----------



## Neill McKay (23 May 2008)

Glancing through the list, it might be that all living former cabinet ministers are included, as opposed to only the former Prime Ministers.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2008)

http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page25.asp

And here is the list of the Privy Council in the Mother of Parliaments and its introductory notes.  Even as advisors they have clout.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Glancing through the list, it might be that all living former cabinet ministers are included, as opposed to only the former Prime Ministers.



Yes, plus all living Governors General and Supreme Court Chief Justices, all living provincial premiers and speakers of the HoC and Senate and selected other _"distinguished Canadians"_, which, I guess, explains Prince Philip. Basically, if you are a "Right Honorable" or an "Honourable" you are, _ipso facto_, a Privy Councillor, too.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The first and most obvious objection is: *We don’t need more politicians!*
> 
> There is a simple work around for that, one which could be managed by parliamentary _convention_ rather than Constitutional change: two classes of Mps with two workloads. All MPs would be elected as _part time_ members – likely to serve in Ottawa for about 10 working days (two one week session) in each of three parliamentary seasons (mostly to vote on bills). All MPs would have an appropriate, but generous, _part time_ salary of, say, $1,500.00/’working’ day ($45,000/year) plus, say, $500.00/day ($15,000/year) for hotels, meals and incidentals in Ottawa (less for local members) and appropriate (business class) travel allowances for three or four round trips/year. Some members would earn as much as $75,000/year – a few (from Ottawa) would get just $50,000. The members themselves, in caucus, would elect about 25% of their membership to be _permanent_ MPs – these 225 or so members (far fewer than the 308 we have today) would be required to spend more than 150 days/year in Ottawa and would serve on committees, debate in the HoC, etc. They would get salaries at least as generous as we see today.
> 
> The alternative is to continue with a _retarded_ democracy – one which, intentionally, Constitutionally, enshrines _*inequality*_ as a fundamental value. If we are going to discriminate on the basis of _provinciality_ why not on the basis of education, or land ownership or gender? Why not, indeed, on the basis of race or creed?



Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but all this talk on the other thread about the GG made me go back and read it.

I thought this was a pretty interesting idea.  Treating most MP's for what they are, general chorus that should be called upon once in a while and keeping the more prominent ones in town to do the actual job of legislating.

-BUMP- I guess.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2008)

Rather than clutter up the place with more politicians (even if you only think of them as a Greek Chorus), the real solution is to cut through the clutter, tightly define and enforce the roles of each level of government and let most decisions fall at the lowest possible level.

Face it, most Canadians need and use the services of municipal governments more than anyone else, but since Parliament (under the Martin government) began spreading bucket loads of cash for municipal projects, we now have bizarre situations like London Ontario having the worst roads in Ontario, claiming "lack of funds" while receiving 120% more than the average amount of Federal and Provincial grants than 30 similar Canadian cities! Since the City government can pass the buck, city taxpayers get the shaft while council gats to avoid responsibility.

Lots of little governments with limited powers and responsibilities rather than a monolithic Leviathan is the solution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Rather than clutter up the place with more politicians (even if you only think of them as a Greek Chorus), the real solution is to cut through the clutter, tightly define and enforce the roles of each level of government and let most decisions fall at the lowest possible level.
> 
> Face it, most Canadians need and use the services of municipal governments more than anyone else, but since Parliament (under the Martin government) began spreading bucket loads of cash for municipal projects, we now have bizarre situations like London Ontario having the worst roads in Ontario, claiming "lack of funds" while receiving 120% more than the average amount of Federal and Provincial grants than 30 similar Canadian cities! Since the City government can pass the buck, city taxpayers get the shaft while council gats to avoid responsibility.
> 
> Lots of little governments with limited powers and responsibilities rather than a monolithic Leviathan is the solution.



I would agree with you if we were starting from scratch, with a clean slate, so to speak. But I doubt that a full blown Constitutional Congress – one where everything, including the very _nature_ of the state (unitary or federal) and its boundaries (BC, Alberta, Québec and Newfoundland in or out?) – is due any time soon. 

Unfortunately we are stuck, for now and the foreseeable future, with a very first draft level of a British federal constitution. (The 2nd draft was Australia’s, which had the advantage of nearly a half century and the 3rd draft was found in Germany’s and India’s which had another, nearly as long, maturation period.)

Our Constitution, as I said, enshrines *inequality* as a fundamental Canadian value. We have an immature, even *retarded* democracy, stuck, firmly, in the middle of the 19th century while we try to grapple with the 21st.

We can make some fixes to the HoC and the Senate without getting into the complexities (impossibilities) of the 1982 amending formula.

I have come to believe that our very conservative constitution, with its totally unacceptable emphasis on collective, group rights and its reliance upon ‘oversight’ of the ‘Commons’ (the chamber of the individuals) by a ‘Senate’ representing the ‘establishment,’ is part of the problem: one of the (many) reasons we are such a ‘conservative’ – nearly socialistic and, therefore, anti-democratic – society.

Eventually, before we ossify, we will need to rip the 1982 mishmash apart and begin anew. Until that happy day the national government could, easily, introduce Canadians to elements of a modern, liberal democracy.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2008)

Although the context is discussing the inclusion of the Green Party leader in a national Leaders debate, the blogger makes the most compelling argument that I have seen against PR and similar ideas:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/271994.php



> *Blair Wilson, the Green Party, and Elizabeth May lusting for a TV spot*
> 
> History has been made today.  The Green Party has an MP in Canada's parliament.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

This _John Ibbitson_ column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is important:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.wcoibbi10/BNStory/specialComment/home


> America is simply too democratic for Canadian tastes
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...



Ibbitson is pointing at the *FACT* that Canada is a very immature democracy – to the degree that it is at democracy at all.

Is it really fair for Canada to claim membership in the _’club’_ of democratic nations when one of the two houses of our national parliament is *appointed* from the ranks of party hacks, flacks and political bagmen and the other enshrines *inequality* based on Constitutional principle? No! It is *shameful!*, a *disgrace* but, evidently, quite acceptable to most Canadians.

There is a huge democratic deficit in Canada – and political parties are well served by that deficit and they are able to sustain it because most Canadians are *intellectually unfit* to vote.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ibbitson is pointing at the *FACT* that Canada is a very immature democracy – to the degree that it is at democracy at all.



I can't agree with the notion that any country that uses the Westminster parliamentary system -- which pre-dates the US system considerably -- could be called an immature democracy.



> Is it really fair for Canada to claim membership in the _’club’_ of democratic nations when one of the two houses of our national parliament is *appointed* from the ranks of party hacks, flacks and political bagmen and the other enshrines *inequality* based on Constitutional principle? No! It is *shameful!*, a *disgrace* but, evidently, quite acceptable to most Canadians.



Your last few words say it all.  If ever we *elect* a House of Commons with popular support to reform the Senate then it will happen.  We have the system we have now because it is evidently acceptable to a majority of Canadians (or because no better alternative has been presented that would itself be acceptable to a majority of Canadians).  That sounds like a democracy to me.

The next time the Senate prevents passage of a Commons bill outright then we can talk about its democratic shortcomings, but until then the elected representatives of the people generally get what they want -- to the extent that they can agree amongst themselves.  That also sounds like a democracy to me.



> There is a huge democratic deficit in Canada – and political parties are well served by that deficit and they are able to sustain it because most Canadians are *intellectually unfit* to vote.



If most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote then the less voting the better, eh?

Of course that's not true, though; you're indulging in drama at the expense of making a sound argument.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?

Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?

As to *democratic maturity*: an *appointed* legislative chambre smacks of 19th century paternalism, when our 'betters' believed that the 'people' could not be trusted to manage their own affairs. It's not surprising that we have a 19th century, paternalistic Constitution - it was written back then. It is surprising that we haven't worked up the gumption to repair that glaring bit of the democratic deficit. Ditto for our own "rotten and pocket boroughs - almost all East of the Ottawa River.

I remain dismayed at the flaccid nature of the national spine.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?
> 
> Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?
> 
> ...



Edward,

Calling our democracy immature does seem a little extreme or sensational to me.  Immature compared to what?  We have an appointed Senate that has no real legislative power.  Heck, we have an unelected executive branch in legal terms (but not in reality).

Canada does have some interesting issues.  We are a regional nation combined with a concentration of the population, however, in the centre.  This is going to make for some glitches.  While PEI might have more seats per person than Ontario, the fact remains that if you carry Ontario and Quebec you carry the nation.

Canada also lacks an underlying consensus (Quebec and the rest of Canada).  This affects many things and makes for glacially slow constitutional change.  That Canada has survived, however, demonstrates to me the strength of Canadian democracy.  My 1st year political science prof pointed out the underlying consensus in the US as a way of illustrating our lack of such a beast, to which I pointed out that they got there through a Civil War so we should perhaps just be thankful for our shortcomings.  

An elected Senate might help resolve some regional issues, but basing it on the Provinces could get a little silly.  Perhaps we just muddle through with our system which seems to govern a country that does very well world-wide on a number of indicies.  Our system may not always make sense at first glance, but I would hardly call it shameful or a disgrace.  

Cheers

p.s. You yourself have stated that "most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote."  How does that point of view square with the 19th century paternalism you mention?   >


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

I stick by *”immature”*.

We were the first country to have a written constitution for a federal state with a Westminster style parliamentary democracy. In 1867 the idea of an appointed ‘upper’ house was not unreasonable. The US Senate, for example, was appointed, by state legislatures – some had more democratic election procedures than others. Beginning in 1904 and ending in 1913 (with the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution) the American moved from an appointed to an elected Senate.

In 1901 Australia became the next major Westminster style federal state – this time with an elected Senate.

In the 1940s we saw two more constitutions for federal democracies with Westminster type governments: Germany and India – both have elected upper houses, although the Indian one is _’indirectly’_ elected by the legislatures of the Indian states.

The German Constitution is the most ‘mature,’ I suggest, having benefited from the political and constitutional experience of the Australians and Canadians.

Our democracy retains its ‘youthful’ (immature) nature in both the appointment of the Senate and by its tolerance of inequality of representation. Both may have been acceptable in the middle of the 19th century; they ought not to be now.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?



I think the government, as a whole, is democratic.  I dispute your assertion that having one part of it not elected makes the institution undemocratic.

How far would we have to go towards electing public officials to have a truly democratic government?  Should we stop at the Senate, or also elect the Governor General?  What about judges?  Deputy Ministers?  Or the entire civil service?

There is an elected body at the core of the government, and the government can do bugger all without that body's say-so and oversight.  I think we qualify as having a democratic government on that basis.



> Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?



It is democratic, but perhaps not perfect.  The number of people who actually voted in any given riding is immaterial, though.  What matters is the number of people living in each riding, and that should be kept equal as far as is practicable.



> As to *democratic maturity*: an *appointed* legislative chambre smacks of 19th century paternalism, when our 'betters' believed that the 'people' could not be trusted to manage their own affairs. It's not surprising that we have a 19th century, paternalistic Constitution - it was written back then. It is surprising that we haven't worked up the gumption to repair that glaring bit of the democratic deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> ...  What matters is the number of people living in each riding, and that should be kept equal as far as is practicable. ...



Here is the electoral quotient by province and here is an explanation of how it is calculated.

We really have three Canadas, don’t we? One (AB, BC and ON) is about ‘fairly represented’ by the current formula; the second (MB, NS and QC) is more than 10% but less than 33⅓% ‘above’ the ‘fair’ level – still about ‘practically’ equal, I guess; but the third Canada (NF, NS, PEI and SK) is between 40% and *300%* overrepresented. Is that as _equal as practicable_ in your mind?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> ...  Perhaps we just muddle through with our system which seems to govern a country that does very well world-wide on a number of indicies.
> ...



I’m grumpy about ‘muddling through’ because I’m trying to digest the latest productivity figures.

Canadian productivity is down, again.

US productivity is up, again. Ditto most of the rest of the world, too.

The US is our biggest competitor as well as being our biggest customer; our economies are too much alike for us to be, contentedly, less productive than them.

Part of our productivity problem is attitudinal I think. We are too “fat, dumb and happy,” there is _waaaaay_ too much “I’m all right, Jack” in our government, corporations, banks and trade unions. And the same people who are content with a democratic deficit are equally content with an increasing productivity gap.

I think we’re *bloody idle* – as the sergeant major used to put it.

Ibbitson said, “America, one suspects, is too democratic for Canadian tastes - or at least for the tastes of its ruling political, intellectual and cultural elites.” Those _ruling elites_ who care too little, in my opinion, for democracy also care too little for other important things - like productivity, and it pisses me off!

I repeat: our lagging productivity is *not* because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers. It is because our corporate/banking/industrial elites are timid and lazy – and overpaid. And they are forgiven for being _idle_, often actually encouraged in their idleness by trade union and political ‘leaders.’

*Leadership* is THE issue and despite the fact that we are embarked upon a general election our would-be leaders will not discuss hard issues. The democratic deficit is, in my opinion a real issue and an important one, so is productivity, ditto our role in the world. We ought to be demanding that leaders do better: provide better democracy, encourage better productivity, be more productive in protecting and promoting our own vital interests in the world. Do you want to bet that any of them will receive much attention in the ongoing campaign?


----------



## Jed (10 Sep 2008)

ER Campbell, you should run for PM. You would have my vote. (One of those idle types in an over represented province. lol)


----------



## RangerRay (10 Sep 2008)

Here, here, Mr. Campbell.

I agree with your assertion that our democracy is immature and that our constitution is a work of 19th century paternalism.

IMHO, having a truly popular representative HoC and a Triple E Senate would go a long way to bringing our constitution into the 21st century.

Edit to add:

That may mean that PEI get only one MP, but that also means that they get the same number of senators as Ontario.  Which is fine by me.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Sep 2008)

Edward,

Do you really think that productivity is tied to our political system?  Could there be other factors at play?  While I believe that there is dynamic exchange between a society and its political system in terms of influence, at the end of the day I believe that our political system reflects our society and not the other way around.  

I am not upset about PEI voters having a greater quotient of MPs per vote because Quebec and Ontario still hold the hammer in the big picture.  Canada came together out of compromise and not absolutism.  An elected senate would have a similar (but much more out of whack) tilt unless it was just a split of the House of Commons.  

Messing with the Constitution is fraught with peril and I do not believe that the possible benefits justify the risks.  

Our productivity is lower, but how is our trade deficit?  Apples and oranges, to be sure, but we should look as widely as possible when comparing two countries and deciding if we want to radically change ours.

Cheers

T2B


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I’m grumpy about ‘muddling through’ because I’m trying to digest the latest productivity figures.
> 
> I think we’re *bloody idle* – as the sergeant major used to put it.




Edward, I take exception to this juxtaposition.

Some years back a young Prussian Infanteer kept inundating us with tales of the German High Command.  I seem to recall some comment to the effect that the Prussians considered lazy people worthy of promotion ......

Ultimately, Productivity is not a function of people working harder.  It is a function of people working less hard.  

Our problem is that our politicians have been working hard on the Canadian version of the French 35 hour work week.  They fear the unemployed and so are going out of their way to keep candle-stick makers in business when the market died out years ago.  In the environment they have created our naturally risk averse, shall we say conservative, business class have been reluctant to try out new technologies.  Unless the government pays for new ideas and experimentation Canadian Business isn't interested.

Consequently we have been trying to keep families in funds packing fish for 10 weeks a year while the Icelanders buy up and build robots to butcher, slice, dice and pack cod.  We have been running plants on 24/7 shifts while other countries have been putting in bigger motors so that they can produce more, faster with fewer people: the definition of productivity enhancement.

To go back to The RSM:   The problem is not that we are bloody idle.  The problem is that too many of us "need to grow a pair".


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> ...
> Do you really think that productivity is tied to our political system?
> ...


No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)

I agree we need to look broadly at our situation, and when *I* do that, *through the lens of my experience* I see a need for some broad, ‘structural’ changes to politics and policy and ‘attitude.’

I think there are links between (in no particular order) foreign policy, tax policy, productivity, the _democratic deficit_ (as I state it), R&D spending (by industry and governments), social programmes, trade policy and so on.

Earlier I described the ‘attitudinal’ bit as “_I’m all right, Jack_.” Many may have never seen that old (1959) British comedy that parodied the way in which vested (special) interests manipulate people and the ‘_system_’ for heir own, selfish ends. But it is how I believe we have come to *accept* that the ‘elites’ – the chattering classes, the unimaginative, anti-competitive, overpaid CEOs, the politicians, the labour ‘leaders’ and the busybodies – operate against the national interest.

The extent of my ‘confusion’ is perfectly illustrated by this election:

•	The Liberal Party – the one which I vowed, way back in 1967, would not get my vote until Trudeau was gone and his influence erased – proposes, as its centrepiece policy, something with which I agree, philosophically, on two out of three points –

+   The Green Shaft Shift is based on a consumption tax. That’s *good*! 

+   The ‘plan’ involves cuts to income taxes. That’s *good*, too, but 

+   The ‘plan’ includes all manner of new (mostly social) spending. That’s *bad*;

•	The Conservative Party – the one I support (actively) – proposes to cut a perfectly good consumption tax. That's *bad*.

So, on one of my and the country’s *BIG* issues I plan to vote against the good policy. But, of course, it is because I am looking for a larger, more coherent ‘plan’ – maybe the eternal triumph f hope over experience, again.

I think we are not Chinese. I think we need to reform our government ‘system’ before we try to shake off the *shackles of socialism* effects of decades of less than stellar management – the sort that gives us consistently negative trade balances with just about every country or region except the USA.  I think the _”I’m all right, Jack”_ attitude is more dangerous than Harper’s _hidden agenda_™ or Dion’s apparent ineptitude or even Elizabeth May’s mouth.

I’m being hyperbolic because I’m trying to provoke interest, even discussion.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2008)

> No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)



Seen Edward.   Comes from skimming and typing when I should have been working.

Cheers.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Sep 2008)

Someone tell me how an elected Senate will make my life better, in practical terms.  Or your life, if you prefer.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Someone tell me how an elected Senate will make my life better, in practical terms.  Or your life, if you prefer.



We might actually get some of them back from their Mexican villas, and keep some of the others awake (less meds)  ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)
> 
> I think we are not Chinese. I think we need to reform our government ‘system’ before we try to shake off the *shackles of socialism* effects of decades of less than stellar management – the sort that gives us consistently negative trade balances with just about every country or region except the USA.  I think the _”I’m all right, Jack”_ attitude is more dangerous than Harper’s _hidden agenda_™ or Dion’s apparent ineptitude or even Elizabeth May’s mouth.
> 
> I’m being hyperbolic because I’m trying to provoke interest, even discussion.



I agree that we are not Chinese.  Reforming our system to shake off the shackles of socialism is a bit more debateable.  What if Canadians want those shackles of socialism?  Perhaps parties that have offered social programs have offered something that resonates with a fair majority of the Canadian population.  Whether you or I agree with them is important in so far as how we vote and how we engage in the process.  At the end of the day, however, I believe that Canadians will get the government they support and will get what they ask for.  Not everybody will be happy, but that is democracy.  I will mention tyranny of the majority later.

Our trade balance surplus has shrunk recently, due in part I believe to the rising dollar.  Given the proportion of our trade with the US compared to the rest of the world, however, I think that we should remain focused on that aspect.  Our balance there is still quite healthy and we still have an overall surplus.

I only come back to your productivity piece because you are calling for political reform but are seemingly focused exclusively on economics.  Politics and economics are certainly linked, but the Venn diagram of the two would still have some aspects outside each other's circle.  Reforming the constitution is a major undertaking, and in a country like Canada that lacks a real underlying consensus can lead to all sorts of problems.  Do we really want to go back to the period circa 1990 to 1995?  Germany may have a more _modern_ constitution, but lets remember how that came about.  

Canada is a regional nation and therefore will have some funny or annoying aspects (depending on your point of view).  Given that the regions are very unequal in terms of population but still have their regional issues there will have to be some give and take at the national level.  I don't see that as undemocratic.  Tyranny of the majority is one of the those things to watch for, and if the centre rules with a velvet gloved iron fist (through democracy) than the regions may eventually decide to withdraw their consent.  Our first past the post system can also cause frustrations.  Nevertheless, we should look to the second and third order effects of any major changes made to our political system.  We have combined our de facto executive with our legislative, and only one chamber of the legislative has any real power.  I can live with the strangeness and nuances because I am proud of Canada as a whole and I worry about causing damage to the whole in order to fix a paper problem.

Our voter turnout isn't great but it compares favourably to many (somewhere in the mid 70% range), which tells me that while Canadians might not be in love with politics three quarters get out and participate.  Perhaps my muddling through life with a mid-seventies average has tainted me.

Is there really some crisis that can only be resolved by changing our constitution?  Perhaps we let sleeping dogs lie.

As an aside, an elected senate with regional representation appeals to me on some levels, but bear in mind that it would take the idea that a single voter in PEI has more influence than a single voter in Ontario to a new level.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2008)

I think I see where Edward is going with this (although this is my interpretation).

Canada's long term prospects are limited by an "I'm all right Jack" attitude, which is partially caused and supported by the State. In order to pay off supporters and maintain voter support, a vast array of vote buying subsidies and programs have grown across the political and economic landscape like weeds. Major offenders are EI and our healthcare system, followed by regional economic "development" programs and "social" programs which give the State essentially parental powers over individuals. We don't feel the need to be competitive or productive because we are cocooned and insulated from hard choices and consequences of our actions by the State. Most people seem to be comfortable with this, and accept the implicit bargin that we will turn over 50% of our earnings in return for the privilage of coasting.

Now overturning the existing order and unleashing the energies of Canadians will require some pretty dramatic changes. We have elites in business, politics, education and the bureaucracy who prosper from the status quo, and will defend their positions to the last taxpayer. (To use another metaphor, they are forming a perimeter around the lifeboats on the Titanic, while hoping we haven't noticed the water lapping over the deck).

Now a politician with balls of steel might try to face down the voters mobilized by the elites, but will probably not get elected. A politician in power still needs to operate with a very deft political touch in order to change the existing order without arousing the opposition of the conservative elites (conservative in the sense the champagne socialists will work to preserve the existing order for their benefit). The other scenarios are the stuff of nightmares; a massive economic dislocation or meltdown forces governments to jettison the dead weight of social programs, EI etc. in order to save the State, global war, or armed revolution to seize the powers of the State for whatever purpose the revolutionaries deem fit.

If I am reading Edward correctly, Prime Minister harper is taking option "B" (deft political manipulation) to reform the system in small steps that the conservative elites are unable to counter individually, but will collectively add up to true changes for the Dominion of Canada and its people. Watch and wonder.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2008)

It seems the prediction of massive economic meltdown is indeed coming true, although I don't see much actual change on the political horizon (yet). Here is a take on one reason why the status quo will be with us for a long time to come (remember, *politicians will fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their advantages*)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081008.COFLANAGAN08//TPStory/Comment



> *The fragmentation of our politics*
> Blame changes to party financing for splintering the vote
> 
> TOM FLANAGAN
> ...


----------



## adaminc (9 Oct 2008)

I am not sure what kind of voting system this would be, but I wish that I could vote for a local rep in my riding independantly of the federal party.

i.e. I could vote a Lib in as my MP, but vote for the Cons Federally, or vice versa.

Never thought it through in any detail, but there are times when I like what an MP does for the area, but I don't like what their respective political party does federally. Does this make sense?

So you vote in the person in your local riding who would then be your rep in the house of commons, and then you vote for the federal party who would become the PM and the Cabinet. I am thinking that there could be an issue of there being more reps for party A in the house, but party B winning the federal election, but I think it would be interesting to see nonetheless, even if it only lasts a short time, I dont think it would hurt to try it out, unless I am supremely wrong and this would turn Canada into a 3rd world country.

P.S. I would also like to see Michaëlle Jean pull a prank on the next Prime Minister (and film it all) by saying that she is going to pick the Cabinet this time around. I would love to see the look on the PMs face, hahaha.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2008)

That’s what they do in the USA.

There are, in pretty much all democracies, three elements of government:

•	The Executive;

•	The Legislature; and

•	The Judiciary.

The Americans elect all or parts* of all three.

-------------------

Our tradition is different: we elect only the legislature.

Our ‘Executive’ is the Queen – advised by a committee of the Queen’s Privy Council, AKA the cabinet. We _inherit_ the sovereign but we *indirectly* elect (most of) the cabinet† since, by *Constitutional convention* (unwritten rules with *at least* as much ‘weight’ as any written law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) the cabinet is formed from members of the political party that ‘has the confidence’ of (can win votes in) the House of Commons which, also by ancient ‘convention’ is the only place where taxes can be ‘levied’ and where wars can be declared.

Our judges, like US judges, have their origins in Heny II’s ‘assize’ courts. That term (Assize Court), and ‘Court of Queen’s Bench’ survived and still survive into the 21st century.

Because judges derive their power from the sovereign (executive) and because they can literally overturn decisions of the sovereign’s legislature (remember it is “Her Majesty’s Government” and “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” – terms that indicate that the legislature, too, is _subordinate_ to an all powerful executive) they are, of necessity an *extension* of the executive.

Now, our system is _evolutionary_. Clearly, Queen Elizabeth’s (or Governor General Michaëlle Jean’s) real, practical powers are confined to a few, largely ceremonial matters.‡ The real power – to *require*, for example, that you and I pay taxes and that we all drive on a certain (uniform) side of the road – rest with the elected legislatures. Those legislatures can, and sometimes do, deny “Her Majesty’s Government” its (her) wishes. In that case the government-of-the-day may lose the ‘confidence of parliament and Her Majesty (us, effectively) may have to find a new government – generally by having an election.**

Thus, we come (evolve) full circle. We, the people, are our own ‘all powerful sovereign.’ We pay a monarch, a governor general in our case, to look after some of the less important ‘head of state’ duties for us. A few hundred years ago we, our parliament, used to ‘select’ (indirectly elect) the monarch, too. That’s how William and Mary (1689) and the current House of Windsor (1714) (variously House of Hanover, House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and House of Windsor) came into ‘power’ or, properly, into our employ.

We govern ourselves through the legislature we elect and we, through the elected cabinet, appoint our own judges.

There are, especially for radical “_Jacksonians_,” attractions to electing pretty much everything. Our system, rooted in more than 1,000 years of British tradition, can be just as ‘democratic.’


--------------------
* Originally all US judges were appointed, like all Canadian judges today, but, _circa_ 1850 there was something of a ‘constitutional revolt’ in the US and a corrupt judiciary was part of the problem. Electing judges, to provide ‘accountability’ to the people was seen to be the answer. Today many lower court judges (a majority, in a majority of states) are elected.
† Provided a few ‘conventions’ are observed he prije minister ma appoint a few unelected senators to the cabinet, too.
‡ But, as we will soon see, some ceremonial vestiges remain. We do not have a government until Governor General Michaëlle Jean swears it in – making it *her* government.
** But not always; if a government ‘falls’ (loses a vote of confidence) very son after a general election – say in the late winter of 2008/09 or early spring of 2009 – the GG *may* decide to ask the leader of *her* opposition to see if he can form a government and secure the ‘confidence’ of parliament.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Oct 2008)

Here is a bit of a different topic in this grand, sweeping subject.

In my riding in central BC (being a Reg Force member, my riding is that on my SOR, not where I am posted - as many political pundits incorrectly assumed), the Green Party dumped their traditional candidate - a local farmer - in favour of someone else.

This is the problem; the candidate lives in Vancouver.  She agreed to run for the Central BC riding on the condition that she have no picture or biography published, no interviews with the press, and participate in no debates.  She was sought out by the Green Party because she is a female member of the party that would satisfy some Party goals with the "right-to-vote" principle that enables electors in all of Canada's ridings to vote Green.

Now, if you ask me, this reeks.  Are we to be content with candidates who have never even been to the area to run as candidates?  Has the party assumed that much primacy in our electoral system that representatives are merely an "electoral college" for the Prime Minister.  I'd like to think not, but this appears to indicate yes.

I consider this a true democratic deficit.  When we have prospective MP's that are nothing but numbers or parrots.  It reeks of old British ridings that aristocrats would pick up just to get a seat.  Although probably an exception rather than a norm, it sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

Unfortunately, it has been done many times in the past, by all Parties.  Party Leaders have been parachuted into "Safe Ridings" so that they can have a guaranteed seat in Parliament.  It is nothing new.  That, however, doesn't make it right.  I agree that this practice reeks and should not happen.

Your example of the "Anonymous Green Party Candidate" takes the cake though.


----------



## TCBF (12 Oct 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ... This is the problem; the candidate lives in Vancouver.  She agreed to run for the Central BC riding on the condition that she have no picture or biography published, no interviews with the press, and participate in no debates.  ....



- Fresh air kills most germs.  You need to run this one up the nearest flagpoles and start by finding out her name.  She may not want to answer questions now, but after the election - in fact, for the rest of her stinking life - she should be called on to account for her anti-democratic activities.

- Seriously.  When she is 98 years old and living in an assisted care facility, a little old lady with a sparkle in her eye should lean over from the next wheelchair and say: "Tell us, ____, just WHAT the f_ck were you possibly thinking, dearie?"


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

Then again, she may go by the name of "Rover", or "Spot" or "Fluffy".  Perhaps: "Fifi".    :-\


----------



## TCBF (12 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then again, she may go by the name of "Rover", or "Spot" or "Fluffy".  Perhaps: "Fifi".    :-\



- A 'ghost' candidate who does not exist?  Leave it to BC...

 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Here is a bit of a different topic in this grand, sweeping subject.
> 
> In my riding in central BC (being a Reg Force member, my riding is that on my SOR, not where I am posted - as many political pundits incorrectly assumed), the Green Party dumped their traditional candidate - a local farmer - in favour of someone else.
> 
> ...





Would this be her? She (a would-be lawyer articling in Vancouver) has the same name as the Green Party candidate in Cariboo - Prince George.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Oct 2008)

Yup.  Further cements my idea that this party is a joke but is still going to get a cut of the money.  However, it reminds me of something I'm paraphrasing from Heinlein - "Give the absurd and impossible the chance and it becomes reality".

Then what?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would this be her? She (a would-be lawyer articling in Vancouver) has the same name as the Green Party candidate in Cariboo - Prince George.




I’m guessing that’s her because I found this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the 10 Oct edition of the _Prince George Free Press_:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/pgfreepress/news/30809289.html


> In search of Green Party candidate Amber van Drielen
> 
> Published: October 10, 2008 2:00 PM
> Updated: October 10, 2008 7:50 PM
> ...



Wow!


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2008)

In some ridings, they say you could run a potted plant for certain parties and they would win.  It'll be interesting to see this candidate's vote count, running what looks like ZERO campaign.

While all parties have parachuted candidates into ridings at one point or another, this is the first time I've heard of someone running for PUBLIC office seeking more anonymity than the head of most intelligence services.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2008)

The idea of a *right-to-vote* candidate has been around for quite a while. Many, many years ago it was quite all right for major parties to not bother to run a candidate in a few ridings. Very often a _no-chance_ candidate was put up yo face e.g. the prime minister and the leader of the opposition – who were, themselves, often _parachuted_ into ridings.

Sometime back (in the ‘70s?) the NDP were taunted (by Trudeau?) for not being a *real*, 'national' party because they didn’t have _x_ candidates (_x_ being a number around 280) (The NDP didn't, back in those ancient days, run candidates in all QC ridings). Now every party wants to make sure that it has _nominated_ 308 candidates – even if a few are flakes and fruitcakes and have to withdraw and even if a few are just names on a piece of paper – so that they are 'real, national' parties. Some are there only to give a handful of people a ‘right-to-vote” for the _N______ Party of Canada.   



Edit: typo


----------



## Infanteer (12 Oct 2008)

Yup - that's the article I read in today's local paper.

Pretty sad.


----------



## TCBF (12 Oct 2008)

- So, Autumn Goes Looking For Amber? Sounds like one of those videos we watched in the 9D1756 Mess Tent on REFORGER 88.

 8)


----------



## RangerRay (2 Nov 2008)

Very odd, considering the Greens had someone in the past who actually lived and worked in the area.  More proof that the party under May has become a joke.

The Liberals in the riding also nominated a 19 year old lad to run...far different from the lawyers, engineers and other professionals who have run for them in the past in that riding.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Nov 2008)

Considering the end result in that riding, I can see why the other parties took a rather laissez-faire approach to their candidate choices.  I'm going to switch my SOR for the next election so my vote will be worth something more than simply adding onto a landslide....


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2008)

Electoral welfare coming to an end. Parties that do not have to work for your vote will now find their funding issues have just increased by an order of magnitude:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/flaherty-to-end-campaign-welfare/



> *Flaherty to end campaign welfare*
> 
> On November 7th, I argued that we should end government-subsidized campaign welfare in this country and follow the example set by President-elect Barack Obama and amend our electoral system to eliminate our $1.95-per-vote subsidy received by political parties each year. During the US Presidential campaign, Obama did not take a single dollar of public financing and went on to win the election. On a panel for the Public Policy Forum yesterday, I suggested to my Obama-obsessed co-panelist Judy Rebick that Mr. Hope and Change had set the wheels in motion for the elimination of public money for political campaigns.
> 
> ...


----------



## tamtam10 (4 Dec 2008)

I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.


----------



## TCBF (4 Dec 2008)

tamtam10 said:
			
		

> I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.



- Proportional representation is undemocratic.  Who would your MP be?  Someone you voted for, or someone a party got to pick as part of their vote percentage?  Proportional rep allows fringe parties and radicals (such as Hitler and the NSDAP) to deadlock governments.  Bad idea.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

tamtam10 said:
			
		

> I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.



First past the Post acts as a political "filter" to find a clean "signal" of voter intent for the government to act on. PR in all its forms allows a much lower "signal to noise" ratio, so unstable minorities and coalitions become the rule rather than the exception. Imagine this circus in Ottawa going on *all the time*?

As well, if people like Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent can engineer this sort of instability from the back room (along with who knows how many others) today, how will a PR Parliament work with all the "Party List" MP's under control of a shadowy, unelected and unaccountable Party establishment?

For *real* reform, try drastically limiting the powers and jurisdictional responsibilities of government, and institute term limits so Parliament and the Senate are not clogged up with professional politicians.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Dec 2008)

Aren't there countries where PR is working?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Aren't there countries where PR is working?



Let's try an analogy:

A Cadillac Escalade is a large luxury hybrid

A Buick Enclave is a large luxury SUV that gets the same gas mileage without the batteries, electric engine, control electronics etc. by being 1000 lbs lighter and using a V6 engine. It is also cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to buy, cheaper to service and even cheaper to dispose of (no toxic batteries) etc.

Both are similar large luxury SUV's and both "work". Which one is the better choice overall?


----------



## observor 69 (4 Dec 2008)

Let's try an analogy:  :-\


But the Buick Enclave is a sweet vehicle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

Two interesting bits in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.wPOLsenate1211/BNStory/politics/home

 Harper to fill Senate vacancies

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update
December 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM EST

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper will fill all 18 vacancies in the Senate with Conservative appointees before year's end, sources say.

The decision appears to be at odds with the Tory Leader's promise to only appoint elected senators to the unelected chamber.

But the Conservative move is motivated in part by the worry that the alliance between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois alliance could topple Mr. Harper's minority in early 2009 and stack the Senate with their own choices, a government official said.

"We remain committed to Senate reform, which means elections for senators. [But] as long as the Senate exists in its present form, Senate vacancies should be filled by a government that Canadians elected, not a government that Canadians rejected."

The Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the separatist Bloc, have not backed down from talk of ousting the Conservative government when Parliament resumes in early 2009.

The Tories want to avoid the possibility that the 105-member Senate gets filled with members opposed to Senate reform -- or with separatist leanings.

"The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition has indicated it plans to fill the Senate with coalition members and this includes the prospect of appointing senators who do not believe in Canadian unity," the official said.

"The democratically elected government will fill the Senate before the end of the year. And only senators who support our senate reform agenda including senate elections will be chosen."

The Prime Minister's move comes after he tried to nail down a meeting with newly minted Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff in an effort to prevent his government from being defeated over its coming budget.

Sources said Mr. Harper phoned Mr. Ignatieff within hours of the Liberal Leader's warning that the Conservatives will be defeated if the Prime Minister doesn't shelve partisan attacks or if he fails to compromise on the budget.

Mr. Harper phoned to congratulate Mr. Ignatieff on his acclamation to the party's leadership Wednesday and invited him to a get-together. A spokesperson for Mr. Ignatieff said the leader neither accepted nor declined the offer.

Mr. Ignatieff later told the CBC that Mr. Harper asked to meet about the budget and parliamentary business, and that he'd be willing to meet with the Prime Minister.

"I made it clear I don't want to get into secret negotiations or backdoor deals," Mr. Ignatieff said.

"I'm there to listen to the Prime Minister because he's the Prime Minister of Canada. And then we'll decide what we have to do from there."

Mr. Ignatieff said earlier that he was open to supporting the government if the budget is acceptable, potentially scuttling the plans of a Liberal-NDP coalition to take the reins of power. But he adopted a substantially more forceful tone than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, maintaining that the coalition option is still viable while also criticizing the Prime Minister for raising national tensions in a fall economic statement that, among other things, proposed to remove voter subsidies from political parties.

"I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government. And I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor-General asks me to do," Mr. Ignatieff said.

"But I also made it clear to the caucus this morning that no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."

While Mr. Harper was seeking a meeting, other Conservatives criticized Mr. Ignatieff. On Tuesday, Conservative campaign manager Doug Finley sent out "emergency" fundraising letters calling Mr. Ignatieff's acclamation a "stunning and unprecedented demonstration of Liberal contempt for our democratic rights."

When asked how the government can ask for co-operation from a leader it deems illegitimate, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said it was an internal matter for the Liberals.

When the Liberals prevented the defeat of the Conservatives last spring by sitting on their hands through repeated confidence votes, the Conservatives mocked them in the House of Commons.

But Mr. MacKay said he didn't envision a repeat of those tactics.

"We're in a very different circumstance today as a country," he said. "The global economic crisis has everyone, I think, re-examining priorities."

Mr. Ignatieff was acclaimed during a caucus meeting and a consultation among party officials, defeated candidates and other Liberals. He is now considered the interim leader, and will be confirmed at the party's convention in May.

His ascension was welcomed by Liberal MPs, who suffered through a recent election in which the party posted one of its worst results in history. Mr. Ignatieff acknowledged he has much work to do to rebuild the institution, particularly in rural Canada and the West.

"I want us to reach out and hope that Western Canadians forgive and forget, to be very blunt, some of the errors that the party has made in the past."

Mr. Ignatieff took a standoffish approach to meeting Mr. Harper, first suggesting he has no plans to negotiate with the Prime Minister, but ultimately leaving the door open.

"I think that after having lost the confidence of the House, after having triggered a national crisis, after having raised tensions between groups in Canada, it's not up to me to reach out a hand. It's more up to the Prime Minister," he said.

"But I want to add something: I'm a responsible elected official, and I want to do the best for my country. I will do all that I can to get my country out of this crisis."

He also called the Prime Minister's earlier actions "divisive, spiteful and unproductive."

_With reports from Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark and Jane Taber_
--------------------

The interesting bits are:

•	A Harper spokesperson says: _"The democratically elected government will fill the Senate before the end of the year. And only senators who support our senate reform agenda including senate elections will be chosen;"_ and

•	Ignatieff says: _”... no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."_

There are, currently, 87 senators. Three are Progressive Conservatives (one each was appointed by Clark, Mulroney and Martin), six are independents of various sorts (three of whom were appointed by Mulroney, two by Trudeau and one by Martin), 20 are Conservatives and the remaining 58 are Liberals. Adding 18 Conservatives would bring the balance to:

•	Conservatives: 38
•	Independents: 6
•	Liberals: 58
•	Progressive Conservatives: 3

Fourteen senators have served more than 20 years in the Senate; 19 have served for five years or less (Jim Munson was appointed by Jean Chrétien on 10 Dec 03).


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2008)

Say, most of us could become Senators:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=1433



> *So Why Should There Be An Observer In the Senate?*
> 
> Well, if Chucker and Brian in Hespeler are actively “lobbying” to become one of the PM’s 18 new appointees, I suppose there’s no harm in playing the game. I think I can make a case for my appointment in the Senate:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2008)

If politicians were paid for success (and this applies to us as well)...


Edgelings.com - http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings -



> *Turning Around America — A Modest Proposal*
> 
> Posted By edgelings On December 12, 2008 @ 3:41 pm In Uncategorized | 12 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2008)

As those who follow my musings will understand I favour giving Ontario its full and fair share of seats in the HoC, as this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, suggests will happen _circa_ 2014:
--------------------
 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/18/john-ivison-harper-mounts-an-assault-built-on-retreat.aspx

 John Ivison:
Harper mounts an assault built on retreat

Posted: December 18, 2008, 6:05 PM

John Ivison

Either Stephen Harper is playing three dimensional chess at such an advanced level that he’s bamboozled his political opponents, or he’s winging it, in the hope that he doesn’t land himself in checkmate. 

The latest in a series of policy reversals strongly suggests the latter. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said this week that he and Mr. Harper had resolved their disagreement over the distribution of seats in Parliament when they met in Ottawa. “I spoke to him about that and I think we’ve fixed it,” the Premier said. 

The inference was that Mr. McGuinty had won his battle to have Ontario allocated more than the 10 new seats in the House of Commons the government had proposed under legislation that would have seen representation in the House more closely aligned with growing populations. Under the original plan, B.C. was set to received an additional seven seats and Alberta another five. 

Most people have leapt to the conclusion that Mr. McGuinty’s declaration of victory means Ontario is set to get another 21 seats, the number that would correspond to its population, when the legislation is re-introduced. However, sources say the number is more likely to end up being in the mid-range between 10 and 20 new seats. 

The motivation for revamping the legislation remains unclear but insiders say new Minister for Democratic Reform, Steven Fletcher, was asked to make nice with Ontario. This suggests Mr. Harper has had second thoughts about his decision to declare war on the province when he sent his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, to Toronto last spring, to attempt to lay the blame for the coming economic slowdown at Mr. McGuinty’s door. 

“I’ve been tasked by the Prime Minister to come up with a formula that reflects the reality of Canada and respects Canadians’ sense of fair play,” said Mr. Fletcher in an interview yesterday. “I will be introducing legislation when Parliament resumes and I think most reasonable people will agree with the balance that is struck.”

Those who subscribe to the theory that Mr. Harper is a latter day Jean-Luc Picard, several chess moves ahead of his dim-witted opponents, might argue that the Prime Minister is simply turning to Ontario, now that he has been frustrated in Quebec. In this light, another 15 or so seats in Ontario boosts his chances of a majority. 

This remains a possibility but a closer look at the ridings from which new seats might be carved suggests that the Liberals are as likely to gain as the Conservatives. 

Of the 13 seats in Ontario with a population of more than 130,000 at the last election, five were “safe” Liberal seats (that is, won by more than 5% of the vote), four were “safe” Conservative seats, two were marginal Liberal wins and two were marginal Conservative victories. 

The prime candidates for readjustment are suburban areas around Toronto like Brampton (Brampton West has a population of 170,000 - six times the number in Nunavut), Halton, Mississauga and Oak Ridges-Markham. Many of those seats could go either way in forthcoming elections. 

It should also be remembered that the new seats are unlikely to come into being much before 2014, three years after the 2011 census on which they will be based. After the last major census in 2001, it took three years to go through the long process of appointing provincial commissions to look at the issue; allow public and parliamentary hearings; and, finally amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Even Mr. Harper’s most enthusiastic fans don’t claim he’s gazing out six years into the future. 

Where his supporters may be on firmer ground is the suggestion that, by increasing the number of seats for Ontario, Mr. Harper is trying to destabilize the already wobbly coalition between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois. 

The Liberals opposed the original legislation, on the basis that Ontario was being denied its fair share of seats. It will be hard for the Grits or the NDP to oppose a new bill, if it is adds to Ontario’s seat count and is embraced by Mr. McGuinty. 

Joyce Murray, the Liberal critic for democratic reform, said that her party supported an increased number of seats for Ontario. “We called for that and if the Prime Minister is listening to what the Liberal Party was insisting upon, that’s good...But we have to see the details of the bill,” she said. 

The Bloc, on the other hand, is steadfast in its opposition to granting Ontario more seats -- unless Quebec also benefits. “We were opposed to the original bill because it diluted the political weight of Quebec. Once it’s been recognized that the Québécois nation exists, you have to ensure that it can be heard by federal institutions,” the party’s House leader, Pierre Paquette, toldLa Presse. This, even though Quebec has just seven seats where the population is more than 110,000, compared to 67 in Ontario. 

Whatever the reason for Mr. Harper’s change of heart on representation by population, irresolution at the heart of government is becoming a common occurrence. For a Prime Minister who had made “never retreat, never explain, never apologize” his modus operandi, he has recently reversed himself on a range of issues - from removing the public subsidy for political parties to banning public sector strikes; from electing senators to the commitment not to go into deficit. 

Conservative critics of the Prime Minister used to joke that he was so earnest he couldn’t entertain a doubt. For better or worse, those days are past. 


National Post 
-------------------

I don’t know about three dimensional chess at a very high level but I think Harper is ‘out front’ of his opponents on this issue, because:

First - continually reducing Québec’s ‘power’ in Canada can do nothing but benefit the country. Québec already has separated: in most meaningful ways it is already a foreign and usually unfriendly country, 'locked' within our territory;

Second – equality of representation is an important attribute of a modern liberal democracy. It is difficult to achieve in Canada because of the Senate. Our Constitution says, in  §51A that _” a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province”_ and, in 22, that PEI will have four senators. Thus – until we totally revise the Constitution* - PEI must have four seat in the HoC which means that almost all other provinces must should have their representation levels increased, steadily, until we have (_circa_ 2030) 800+ MPs in Ottawa!

Adding seats in AB, BC and ON is a step in the right direction on democratic and practical grounds. Harper’s Conservatives are dominant or strong and gaining ground in all three. 

--------------------

* A process which, if done sensibly, would make is a republic (better, formally, a regency) and that would see us having five provinces: British Columbia, with its _integral_ Yukon Territory; Saskatchewan (the former Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) with its subordinate territories (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador).


----------



## Infanteer (19 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * A process which, if done sensibly, would make is a republic (better, formally, a regency) and that would see us having five provinces: British Columbia, with its _integral_ Yukon Territory; Saskatchewan (the former Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) with its subordinate territories (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador).



Interesting idea - I will admit that I'm warming to a rearrangement of sub-national bodies in any rearrangment of the rules; this is another interesting take on things, but I think I'm more prone to seeing the provinces busted up into smaller entities then seeing larger conglamerations.

BC always gets accorded "independant" status because of the massive population density that lies in Vancouver and the surrounding cities of the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver).  However, leave this geographic area, and you see something different - I wager that BC North of Hope has more in common with Alberta then it does with downtown Granville and Hastings Street.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> BC always gets accorded "independant" status because of the massive population density that lies in Vancouver and the surrounding cities of the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver).  However, leave this geographic area, and you see something different - I wager that BC North of Hope has more in common with Alberta then it does with downtown Granville and Hastings Street.



True enough, but I think, when you look at BC's economy and trade patterns, it is not enough like AB, SK, etc to justify a single Western province. On the other hand, a single western province does, easily, ,muscle QC down to third place in a four team league and that might be attractive. But QC in third place might just makes the whining even louder and less productive.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> True enough, but I think, when you look at BC's economy and trade patterns, it is not enough like AB, SK, etc to justify a single Western province. On the other hand, a single western province does, easily, ,muscle QC down to third place in a four team league and that might be attractive. But QC in third place might just makes the whining even louder and less productive.



Which is the basis of my argument for an additional three provinces: Vancouver (including Vancouver Island), Toronto (Including Hamilton and Oshawa - maybe even including London) and Montreal.

The folks in the Crowsnest and Smithers are much more likely to travel to Calgary and Edmonton than Vancouver.

Prince Rupert could easily become the coastal outlet of single political entity encompassing Winnipeg, Edmonton and Kelowna.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2008)

City States would represent the "new" political landscape, even in the United States, "Blue" states are often "Red" with "Blue" cities when examined on a county by county basis.

Other divisions could be made based on watersheds or any other arbitrary boundary. I am an advocate of sharply defined and limited government (my time seems to have been @ 300 years ago; missed the bus again!  ), but the real problem seems to be that the current system is totally inflexible by design and circumstance. Bottom up initiatives are resisted by the centre (several Senators in Waiting have been elected since the 1990's without taking their seats or even being acknowledged), while the public is rightfully suspicious of "top down" initiatives like the Meech Lake or the Charlottetown accords, and defeats them if given the chance.

Unless and until this is resolved, there will be no electoral reform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2008)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, _Taliban Jack_ Layton has found a new way to make mischief:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Naming+Tories+violates+Constitution/1082070/story.html

 Naming Tories to Senate would violate Constitution: NDP

BY MIKE DE SOUZA 

DECEMBER 16, 2008

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be abusing his power if he appoints unelected senators before the House of Commons reconvenes, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday.

One day after sending a letter to the prime minister urging him not to try to stack the Senate with Conservatives, Layton argued that the proposed 18 appointments would be unconstitutional.

"The prime minister needs to impose upon himself some restraint," Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service. "He ducked the test, the fundamental test of his legitimacy to make these recommendations through a prorogation (of Parliament) and he's now pretending that he has the full legitimacy to move forward. This is an abuse of his power."

The NDP also sent a copy of Layton's letter to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who must approve Harper's nominations.

Harper said on Monday that making the appointments was "the only option" since his government has been blocked in attempts to introduce legislation for an elected Senate.

"In a way, it's a sad day for me," said Harper in an interview with ATV. "I've waited for three years. We've invited provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform."

The Liberals hold a comfortable majority with 58 seats out of 105 in the Senate, but the Conservatives, who now have 20 seats would begin to catch up if Harper nominates Tories to fill the 18 vacancies.

"We're now faced with a very simple choice," Harper told ATV. "Does the government Canadians elected appoint those senators, or are they going to be appointed by a coalition that nobody elected?"

But Layton compared Harper's arguments to those used by former Liberal prime minister John Turner who was criticized by Brian Mulroney in a 1984 federal election debate for approving a series of patronage appointments right before the campaign started.

Layton noted that a group of constitutional and legal experts last weekend also questioned Harper's legitimacy to make nominations without demonstrating that he had the confidence of the Commons.

"The nomination of senators in these circumstances would be illegitimate and, more importantly, in clear violation of the constitutional ideals and the rule of law," wrote the six experts in an opinion piece published in La Presse.

The experts also suggested that the Governor General should ensure that Harper has the confidence of the Commons before approving the nominations.

Layton added that a letter signed by a majority of opposition MPs demonstrated that the prime minister has lost the confidence necessary to continue governing.

"He can try to pretend to ignore that and act as though he has the full authority of the prime minister in normal circumstances, but that would fly in the face of the facts," said Layton.

_mdesouza@canwest.com_

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
--------------------


First: Layton doesn’t have a constitutional leg upon which he might try to stand wobble. The Constitution (in §23) lists six ‘qualifications’ to be ‘summoned’ to the Senate and in (§24) says that the Governor General (always acting on the advice of her Privy Council) shall _”summon qualified Persons to the Senate.”_ 

The GG did not _qualify_ the prorogation - as she does, for example, when parliament is dissolved before a general election – in any way. (When parliament is dissolved for a general election the GG tells the PM, formally, that he may only take necessary, routine administrative actions – which would not include naming new senators. When John Turner (1984) named Trudeau’s list of _hacks, flacks and bagmen_ to the Senate (giving Brian Mulroney a debate winning line: _"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no'--and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."_) he did so before asking the GG to dissolve parliament.) PM Harper’s advice to the GG re: summoning 18 new senators is advice she is constitutionally obliged to follow.

Second: Unless _Taliban Jack_ was, like me, far away from Canadian news during the last week in Nov 08 he would know that Prime Minister Harper had just, on 27 Nov 08 at 1725 Hrs, won a confidence vote in the HoC, on the Throne Speech. Now that parliament is prorogued the economic statement and the _possible_ consequences that might have followed a vote on it are finished, constitutionally it is as if Jim Flaherty’s economic statement had never existed and, therefore, there is no/cannot be any threat of a coalition based upon it.

Prime Minister Harper can, and in my opinion should offer a new Throne Speech on 27 Jan 09 – one that sets out the bleak fiscal situation and promises firm but *temporary* measures to *protect* Canadians (but not their factories) from its worst effects. He should follow this with a budget that:

•	Can be used to fight an election in Apr 09; or

•	Will deeply divide the Liberal Party of Canada, being a budget that will be unacceptable to the BQ and the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberals but will be popular with Canadians, who are now well prepared for harsh measures – including a big deficit – and bad news, but who want some _relief_ in the form of cash in hand which might be provided by _*temporary*_ measures such as loosening the EI purse-strings.


Edit: punctuation

Another edit: typo/spelling - carelessness, anyway!


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2008)

Further to my last, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is Harper’s political WMD:
-------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Harper+message+Senate+change+Minister/1097631/story.html

 Harper's message to Senate is change or die: Minister


BY MIA RABSON

DECEMBER 19, 2008 


OTTAWA — If the federal Conservative government can't get its planned reforms to the Canadian Senate passed as soon as possible it will simply move to abolish the chamber altogether, says Steven Fletcher, the minister of state for democratic reform.

But Manitoba Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs says that's just a lot of hot air, because the government needs the approval of the provinces to make any major changes to the Senate.

Fletcher says he will introduce legislation to introduce eight-year term limits for senators, and a process to elect senators, as soon as the budget and economic issues are dealt with by the House of Commons. He also issued a warning to any parliamentarians planning to block the reforms.

"If we don't get those reforms in a reasonable amount of time we will look to abolish it," said Fletcher.

The bills will be similar in nature to the ones introduced in the last parliament that failed to get through a committee review before the election.

But Carstairs said that in order to abolish the Senate, or introduce an elected Senate, the government would need the approval of the provinces.

"They cannot in my view even introduce fixed terms without the approval of the provinces," said Carstairs. "Both Ontario and Quebec have said they will take them to court over this."

While the Conservative government argues it only needs the approval of Parliament, the two biggest provinces say a significant change to the Senate can be done only with a formal constitutional amendment — which requires the approval of at least seven provinces which represent 50 per cent of the population. That means either Ontario or Quebec — or both — would need to approve the reforms.

Reforming the Senate was one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's election promises in both 2006 and 2008. He has battled with and criticized the Senate repeatedly over the past three years.

He has also refused to fill any vacancies in the upper chamber, saying he wanted to wait until he could implement elections. But with 18 vacancies, and with his minority government facing the constant threat of being toppled by a vote of the opposition parties, Harper now plans to fill the vacancies in an announcement expected Monday.

The decision was blasted by opponents as a flip-flop on Harper's election promise. Fletcher defended the decision as a practical move to at least get the Senate fulfilling its purpose.

"There are so many vacancies the Senate is essentially not able to function," said Fletcher.

Filling the empty seats with pro-reform senators will also improve the government's chances of getting their reform plans passed.

The government has been inundated with applications for the vacant seats, he said.

"People come up to me on the street and say they want to be a senator," said Fletcher.

Fletcher also indicated it's possible the senators being appointed next week will take officer under term limits, but added that will be up to Harper to announce.

Albertans have voted for senators since 1989, providing a list of names to the prime minister to choose from. Two of the senators elected in Alberta have been appointed — Stan Waters in 1990 and Bert Brown in 2007. Saskatchewan announced earlier this year it would begin a similar process to elect senators in that province.

Manitoba has begun an all-party consultation process to determine how Manitobans feel about Senate reform.

© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press
--------------------

Carstairs is right, abolishing the Senate would require the sort of full blown constitutional amendment process that, while welcome to me, personally, is anathema to most Canadians. Remember the _Meech Lake_ and _Charlottetown_ processes? They were bad enough to make your worst root canal seem pleasant by comparison.

But there is an easy way to Senate reform if/when Harper has a majority. He need only write two letters:

One to all the provincial premiers telling them that, effective a certain date, he will appoint to the Senate only those persons who -

1. Meet all the qualifications in §23 of the Constitution,

2. Submit, with their nomination a signed letter of resignation to be effective on the date of the next (applicable) provincial general election, and

3. Are elected in their province – eventually in elections held coincidentally with provincial general elections and on a ‘proportional’ (list) basis so that the senate ‘delegation’ of a province reflects the will of the people in the province concerned; and

The second to all senators *demanding* their resignations effective the date of the next (applicable) general election.

Of course not all senators will resign – but many will and, after a year or two, there will be two Senates: one elected and the other _phoney_ in the eyes of Canadians. By around 2021, around half the time it took in the USA early in the 20th century, I’m guessing that we will have an elected Senate.

During the _conversion_ process the PM should announce that, forthwith, he will appoint *only elected* senators to be ministers in portfolios (e.g. Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Natural Resources) where the national government _intrudes_ greatly into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The ‘deed’ can be done without any constitutional amendment – the PM’s _discretion_ (beyond the provisions of §23) is, essentially, unlimited and beyond review by anyone. Provinces either sign on or do without. Senators either sign on or face _planned obsolescence_ and increasing public disdain.

We end up with a ‘House of the Provinces’ that, fairly consistently, represents the political will of Canadians *in their provinces*.

Equality – in both chambers – is another matter but two of the three Es can be effected easily.


Edit: typo/spelling


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Dec 2008)

Interesting stuff so far. Its good to see people are at least recognising our system is far from perfect and needs improvement.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2008)

Harper should ust do what Caesar did and stack the Senate with Gauls....(Yes, I just watched HBO's _Rome_).

On a serious note, I like and agree with Edward's last two posts.  Layton is grasping for anything to keep the spotlight on him and Harper seems to be playing a good game of brinksmanship - but one that, here, is better for Canada as a whole.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a provocative column by Lawrence Martin:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081219.wcomartin22/BNStory/politics/home

 The G-G needs to break her queenly silence and explain herself

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail

December 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

Since our Governor-General made her critical decision on prorogation 2-1/2 weeks ago, there's been a sustained regal silence. Nary a word from the celestial Michaëlle Jean to explain it.

Few seem bothered by this. It's as if our mindset is back in the old colonial days. Upper Canada circa 1839. Lord Sydenham at the helm.

Ms. Jean's verdict, as we know, prevented the government from being defeated on a motion of non-confidence. It locked the doors of Parliament, kept the Conservatives in power. They should be sending her champagne every day from here to eternity.

One would think, given its significance, that we would be entitled to know something about the G-G's pivotal meeting with the Prime Minister that precipitated the outcome. We have been told nothing about the rationale for her queenly judgment. We don't know what the PM told her, whether it was accurate, whether he torqued the separatist threat, whether he raised the possibility of legal recourse. We don't know whether her decision came with any strings attached or how she determined it was consistent with the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. We don't know if, as has been suggested, advisers on each side had pretty much worked out the deal before the PM went to Rideau Hall.

In our collective ignorance, we're prepared to move on.

The Governor-General could very well be called upon in the coming year to make another landmark decision to keep the government in power, or strip it of same. We'll likely be left in the dark then as well. Nothing is revealed because tradition suggests our Governor-General never has to explain herself. This, and because we're so docile that we allow that hoary tradition to stand. It gives rise to cracks such as that by a wag who recently called us "a banana republic with snowflakes."

Over recent decades, the remaining vestiges of colonialism haven't bothered us much because we thought the monarchy was irrelevant. The Governor-General had only ceremonial functions. She was the hood ornament on the car. Why worry about it? But in this season, we found out how potent the office can be.

And how did we react? We rolled over like vassals.

Instead of demanding disclosure, we submitted to the tradition of silence for no other reason than it is just that - tradition.

Progressive societies, by the 21st century at least, should be in the business of unburdening themselves of outmoded convention. Not us. Here the divine right of kings abides.

Michaëlle Jean is an elegant Governor-General. It's not a question here of whether her prorogation decision was the right or the wrong call. That's another debate. But it's one that cannot be properly aired without knowledge of what was behind the verdict.

Adrienne Clarkson isn't speaking out but Ed Schreyer, our other remaining G-G still in good health, says that there is nothing preventing Ms. Jean from publicly explaining her rationale.

"I'm afraid that the historical practice is one of discreet silence," he said. "But that's not to say it shouldn't evolve with time. There's nothing written that says the governor-general must never articulate reasons for doing or not doing something."

On her handling of the controversy, Ms. Jean has been let off the hook.

The Harper government did a spectacular job of turning public opinion in its favour with its separatists-at-the-gates fear-mongering. Opposed to the option of a coalition government, the public then welcomed, only two weeks after Parliament had begun, her prorogation.

Not everyone passively accepted the closed-door dictate. Writing from his base in Paris, Keith Spicer spoke of how pathetic it looked.

"Finally, the world pays a little attention to Canada. And what does it see? Zimbabwe run by the Queen." The CBC's Allan Gregg used a similar comparison. Andrew Cohen, Allan Fotheringham and Peter Newman, who called the lock-up our "test run at a banana republic," have spoken out.

As the dust settles, there will be more questions put and more doubts seeded about the monarchy playing such a vital role in times we thought were modern. Given that we're in a period where minority governments are common and the G-G's power is therefore large, it becomes doubly important that the disclosure issue be addressed.

Ms. Jean, who knows all about the history of colonial masters, needs to be prepared to reform her institution. She can do away with the archaic tradition of secrecy with a snap of a finger.

For her loyal and acquiescent subjects, it would be a timely gift.
--------------------

While I think Ed Shreyer is correct in saying that _”there is nothing preventing Ms. Jean from publicly explaining her rationale,”_ were she to do so it would likely topple a _traditional_ but rather wobbly system that *requires* the prime minister to *consult* the sovereign (or her representative, the GG) and gives the sovereign/GG an important and powerful *check* on unbridled prime ministerial power.

If the GG (or an elected president with similar functions powers à la Germany or India) were to discard one _tradition_ it is highly likely that the rest would go, too. After all, why would a head of government (PM) want to _consult_ with a head of state (GG) who is free to publicize their discussions – but those _consultations_ are, as I said, a very real *check* on the PM’s power – Mme. Jean could have sais “No,” and then invited Celine Stéphane Dion and _Taliban Jack_ Layton to form a government.

I’m betting Lawrence Martin would not be complaining then because, in his mind – filled to brim with fevered images of Tory fiends and demons, as it must be – that would have been a good thing.

But Mme. Jean (advised, as she was, by a first rate, independent constitutional expert) made the right choice and now the left wing Liberal/NDP propaganda mill is casting about for someone to blame – and it’s _tradition_.

What knee-jerk anti-Americans like Martin cannot admit, to themselves, is that they want an American style constitutional republic – because they understand its carefully written rules and regulations. I admit that our tradition wracked Westminster style parliamentary system – with its funny hats and all – can be a bit mysterious, especially for those who find Bagehot a bit much to get through, but it has its own advantages, over the US system, and the _traditions_ of monarchical silence, which protects the sovereign’s *political power* – that she exercises on behalf of her people, are amongst them.


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Dec 2008)

Mr. Martin's snarky and sarcastic tone doesn't add to his writing, and doesn't make his ignorance any more entertaining.

The explanation Mr. Martin seeks is blindingly obvious: the Governor General prorogued Parliament because she was advised to do so by the Prime Minister, and that advice was within the bounds of the constitution.  In general the GG will accept the advice of her government unless the wheels have come off and the PM is trying to act outside of the constitution.  Whether we agree with his advice or not, this wasn't one of those times.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Dec 2008)

>"Finally, the world pays a little attention to Canada. And what does it see? Zimbabwe run by the Queen." The CBC's Allan Gregg used a similar comparison. Andrew Cohen, Allan Fotheringham and Peter Newman, who called the lock-up our "test run at a banana republic," have spoken out.

Once again, some of Canada's allegedly finest and/or most illustrious and/or influential minds speak out with a sense of proportion.  My dog's vomit has more substance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ web site are the eighteen new senators:
--------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/22/senate-harper.html

 Wallin, Duffy among 18 named to fill Senate seats

Last Updated: Monday, December 22, 2008 | 1:32 PM ET 

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper named 18 people to the Senate on Monday, filling all the vacancies in an effort to balance out the Liberal-dominated chamber before the possibility of an election in the new year.

Among those appointed to regionally distributed seats in the upper house were former broadcaster Pamela Wallin (Sask.), Olympian Nancy Greene Raine (B.C.) and CTV personality Mike Duffy (P.E.I.).

Others named:

•	Former MP Fabian Manning (N.L.).
•	Lawyer Fred Dickson (N.S.).
•	Stephen Greene, former deputy chief of staff to N.S. Premier Rodney MacDonald (N.S.).
•	N.S. businessman Michael L. MacDonald (N.S.).
•	Long-time New Brunswick MLA and cabinet minister Percy Mockler (N.B.).
•	Lawyer John D. Wallace (N.B.).
•	National chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Patrick Brazeau (Que.).
•	Former MP and teacher Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis (Que.).
•	Director of Via Rail Canada Leo Housakos (Que.).
•	Former Quebec MNA Michel Rivard (Que.).
•	Nicole Eaton, member of the prominent Eaton family (Ont.).
•	Businessman Irving Gerstein (Ont.).
•	Co-founder of the Corean Canadian Coactive (C3) society Yonah Martin (B.C.).
•	Provincial cabinet minister Richard Neufeld (B.C.).
•	Former Yukon MLA Hector Daniel Lang (Yukon).

*Move thwarts coalition appointments*

The prime minister said he filled the vacancies to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition from getting the opportunity.

If Senate vacancies are to be filled … they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for," Harper said in a press release.

He vowed to continue pushing for Senate reforms, and said all incoming Senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate reform legislation.

"For our part, we will continue working with the provinces and reform-minded parliamentarians to build a more accountable and democratic Senate," said Harper.

Opposition parties have been critical of Harper's decision to make patronage appointments during a time when Parliament is prorogued, saying the prime minister does not have the confidence of the House of Commons.

In early December, Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament until Jan. 26, a move aimed at avoiding a confidence vote in which opposition parties planned to topple his minority government and try to bring a Liberal-NDP coalition to power.

But the opposition parties could still trigger an election on Jan. 27 when the minority Conservatives introduce their annual budget, and Harper is worried about losing the chance to fill the seats, said CBC's Margo McDiarmid.

*2 prior Senate appointments*

Harper's appointment of senators marks a significant departure from his long-held position that Senate members should be elected.

Until now, the prime minister held off filling the 18 vacancies in hopes of reforming the Senate to make sure members are elected, but he has been unable to pass any legislation to that effect.

Prior to Monday's appointments, Liberal-affiliated senators occupied 58 of the 105 seats, while 20 were held by Conservatives. Other seats are held by Independents and senators of other party affiliations.

The Tories had previously only named Quebecer Michael Fortier and Albertan Bert Brown to the Senate since coming to power in early 2006.

Following the January 2006 election of a Conservative minority government, Harper gave Fortier a seat in the Senate and then appointed him to a cabinet post, a decision he said was to ensure representation for Montreal. The Montreal lawyer resigned from his Senate seat for an unsuccessful bid in the October election.

Brown won his seat in an election in Alberta, the only province to elect senators. In November, Saskatchewan introduced legislation to allow voters to choose senators.

Also Monday, Harper made another high-profile appointment — naming Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

By doing so, the prime minister bypassed a parliamentary hearing process he has championed to more openly scrutinize nominees.
--------------------

The adverse comments are already starting to appear – especially from those who defend the indefensible: an appointed legislature.

Addendum:

And there are more adverse comments, here, on Army.ca. My question, retiredgrunt45 is: should Harper have simply aimed to abolish the Senate by failing to appoint anyone? Would the Celine Dion/Layton coalition not have appointed its own crew of Green/Liberal/NDP _hacks, flacks and bagmen_? Will _Iggy_ not appoint senators if/when he becomes PM? Or are Liberals OK just because they're not Conservatives?


Edit: addendum added


----------



## McG (22 Dec 2008)

If the nation is to reform its democratic systems, then another element which must be fixed is the ignorance of the voters (and the resultant susceptibility to baseless emotional arguments from parties and media).  At the very least, we could avoid time wasted on arguments defending the government elected by the people of Canada or attacking the constitutionality of the Prime Minister recommending persons to the GG for the Senate.

After that, it may be worth looking at how leaders are selected in Parliament (not necessarily by the parties) and how government and the opposition is formed.


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Infanteer is correct:  We have a de facto Party System, grafted on a de jure Representative System.
> 
> As much as I would like all parties to disappear so that we could have a true representative (not to mention libertarian) parliament, that is neither going to happen, nor is it what the public at large wants or expects.
> 
> ...





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In the Canadian context I believe, I stand to be corrected, *that it was MacKenzie King * that blew up the old informal party system, just as he blew up the relationship with the Governor-General, and created the modern disciplined party.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken it was MacKenzie King who, when confronted by a caucus revolt, responded by claiming that his legitimacy came not from caucus, but from the party membership at large.  And that is the reason that the Libs are having so much trouble turfing Dion and electing Ignatieff.





			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more _classical_ form of Westminster style parliamentary government.
> 
> We should, according to the _classicists_ all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should _caucus_, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve.


I think shifting power from parties to MPs would be a good thing.  Of course, this debate would also require that we review our position on the formation of coalitions and of MPs crossing party lines inside the house.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2008)

I personally favour Senators selected from party lists within provinces, appointed in proportion to the party vote within the province.

Of course, that would require reshuffling the number of senate seats; perhaps move to 3 per province, 2 per territory, plus an additional 72 divided by population (twice the baseline number allocated to the provinces and territories), based on the last decennial census.  That would provide the upper house with 108 members.

Harper's move is partisan politics.  Get over it.  He did precisely what any other PM in the same situation would have done - and by appointing Saskatchewan's favourite daughter, a former Grit patronage appointee, has also bought himself some top cover.  Add in the biggest Ottawa political newsman and he's bought the grudging admiration of the press - a nice bit of info ops, buying off the media.  And, as a final bonus, this week is only 3 days long for the news cycle - by the time the news is back into its normal cycle, it will be 2 weeks from now, a lifetime in politics.  Almost better than trying to bury it on a Friday.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (22 Dec 2008)

> And there are more adverse comments, here, on Army.ca. My question, retiredgrunt45 is: should Harper have simply aimed to abolish the Senate by failing to appoint anyone? Would the Celine Dion/Layton coalition not have appointed its own crew of Green/Liberal/NDP hacks, flacks and bagmen? Will Iggy not appoint senators if/when he becomes PM? Or are Liberals OK just because they're not Conservatives?



Mr Campbell that's the problem, everyone is talk, talk, talk, but when it comes right down to it, the partinship always gets in the way. In my view as I have stated in another thread the Senate as its stands is a waste of tax payers money, its only purposes it to feed par tinship politics and that can be done well enough by the politicians themselves as they have clearly shown over these past few months. The whole process of appointing senators is a bogus circus act and the only beneficiaries are the political parties, (Banana republic politics). Senators should be for the people, by the people and not for the beneficiary of some political party who thinks they have a God given right to rule.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> ......After that, it may be worth looking at how leaders are selected in Parliament (not necessarily by the parties) and how government and the opposition is formed.I think shifting power from parties to MPs would be a good thing.  Of course, this debate would also require that we review our position on the formation of coalitions and of MPs crossing party lines inside the house.



MCG, I agree that this is the crux of the matter for Canadian democracy: the selection of leaders.  

The representative assembly system, with no parties, and the Prime Minister selected by the Majority of the Caucus that has the Majority of the Votes in the House, reduces the opportunity for back-room deals to be made.

The party system ensures that power is managed out of sight of the public, outside the House.

When King, (or was it Bonar Law? or Lord North?) declared that he was no longer bound by the Caucus, but was a creature of extra-parliamentary forces, he set aside all the work of reform that had occured from the days of Lord North and had their apogee with the arrival of universal suffrage.   No sooner did working men and all women have a right to influence the decision making system in parliament than a mechanism was discovered for influence to be exerted that would subvert their influence.

The Parties are Clubs.  They are Private Clubs.  They may run themselves by constitutions and Roberts Rules but they are still Private Clubs.  They may not discriminate in membership but they still charge a membership fee.  And that fee does not gain you  much control over how the funds are spent. Edit: It essentially buys you a single, minority share in privately held company.

The Party is essentially a corporation whose sole purpose is selling influence.  It promises to deliver a Prime Minister, a block of MPs and a set of Policies in return for cash.  In the Liberals case it used to come primarily from the heirs of the Norwesters in the Golden Square Mile of Montreal.  In the case of the NDP it came from the coerced masses in their Unions.  In the case of the Conservatives, it used to come from Upper Canada but now, increasingly, is coming from Calgary and the Middle Class.

But no matter how broad the subscription on which a Party is based, it is stilll a vehicle for influence-peddling, and that is a crime:



> INFLUENCE PEDDLING
> *Influence peddling is another example of improper use of office*. Unlike bribery, which is aimed at buying a decision directly from the decision maker, the concept of *influence peddling involves paying a third party to exert influence on the decision maker*. In this situation, the buyer hopes that the influence of the person being paid will be sufficient to convince the decision maker to decide a matter in his or her favour.
> 
> *The Criminal Code prohibits officials from demanding, accepting or offering or agreeing to accept a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for cooperation, assistance or exercise of influence in connection with any matter of business relating to the government*[21]. Although Parliamentarians may not necessarily be in a position to make a particular decision, they might very well be able to influence the decision-making process. In fact, members of the House of Commons are expected to represent the interests of their constituents and to participate in the development of public policies. Thus, representing the interests of their constituents in influencing public policy is not in itself a crime. However, this activity becomes a crime when done in exchange for a benefit. The member would be taking advantage of his public office for private gain.
> ...


 Source

Moving to Proportional Representation and Party Lists would only strengthen the hand of those who control the coffers and buy the Prime Minister's office.

With respect to your point about crossing party lines.  If there are no parties, there are no lines to cross.  There is just an assembly of representatives who are forced to make their deals in public, on the issues.

I noticed in one article that I posted, I think it was the article by the Carleton prof, that Belgium insisted that the Party Leader NOT be the Leader of the Party in the House.  Perhaps that makes some sense.  It separates the Party, an extraparliamenetary club of individuals that lobby parliamentarians to support their cause, from the parliamentarians themselves.

Perhaps the secret is to move the parliamentarians further along the curve toward the (supposedly) apolitical courts.  A starting point would be to demand that parliamentarians cannot be affiliated with any party - cannot hold a party membership.

A second step would be to increase the use of by-elections and decrease the use of general-elections.  This would decrease the ability of the Party to influence the messaging by forcing them to spread their efforts over time as they would be limited geographically.

(By the way I wonder if the word By in By-election is  related to the By in the name of the town Whitby.  By is a Danish word for city, town or borough is found widely in town names throughout northern England and southern Scotland. Whitby is smack in middle of this area on the coast of Yorkshire.)

A third step would be to actually elect the individual that our laws and conventions recognize as our leader - Her Majesty's representative, the Governor-General (deisgnate the office as Guardian of the Crown and us traditionalists would probably be happy).

With these three steps I think we could put our system of governance back into balance.

Edited to add Carleton link.


----------



## Castus (24 Dec 2008)

Proportional Commons, Elected Senate (with a fixed, equal number of Senators per province/territory, maybe) and Elected GG. That's how I see democracy working best for us. Yeah, it would affect the party I voted for last election (Tories) negatively, but I think the ultimate point of having proportional representation is that all viewpoints are broadly represented.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Dec 2008)

Castus said:
			
		

> .....but I think the ultimate point of having proportional representation is that all viewpoints are broadly represented.



I don't think there is a problem with all viewpoints being represented now.

The ongoing question is: "Who gets to decide?"

The proponents of proportional representation generally are also fans of "consensus".  When time is available then "consensus" is a viable (if not necessarily desirable) method of decision making.  However, when time is short, or divisions are so entrenched that consensus isn't possible who gets to decide?

Our system is based on giving an individual a temporary, renewable licence to decide for us.


----------



## TCBF (25 Dec 2008)

Castus said:
			
		

> Proportional Commons, Elected Senate (with a fixed, equal number of Senators per province/territory, maybe) and Elected GG. That's how I see democracy working best for us. Yeah, it would affect the party I voted for last election (Tories) negatively, but I think the ultimate point of having proportional representation is that all viewpoints are broadly represented.



- Again, Proportional Rep gives the lunatic fringe influence in national affairs - that is how Hitler came into power: Proportional Rep.  First Past the Post ensures that that every MP MUST meet the standard of getting more votes than their competitors from their constituents.


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Again, Proportional Rep gives the lunatic fringe influence in national affairs - that is how Hitler came into power: Proportional Rep.  First Past the Post ensures that that every MP MUST meet the standard of getting more votes than their competitors from their constituents.



Excluding forms of PR that give seats in legislative bodies based on nation wide percentages or numbers of voters, a "lunatic fringe" must still garner enough votes in a single riding (over all the non-lunatics) to win the seat.  The single transferable vote system is one example of this in which reaching the quota in a multi-member constituency is the only method of selecting a MP and no % or national vote tally can parachute a candidate into office.

I'm not as big of a fan of PR as I used to be, but some of the claims against it just don't stack up to reality.  If you compare the FPTP system of the UK and the STV system of Ireland you will see that not only is the Irish parliament just as stable as the British , but that the British system has many more "fringe" parties than the Irish do.   

The Irish through their method of PR (The Single Transferable Vote) and tightening the criteria for registering a political party has gone to great lengths to eliminate the possibility of nut-bars in Parliament.  In short it's not PR but the method of PR that one has to be wary of.

Do I think that PR could work in Canada?  Frankly, no.  Neither our politicians nor our electorate seem mature enough to actually accept a coalition, much less be able to function in one.

One of the things I'd most like to see done in Parliament is to have all the TV cameras removed from the HoC.  Take the stage away and I'd wager the grandstanding and childish crap that these so called legislators pull to one-up their opponents would diminish greatly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Dec 2008)

I favour a simple (list system) form of PR for a fully elected Senate – when (rather than if) we get there.

The Senate of Canada should represent the equal partners in Confederation: the provinces, as provinces.*

I want each province’s Senate ‘delegation’ to be elected during provincial general elections and I want the senators to reflect, roughly, the votes cast in that provincial election – hence a simple list system.

Ontario, after the 2007 election, would have sent 11 Liberal (on 42% of the popular vote), 7 Conservative (31.6%), 4 NDP (16%) and 2 Green senators to Ottawa for a (roughly) four year term of office.

Abolishing the Senate requires a full blown Constitutional convention during which the NDP’s abolitionist nonsense would be exposed for the populist fluff it is – completely devoid of any intellectual weight at all. If we ever get a full blown Constitutional Convention I forecast a republic, with a Westminster Style Parliament and an elected Senate representing, equally, five provinces: BC, North West Canada, Ontario Québec and Atlantic Canada. 

--------------------

* While the HoC should represent Canadians as people living in local communities – some, to be sure, bloody vast communities – on a roughly equal (1:1±20%) basis. For this a First Past the Post system - with run of elections or, better, multi round vote counting (select your first, second, third choices) with only a few run offs when necessary - is best. Each local community selects its own member: the one who gets 50%+1 of the weighted (3+2+1) total ballots. The parties must deal with local voters on local issues in order to get enough seats from enough local communities to form a government.


----------



## McG (26 Dec 2008)

I like the idea of HoC multi-member constituencies for cities that are large enough to have multiple constituencies under the current system.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2008)

So McG, you're not opposed to a STV-system for cities?

For the House of Commons, I still support the single constituancy representative elected by a first past the post system.  It is a simple and clear way of ensuring accountability - the buck stops with your representative.  Just because we have a party system and an elector didn't vote for "Party X" doesn't mean that the winner isn't their representative as well - make 'em work for you.  The reason there is so much disatisfaction with this system is that our current constitutional makeup makes this vote so important.  The first past the post system amounts to who gets the most seats which amounts to who selects the Prime Minister which amounts to an office with the single greatest concentration of power amongst Western democracies.  If FPTP simply represented sending a Representative to Ottawa, it wouldn't be so much salt in the eye.

I advocate Senate Reform, but I've never really put thought into how we should choose Senators.  I believe, fundamentally, that a Senate should be equal in order to offer regional representation.  If it isn't - if Senate seats are assigned based upon which provinces are more populace - then it is simply another Legislative House based upon population.  It is my belief that an Upper House needs to offer a counterbalance to a potential "tyranny of the Majority".  In Canada's case, so many people are dissatisfied with the amount of seats in Southern Ontario (which it rightly deserves in a House representing population) - an equal Senate offers a "check" to this.  If the ultimate goal isn't an Equal Senate, then we may as well chuck it because it is only duplicating a function served by the HofC.

I do not support Edward's idea of a list system for two simple reasons:
1.     It shuts out the independants.  Sure, they may not be a huge effect on the system but the notion that anyone can run as an independant is important in highlighting the fact that the principle prerequisite for office is the will of the electors and not the nod of the local party chief; and

2.     By extention, it enshrines Parties and their grip on the political process.  My goal is to see parties reduced to "confederations" of ideas as opposed to enshrining them into Kingmakers.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2008)

Having a PR senate, using the results of the provincial elections, would either oblige greater co-operation between the federal and provincial parties or would create a more robust upper house - both good, to my way of thinking.

Of course, I'd probably want seats in the upper house rotating on alternate provincial elections (that is, half the seats in play at any one time) to provide better continuity.  Add a few term limits as well, and it could be good.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2008)

The deeper I look into things the more it seems like this is a job that can only be done by teaming Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) and Mike Holmes (Holmes on Holmes).

Much of the problem isn't in the Constitution or the ordinary conventions that surround a Westminster Parliament at all, but rather the various additions that have grown around Parliament and government over the centuries. I suspect that no one ever really considered that being a politician should be a full time career, nor were ideas like political parties, caucusing, the Privy Council Office, a permanent bureaucracy, NGO's, interest groups,activist courts, politicized press on a 24hr news cycle or polling in the thoughts of the people who put together the various constitutions and laws that make up our official system of government.

In a way, the BNA act and the Constitution act of 1982 are more like a trellis in the garden which supports the "real" mechanisms of government in Canada growing over top of them (which have been revealed to be poisonous weeds). I have no real solutions except to sharply limit and restrict the powers of government; without the incentives of absolute power there will be less attraction to get into government (and the trough will not be big enough to support the armies of flunkies and hangers on anyway).


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In a way, the BNA act and the Constitution act of 1982 are more like a trellis in the garden which supports the "real" mechanisms of government in Canada growing over top of them (which have been revealed to be poisonous weeds). I have no real solutions except to sharply limit and restrict the powers of government; without the incentives of absolute power there will be less attraction to get into government (and the trough will not be big enough to support the armies of flunkies and hangers on anyway).



Agreed, take away the almost unlimited ability to tax and spend, separate government and the economy and return government to the basic functions of Defense of rights, defense of the nation and ensuring the rule of law and see how many politicians line up to make such mundane duties their life's work.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> ..... take away the almost unlimited ability to tax and spend......



But ultimately that is why we have Parliament.  It's primary purpose has always been to control the public purse and limit the government's ability to tax and spend.

Everything else is secondary to that main effort.

Parliament, in another instance of usurpation/evolution, has moved from laws pertaining to the King's ability to raise taxes, through economic "rights", like the right to maintain a fishweir on the Thames to "rights" in general.  Once upon a time those "rights" issues were decided by the King and the Courts, and Juries, under the Common Law formula of precedence.  The Juries and Precedence ensured that Common Law evolved with Society.


----------



## McG (27 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So McG, you're not opposed to a STV-system for cities?


See here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-200633.html#msg200633


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But ultimately that is why we have Parliament.  It's primary purpose has always been to control the public purse and limit the government's ability to tax and spend.



Historically perhaps but our system has evolved away from controlling the King's excess to the point where the guys we elect are worse than the King in the first place.


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Historically perhaps but our system has evolved away from controlling the King's excess to the point where the guys we elect are worse than the King in the first place.


Is it the individuals or the parties that have become "worse"?

It seems all the more reason to ensure a system which gives power to individual representatives over parties, and for a bicameral system with one house to check the other.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Dec 2008)

Zip and MCG - I agree with both of you.

Part of the problem is the job of Prime Minister - an undefined position held at the behest of external influences.  

I say this next as a confirmed Monarchist, the other part of the problem is that the Monarchy gives cover to the PM.  The PM has progressed from being an advisor to the Monarch, to being a counter to the Monarch to being the Monarch pro tem.

The US republic and the Canadian monarchy have this in common.  Both require a head of state and a CEO.  Both of them require their head of state and their CEOs to be active participants in their governance.  In the US the President is Head of State and Monarch Pro Tem.  In Canada (and Britain) the PM hides in the shadows protecting us from the phantom of the absolute monarch while availing himself of all the powers of the Monarch in the Monarch's name.

This is a bigger problem for Britain than for Canada.  In Britain Governance is still tied up with the Oldenburg family blood lines.  In Canada, by virtue of our having an unrelated Governor-General selected as Vice-Roy for a limited term (5 years by tradition) we already have a simple basis for correcting the imbalance.  Change the method of selection from PM's fiat to some form of election.   We already changed from Foreign Office appointee to PM's fiat without anybody noticing much.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it the individuals or the parties that have become "worse"?
> 
> It seems all the more reason to ensure a system which gives power to individual representatives over parties, and for a bicameral system with one house to check the other.



It's much deeper than that.  In my opinion it goes all the way back to the founding documents of this country that allow the wholesale expansion of government into private and market sectors.  Don't even get me started on that PC, let's all sing kumbaya, piece of reform liberal, social engineering that is the CCRF.

There aught to only be three rights in that document, Life, Liberty and Property.  Everything else is at best ancillary to those and at worse a fabrication of fuzzy thinking.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I want each province’s Senate ‘delegation’ to be elected during provincial general elections and I want the senators to reflect, roughly, the votes cast in that provincial election – hence a simple list system.



With the hodge-podge of provincial parties, would this not lead to a disfunctional Senate?  Many provinces do not have provincial Conservative or Liberal parties (e.g. BC, Saskatchewan, Quebec), some share a party name, but are otherwise unconnected to the federal namesake (e.g. BC Liberal Party) and many have parties that only exist in their respective province (e.g. Saskatchewan Party, Yukon Party, Parti Quebecois), not to mention the existence of provincial Progressive Conservative parties that have little in common with the federal Conservative Party (e.g. Newfoundland).

I think having provincial parties in a federal House would be quite messy.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2009)

I like the idea of a "messy" upper house.  Given that its remit is to give "sober second thought",  and not just to pass government legislation,  its primary role is to delay and consider.  Perhaps we could say allow time for the passions of the mob to pass?

However it can't delay if it lacks legitimacy - then its motives become suspect, especially if the majority is identified with a particular party (either pro or anti government).

It should be selected on grounds that grant it legitimacy, independent of the government, or the opposition.  Provincial representatives, Municipal representatives, Borough representatives, Guild representatives, all of them I would have in the Senate, with no general election provisions at all to permit continuity.  Seats would be filled on a staggered, if not random, schedule.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2009)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> With the hodge-podge of provincial parties, would this not lead to a disfunctional Senate?  Many provinces do not have provincial Conservative or Liberal parties (e.g. BC, Saskatchewan, Quebec), some share a party name, but are otherwise unconnected to the federal namesake (e.g. BC Liberal Party) and many have parties that only exist in their respective province (e.g. Saskatchewan Party, Yukon Party, Parti Quebecois), not to mention the existence of provincial Progressive Conservative parties that have little in common with the federal Conservative Party (e.g. Newfoundland).
> 
> I think having provincial parties in a federal House would be quite messy.




It would certainly, delightfully in my view, complicate things for the government and opposition leaders. There is no guarantee that the BC or QC _Liberal_ delegations will caucus with the Liberal Party of Canada, for example. The Saskatchewan Party delegation might choose to caucus with the Conservatives or might remain as independents.

Once a Senate is elected PMs will pretty much have to appoint some elected senators to cabinet - mostly in portfolios where the feds _intrude_ into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Some senators will want to caucus with the governing party in order to secure a cabinet appointment. Right now, for example, at least one (elected) NF senator would certainly caucus with the government, with Danny Williams' blessing, to have a NF 'voice' in cabinet again.

The 'messy' Senate might complicate life even for PMs with good, solid HoC majorities because elected senators are, surely, going to be willing to throw their (elected) weight around.

On balance I think it is manageable and, in my opinion, infinitely preferable to an appointed legislative chambre.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interview with Peter Russell, author of several books on constitutional/legal and property rights issues and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, that is critical of Prime Minister Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament but also offers some thoughts on the office of the governor general:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/cheers+jeer/1165882/story.html

 Two cheers and a jeer

*Constitutional expert Peter Russell weighs in on the pros of minority government and the cons of parliamentary crisis. 'People might have other adjectives; I'll stick with dishonourable,' he says of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue the House*


BY ANDREW POTTER, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

JANUARY 11, 2009



One of Canada's foremost experts on the Constitution, political scientist Peter H. Russell has written a new book that looks at minority rule in Canada and contrasts it with the much different European experience. Two Cheers for Minority Government is a prescient look at the evolution of Canadian democracy and an indispensible guide to the shenanigans that have occupied Parliament during the past five months. Citizen editor Andrew Potter spoke with Prof. Russell to get his take on where things are going.

*AP*: The core message of your book is that minority government promotes a "parliamentary" form of government, and therefore enables a form of deliberative democracy. What do you mean by parliamentary government and deliberative democracy? What are you comparing or contrasting that with?

*PR*: I'm contrasting it with "prime ministerial" government. Prime ministerial government is when the major policies -- indeed, almost all policies -- are made and shaped in the Prime Minister's Office by the prime minister and the prime minister's political staff, not by the cabinet.

They're kind of reviewed by cabinet, but at the end of the day, the government decides what the policy is, and announces it.

So Parliament's role is reduced to the classic role of criticism and providing an option for the electorate the next time there's an election. In between elections, the country is governed by a very small number of people, most of whom are unelected. That is the prime minister's staff -- the prime minister is elected.

I don't have a lot of respect for that, for a lot of reasons.

Parliamentary government is when the government has to defend its policies, one by one, every one of them, in Parliament, and it's never a slam dunk. Parliamentary committees have a much more independent function to consider policy and not simply follow the government line. It isn't a bed of roses. I'm not suggesting all MPs hug each other and love each other and partisanship goes down the toilet -- that's ridiculous.

*AP*: You suggest minority rule is not inherently unstable, that one of the things that makes it unstable in the Canadian situation is the sense by all the parties that it's somehow a deviation from the norm of majority government.

*PR*: It's a cultural change we need. It's just an ingrained expectation of party members -- they expect their leader to deliver a majority. Even Mr. Harper. He's been pretty successful, but he hasn't brought home the gold medal -- a majority government.

*AP*: One of the most obvious points about this book is its prescience. It must have felt a bit surreal, watching what was going on this fall.

*PR*: Yes, quite honestly, because as the book title implies, minority government, while it's worth two cheers, also falls a little short of three cheers, because of the turbulence that comes with it.

*AP*: You write with some confidence and satisfaction about the arrival of fixed election dates and how that heralds the change in the culture we need, that now there's a commitment to all the parties concerned to letting Parliament run. So do you see the fact that he dropped the writ and was granted an election as a missed opportunity?

*PR*: Very much so. The opposition didn't make enough of it. I think there should have been a little more attention to what was said about Bill C60 when it was in Parliament, particularly before committee in December 2006 -- it was passed in May 2007 -- but if you look at the debate, the government made very strong commitments, supported by all the parties that Oct. 19, 2009 would be the next election.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was asked, "What if the prime minister asks for a dissolution when his government had not been defeated?" And Mr. Nicholson said, "Well clearly, the Governor General would have to give it very careful consideration."

And she may well have done so. We don't know -- we don't know what they talked about.

*AP*: Some pundits have argued the Governor General could have refused Mr. Harper the dissolution and she could have refused him the prorogation.

*PR*: Technically, I think she could have done that, but the political consequences of doing that might have been so severe she'd back away. Now people would say she's a gutless lady. I wouldn't buy into that. This part of our Constitution is governed by political conventions, rather than written-down, legal rules. The Constitution is subject to prudential political thinking -- you've got to think of the consequences of what you're doing when you exercise these conventional powers.

*AP*: On that note, you punctuate your discussion of the infamous King-Byng affair by saying the chief lesson is that the smooth functioning of parliamentary government requires all the parties involved to behave honourably.

*PR*: Yes, and I know that's motherhood, but I consider Mr. Harper's request "dishonourable." I made that submission to the Federal Court as part of Democracy Watch's legal action for judicial review. Yes, it was dishonourable, it violated a pretty serious commitment that he -- and not just himself and his government, but all the parties -- entered into. And I consider that dishonourable.

*AP*: Was Mr. Harper putting the Governor General in an untenable position?

*PR*: Oh, for sure. I mean, it's always very, very tough when a prime minister does a dishonourable thing. I consider it dishonourable to promise a confidence vote and then, a few days later, make it impossible by asking for a prorogation of Parliament. People might have other adjectives; I'll stick with dishonourable.

In a democratic culture, it's so tough for the Crown to step in and stand up for a democratic principle, particularly when you have a government with huge machinery of propaganda, which it's shown every inclination to use, and would use, both on the office of the governor general and probably on her personally. These people take no prisoners!

*AP*: The prorogation was clearly designed to avoid the fall of the government and the setting up of the purported coalition.

There was considerable debate afterward about the constitutionality of the coalition, with Harper saying this was an unconstitutional attempt to overturn the results of the election. What's your take on that? Would the coalition have been a legal, constitutional entity had it come to pass?

*PR*: Oh my goodness, yes. Oh my goodness, yes. On that, there can be no doubt. People may not like coalitions, and they may punish parties that have entered into them, but that's fair enough; that's political judgment voters have every right to make.

But the parties in Parliament have every right to get together in pretty well any way they wish; to coalesce together to accomplish their purposes. There's nothing illegal about coalition; otherwise, about half of the governments in the parliamentary world would be illegal. I mean, the constitutions of parliamentary countries, they don't have clauses about what parties in parliament, how they can work together or not work together; they can work together in a whole myriad of ways.

*AP*: Do you have any sense of what's going to happen when Parliament resumes?

*PR*: If I was a betting person, I would bet that the Liberals at least -- I don't know about the NDP and the Bloc -- but at least the Liberals will find the budget sufficiently satisfactory on priming the pump, on stimulating the economy, to vote for it and therefore not force an election and give the new Liberal leader time to build his strength and probably have what they hope is a big, successful political convention and all that.

*AP*: If we are looking at minorities for the foreseeable future, do you think we should be looking at changing the electoral system, to some form of proportional representation?

*PR*: There's a more immediate change that, I think, what we've been through in the past few weeks points to even more: We've got to do more to kind of regularize the governor general's office. One suggestion: Her office should have something like the European constitutional monarchies have -- an informateur, an official sort of prober of the parliamentary scene who can interview party leaders and is known to the media, is known to the public as a respected person -- so it's not all whispers and hush hush -- to advise the governor general on the political situation in Parliament, in order to make good decisions.

It's sometimes a former Speaker; in Sweden, it actually is the Speaker, but the Speaker there has a bigger role. All the countries have to make their own design according to their own history and institutions, but we need something like that because the governor general's office is going to be very much a target now of political speculation and pressure. I think it needs to be strengthened to deal with those situations.

*AP*: If you could wave a magical wand, is there one institutional change you could make to improve our parliamentary system?

*PR*: I'm a big supporter of electoral reform, but, my God, I'm also a realist, political scientist. If you bet me on any electoral reform, and you want to bet in favour, I'd give you 1,000 to one and I think I'd be safe for the next five to 10 years. So if you're counting on something that ain't going to happen, then you're not being realistic.

*Two Cheers For Minority Government: The Evolution of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy is published by Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd., Toronto 2008.*

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------


I agree, very broadly but not too deeply, with most of what Prof. Russell says, but: I don’t like the word *”dishonourable”* to discuss PM Harper’s actions re: the prorogation . They were perfectly legal and constitutional – he had just won a confidence vote a few days before, when the Throne Speech – his government’s programme, in broad outline – was passed. His actions were _devious_, perhaps, but not dishonourable. He ‘used’ the Constitution and the Governor General for partisan, political ends – but the Constitution is all about politics and so are the GG’s “reserve powers.”

Prof. Russell’s explanation of constitutional convention and _”prudential political thinking”_ may help those who still wonder what went on.

I favour some way of ‘formalizing’ the method of appointing the governor general.

As a start, of course, I favour ditching the next ‘foreign’ monarch* and establishing a Canadian _’regency’_. Then we need some way to ‘select’ the regent – better, I suggest, than a _coffee clache_ in the PMO. Maybe a (reformed) Senate could be charged to form a ‘nominating committee’ every sever years, or so, to recommend one name (take it or leave it) to the PM.


--------------------
* By, simply, failing to “proclaim” the successor. When, as sadly, she must, our most gracious sovereign lady Elizabeth, the second of that name, dies, some functionary (whoever ‘keeps’ (has custody of) the Great Seal of Canada (the Minister of Industry? His/her deputy? The Registrar General?)) must “proclaim” that fact. In Britain the Earl Marshal (Duke of Norfolk) will say something like, _“The Queen is dead! God save the King!”_ and, _presto!_, just like that, Britain will have a new king. Our functionary could just say, “The Queen is dead!” and go about his/her business. We would, _ipso facto_ have a ‘vacant’ throne. Nothing else would change; we would still be a constitutional monarchy – we would just not have a current monarch of our own. This situation – not uncommon in British history – is called a regency. Someone, called a Regent, is appointed to act for the missing sovereign – just as the GG does, day-in and day-out, today.

It would be nice, of course, if we didn’t just spring this on Prince Charles. A parliamentary resolution – like the Nickel Resolution of 1919 that Jean Chrétien used to stymie Conrad Black’s attempt to be both a British lord and a Canadian citizen – that says that, for good ‘rights’ reasons (we don’t and shouldn’t like the anti-Catholic bias in the Settlement Act of 1704) we cannot agree the existing terms of succession and will decide our own in our own good time will ‘advise’ Her Majesty and Prince Charles that, on that sad future day, he will not succeed to the (independent) Throne of Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2009)

Israel provides yet another reason to avoid PR in any form:

http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-i-hate-proportional-representation.html



> *Why I hate proportional representation....*
> 
> You can see one of the biggest problems of proportional representation in yesterday's Israeli election. *Now that the election is OVER, the real horse trading begins, and the public has no input. Somehow, somewhere deals will be made and someone will come to power, and the end result may be far different than what voters may have wanted or intended.*
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (19 Feb 2009)

> MP calls Tory plan to cap Senate terms a 'sideshow'
> Updated Wed. Feb. 18 2009 3:09 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090218/senate_caps_090218/20090218?hub=Canada


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2009)

A look at the US system (in particular the 17th Amendment, which speaks to how Senators are elected). Notice how clearly the Founding fathers sought to separate and constrain the different branches of government, a lesson we might take to heart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003034_pf.html



> *Sen. Feingold's Constitution*
> 
> By George F. Will
> Sunday, February 22, 2009;
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2009)

Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) with an evolutionary interpretation of elections and voter behaviour:





> *Is Democracy Like Sex?*
> 
> By Glenn Harlan Reynolds : 15 Nov 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A look at the US system (in particular the 17th Amendment, which speaks to how Senators are elected). Notice how clearly the Founding fathers sought to separate and constrain the different branches of government, a lesson we might take to heart:



Why would we (Canada) take lessons about the separation of powers to heart? We can certainly look outside for ideas, but I don't look at the framers of the US constition as my "Founding fathers."


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2009)

Political power in Canada is extremely centralized, especially in non elected institutions like the PMO and PCO, rather than distributed amongst different organizations as in the American system.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned with the fragility of governments and institutions, and designed a system where ambitious people would not be able to consolodate power but have to compete with each other for fragments of power.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (26 Feb 2009)

We have a parliamentary system that evolved in a different fashion from the US system. The big difference being that we have, in effect, a blended legislative and executive branch. It is true (in my view) that the Prime Minister has more 'power' within the Canadian system than the President has in the American one. It should be noted, however, that we have a division of powers/responsibilities between the federal and provincial government that offers a balance. Both levels of government are sovereign. In addition, the process of elections and the parliament itself mean that the Prime Minister is still answerable to the people.


----------



## starseed (12 Jul 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Why would we (Canada) take lessons about the separation of powers to heart? We can certainly look outside for ideas, but I don't look at the framers of the US constition as my "Founding fathers."


Especially considering that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the 17th amendment, which was enacted in 1911.

I'm in favour of a constituency based commons, elected senate and leaving the Governor General position as-is. Given that s/he is the monarch's representative in Canada, I don't think it would even be unreasonable for her to actually be selected by the monarch, but that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2009)

:deadhorse:  Caution: flogging of nearly dead horses follows!   :deadhorse:​

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an *editorial* (therefore unsigned) about this subject:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/


> Sober, effective and democratically legitimate
> *Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his government takes Senate reform seriously, and that the Senate must change. Godspeed, Mr. Harper*
> 
> From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Jul. 13, 2009
> ...



I dare say that neither Prime Minister Harper nor many of his supporters take the _Good Grey Globe_ all that seriously but, in this case, he and they should, at least in part.

As I have said before, I believe it is politically possible, even for a minority government, to force the issue.

The first key is to *dictate* to provinces: they either find an effective way to elect senators or they lose their voice or, at best, get an endless succession of toothless, second rate political hacks.

The second key is to persuade senators to resign their seats and contest elections. Not all, maybe not even most will do that but *some* will and that “some" will gain political legitimacy and in politics legitimacy *IS* a zero sum game: one either has it, through – and only through – being elected, or one does not. As soon as that distinction exists, in sufficient numbers, all those with zero legitimacy will want to join those with full legitimacy.

Three or four provinces hold the key: probably BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, maybe Manitoba and one of the Atlantic provinces will suffice. The three or four of those provinces need to establish acceptable Senate election procedures and some of their senators need to resign, at some appropriate moment, and contest those elections. A dozen elected senators will, fundamentally, change the whole nature of the upper house and the rest of the senators, almost all the rest but there will be a few holdouts, will begin to follow suit. So will the rest of the provinces – but probably without a holdout.

The issue of equality is important and the _Globe and Mail_ has fudged it.

We, in a federal system, need two sorts of equality:

1.	Equality amongst the *partners* in the federation - the provinces – in one chamber of a bicameral legislature; and

2.	Equality amongst the citizens, as Canadians, in the other.

Make no mistake, confederation is a *partnership* and the partners are equal: tiny PEI is equal, in status and constitutional responsibilities and “rights,” to mighty Ontario. But, the original partnership agreement, the BNA Act, foresaw an unbalanced, unequal partnership: Ontario and Québec were the senior partners and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the junior partners in 1867. PEI, BC, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan and so on all joined on the understanding that they, too, were junior partners. It was to be a _confederation of_ (equal) _regions_ rather than a federation of equal provinces. That ought not to have been the case, but, in fairness, it was the very first draft of a federal constitution for the authors in the British Foreign and Colonial offices. They got better and better as they drafted constitutions for Australia, India and, eventually, Germany.

Sadly, in modern times, we Canadians have failed the democratic tests of equality. We fail to accomplish it in both our legislatures: we have gross inequality of representation in the House of Commons where the vote of a PE Islander is worth nearly four times that of a Calgarian or Torontonian; equally, we fail to achieve even regional equality. Atlantic Canada is not “equal” to Ontario or the West.

The problem of individual inequality can and will be solved, eventually, by an ever growing House of Commons – once it has something approaching 1,000 members it will, _de facto_, become equal, maybe around the year 2075, when PEI still has four seats but Ontario has 350, Québec 200 and BC 150.

Senate equality requires a Constitutional amendment, sad to say.

But, for the time being, Prime Minister Harper can and should move forward with Senate reform – not timid, half arsed reform but real, 21st century democratic reform.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2009)

While I agree with most of your analysis, the idea of a 1000 man commons really sticks in my craw. Besides the fact that the Commons would be bigger than most Infantry battalions, I can see large bodies like this being rife with cliques and cabals operating out of sight of the constituents, and being even less transparent than what we have today.

Of course if the actual idea is to immobilize the legislative arm, then perhaps this would be a good thing. The other flaw I see is this might actually promote an even more powerful and centralized PMO, since the executive arm would need the ability to get something done. An elected Senate might have to serve as the de facto legislature in this case.

The other overarching problem in Canada is the fact that _real_ power resides with unelected bodies, the Courts and the Bureaucracy. Much of the day to day entanglement that we face as citizens and taxpayers is through the actions of these bodies, not the Legislative arm, and there should be a wholesale pruning done here in order to effect real change.


----------



## GAP (14 Jul 2009)

As you all are probably aware, the news casts covered the fact that by 2012 or so, there would be enough vacant senate seats to give the CPC a Senate Majority. Therein lies the change, if Harper can hang on long enough ( one majority government should just about do it).


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is Don Martin’s take on the rumour (thus far) that PM Harper will appoint another batch of hacks, flaks and bagmen to the Parliament of Canada:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/26/don-martin-are-party-loyalists-the-best-harper-can-come-up-with.aspx


> *Don Martin*: Are party loyalists the best Harper can come up with?
> 
> August 26, 2009
> 
> ...




None of these Tory partisans are, in any way, _unqualified_ for the Senate of Canada. None is any “worse” than many of those appointed by e.g. Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien. 

But, I maintain that there *IS* a better way which is, right now, within Mr. Harper’s reach. I explained it before, but: Harper needs to write two letters:

1.	One to each provincial premier saying that he intends to reform the Senate by establishing, through _convention_, some political limits on his power. He will select for the Senate only those who –

a.	 Meet all the existing, _constitutional_ requirements, 

b.	Have been elected during a Senate election held in conjunction with a provincial general election through a system that reflects, broadly, the partisan political outcome of that election, and

c.	Provide him with a signed letter of resignation from the Senate of Canada that will be effective on the date of the next provincial general election; and

2.	One letter to each serving senator _inviting_ them to submit their signed but undated letters of resignation which he will use only when a general election is called in the province that senator represents.

Of course, not all senators will resign. Several, perhaps even many will. After a few senators are elected there will be a “two tier” Senate: legitimate/elected and illegitimate/appointed. This will hasten the resignation/election process. But it may be 20+ years before the last appointed senator who is unwilling to accept the challenge of elections is required to retire. That’s about as long as it took the Americans to _transition_ from an appointed to an elected senate early in the 20th century.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I agree with most of your analysis, the idea of a 1000 man commons really sticks in my craw. Besides the fact that the Commons would be bigger than most Infantry battalions, I can see large bodies like this being rife with cliques and cabals operating out of sight of the constituents, and being even less transparent than what we have today.
> 
> Of course if the actual idea is to immobilize the legislative arm, then perhaps this would be a good thing. The other flaw I see is this might actually promote an even more powerful and centralized PMO, since the executive arm would need the ability to get something done. An elected Senate might have to serve as the de facto legislature in this case.
> 
> The other overarching problem in Canada is the fact that _real_ power resides with unelected bodies, the Courts and the Bureaucracy. Much of the day to day entanglement that we face as citizens and taxpayers is through the actions of these bodies, not the Legislative arm, and there should be a wholesale pruning done here in order to effect real change.




No one, and certainly not Canadian voters, likes the idea of a 1,000± seat House of Commons. They better like accept the idea of disproportionate representation.

Let us assume, for a moment, the New Brunswick, with 2.24% of the population and 10 seats in the HoC is _appropriately_ represented.

If we adjust almost all the other provinces and territories – except, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, the North West Territories and the Yukon (4, 1, 1 and 1 seat, respectively) – so that their “variance” from their share of the national population is somewhere between 97.8%(MB) and 102.3% (NS) then we end up with a 451 seat legislature in which ON and QC get 98.8% and 99.1% of their “fair share” of seats.

(Adjusting down to get a “more acceptable” HoC of 351 seats produces results which, I suggest *should* be unacceptable because the variances (after it is guaranteed that no provinces lose seats – as NF, NS, NB, MB and SK would if the 351 seats were to be distributed “fairly”) run from 95.3% (ON and QC) to 130.9% (NF and SK). I believe the “variance” should be, by law, between 90% and 110% (PEI and the Territories excepted).)

This is a change that parliament, itself, could make. It would not be easy. Canadians are not seized with this issue. They don’t care much for the 308 MPs they elect now; they are not keen on electing another 100+.

(_Wikipedia_ has a quite clear article that explains, in the *Members and electoral districts* section, the current electoral quotient and why the seat distribution is what it is.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Aug 2009)

More grist for the discussion mill....

"PM acts to fill Senate vacancies"


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointments of nine distinguished Canadians to serve in Canada’s Senate.
> 
> “Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate,” said the Prime Minister.  “If Senate vacancies are to be filled, they should be filled with individuals who support the legislative agenda of our democratically-elected government, including Senate reform and real action against gang- and drug-related crime.”
> 
> ...



Backgrounder: List of new Senators


> *Claude Carignan (Quebec)* was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1988 and, as a lawyer, he specialized in labour and public law.  He was a law teacher at the Université du Québec à Montréal and at the Université de Montréal.  Mr. Carignan has always been actively involved in his community.  He has been Mayor of Saint-Eustache since November 2000 and held other positions at the regional and national levels.  He is a member of the Board of the Union des municipalités du Québec and has been Vice-President of the Union since May 2008.  During his career at the municipal level, he organized many fundraising campaigns and created the Fondation Élite Saint-Eustache, which helps the young people of the region.  Claude Carignan is married to Brigitte Binette.  They have three children.
> 
> *Jacques Demers (Quebec)* is the former head coach of the Montreal Canadiens, taking the team to a Stanley Cup victory in 1993.  In addition to the Canadiens, Mr. Demers was head coach of numerous other hockey franchises including the former Quebec Nordiques during the 1978-80 hockey seasons.  Mr. Demers is a well respected figure in the hockey world, winning the Jack Adams Award for NHL Coach of the Year in 1987 and 1988, the only person to do so in consecutive years.  In 2007, he was named one of the 100 most influential personalities in hockey by The Hockey News magazine.  Mr. Demers is active in the community, including his strong support for literacy.  In 2006, he served as Honorary President of fundraising campaign of the Fondation de l’alphabétisation, and made numerous presentations on the subject throughout Quebec.  He also supports other causes including la Fondation québécoise pour les enfants malades du cœur.  He is married to Deborah Anderson.  Mr. Demers currently works as a commentator for the sports network RDS.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

There was a public forum the other evening, here in Ottawa, at Saint Paul’s University. I did not attend; I took a look at the sponsor, moderator and participants and decided that Charlotte Grey, alone, could not keep me from rushing the stage and throttling a few of them.

I listened, with a more than just half and ear, this morning and it confirmed, for me, the wisdom of staying home.

At the very end Jane Taber plus a few chimed in and said, “We/they/someone must *unite the left, unite the Liberals and NDP* to bring balance to Canadian politics.”

I wonder if any of them have even half the brains the gods gave to green peppers.

Uniting the left – uniting the Liberals and NDP – is the fondest hope, the veritable _wet dream_ of all partisan Conservatives. The key to utterly and completely destroying the Liberals is to unite them with the NDP. That’s why the _coalition_ proposed by _Jack and Gilles_ and Celine Stéphane Dion would, actually, have been a great thing for the Conservatives.

The reason is that the Liberals are *not* a left wing party. They are, in the main, a centrist, even ever so slightly right of centre party. There is a big and very vocal and active _left_ wing but most Liberal *voters* trust their party to campaign left and govern right. Look at King, St Laurent, Pearson, Turner, Chrétien and Martin. None were on the _left_ and none pandered a whole lot to the hard left. Only Trudeau was, in most respects – except for his personal life, left of centre. If the Liberals were to *unite* with the NDP then the centre and centre right majority would bolt.

Another big topic, to which the panel returned again and again, was some alternative to “first past the post (FPTP).”

I looked at the data from the last few elections; they are relatively consistent:

•	10% of Canadians – fully 40% of Québecers – vote _Bloc_

•	35%+ of Canadians vote Conservative;

•	6% of Canadians vote Green;

•	30%± of Canadians (more minus than plus more recently) vote Liberal;

•	15+ of Canadians vote NDP; and

•	1 or 2% of Canadians vote for independents and assorted fruitcakes.

Speaking broadly:

•	The _Bloc_’s vote is stagnant;

•	The Conservative vote is rising, a bit, and a bit slowly;

•	The Green vote is stagnant;

•	The Liberal votes is falling, slowly; and

•	The NDP vote rose, more than just a bit, in 2008, but that may be a _blip_.

Using recent data I concluded that the  First Past the Post system:

•	Benefited –

   o	  The _Bloc_ in Québec by 19 seats,

   o	  The Conservatives in 6 of ten provinces by about 25 seats, and

   o	  The Liberals in one province, (Newfoundlandf and Labrador) by two seats; and

•	Penalized –

   o	  The Conservatives in two provinces, by three seats,

   o	  The Greens in two provinces, by two seats, 

   o	  The Liberals in five provinces, by nine seats, 

   o	  The NDP in seven provinces by 13 seats.

So, it is true that FPTP tends to help the party that, overall, gets the most votes, and (the _Bloc_ in Québec being excepted) tends to penalize lesser parties. Broadly the fewer votes you get, overall, the “worse” you will do proportionately.

I “constructed” a House of Commons basewd on pretty much *absolute* proportional representations.

Guess what?

It produces a Conservative minority government with the Liberals in the official Opposition benches, the _Dippers_ as the thirds party, fewer _Blocistes_ and several new Green and Independent members.

The _proportional_ Conservative minority government is smaller (117 instead of 143 seats), the _proportional_ Liberal opposition is bigger (88 instead of 77 seats) and the NDP is much larger (55 rather than 37 seats). A simple Liberal/NDP _coalition_ can defeat the government but either the _Bloc_ or the NDP can combine with the Conservatives to outvote a coalition of the Liberals plus the other of the _Bloc_ or NDP. The Greens (15 seats!) are the spoilers, and they could combine with the Liberals and NDP to form a _majority_ – but one that would destroy the Liberal Party of Canada.



Edit: two typos


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2009)

Interesting - so Proportional Representation is really _much ado about nothing_ with the only real effect of further divorcing MPs from any sort of responsibility to their constitutents.

Coyne and Wells had a decent little piece in a recent MacLeans article in which they highlighted many of the criticisms and solutions discussed in this thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Interesting - so Proportional Representation is really _much ado about nothing_ with the only real effect of further divorcing MPs from any sort of responsibility to their constitutents.
> 
> Coyne and Wells had a decent little piece in a recent MacLeans article in which they highlighted many of the criticisms and solutions discussed in this thread.




I'm not sure.

The analysis I did shows that FPTP does benefit the party that gets the most votes, overall, and does penalize the _lesser_ parties. In other words: doing well is rewarded and (relative) failure is punished. Maybe that's as it should be.

Other data, from, say, the '80s and '90s might would produce different results - as when the Liberals won 100± seats in ON with 40% of the popular vote. Someone lost a lot of _representation_.

I'm wondering if, for a change, the French are not doing something right by requiring those elected to get 50%+1, even if, as it very often does, that results in two votes, the second a week after the first with the second ballot being between only the 1st and 2nd place finishers in the first ballot. There are problems with the French system: voter turnout is much lower in most second ballots than in the first, people get tired of election; and it tends to discourage minor party candidates - which may not be a really bad thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if, for a change, the French are not doing something right by requiring those elected to get 50%+1, even if, as it very often does, that results in two votes, the second a week after the first with the second ballot being between only the 1st and 2nd place finishers in the first ballot. There are problems with the French system: voter turnout is much lower in most second ballots than in the first, people get tired of election; and it tends to discourage minor party candidates - which may not be a really bad thing.



Which is where the Irish system has its merits - you rank the candidates in your riding.  High Score (low score?) wins.  Effectively you have the run-off election at the same time as the general.  You still end up with one representative per riding but the representative is either favoured by most or at least found least objectionable.


----------



## kratz (8 Oct 2009)

Governor General Michaelle Jean has become embroiled with the Prime Minister again. This time on the appropriate way of publicly describing herself. Is she the Sovereign's Representative, or Canada's Head of State? As the position is an appointment, I agree with the PM and would prefer her a HRH Representativ



> Harper reminds GG just who is head of state
> By Randy Boswell, Canwest News ServiceOctober 8, 2009 5:50
> Ottawa Citizen.com
> 
> ...



more at link


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2009)

> "Working together with a purpose in common, the 11 viceregal representatives — with the Governor General as first among equals — exercise powers that flow from the Sovereign," the document states. "Operating in their own jurisdictions, they personally represent the Queen and perform most of the functions assigned to her as our head of state."



From the article above this quote struck me.

It is not particularly germaine to the electoral reform discussion but it does shed an interesting light on the discussion about the "proper" relation of the Federal and Provincial Governments.  If the Federal Governor is Co-Equal with the Provincial Governors then surely the Federal Government which advises the Federal Governor and executes her wishes is Co-Equal with the Provincial Governments which advise and the Provincial Governors and execute their wishes......all on behalf of Her Majesty, the ultimate adjudicator and authority.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2009)

This from Global/National Post:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada's head of state.
> 
> "Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. "The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada."
> 
> ...



With this from the GG's web page:


> Our system of government is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. *Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State*. Sworn in on September 27, 2005, *the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, 27th Governor General since Confederation, represents the Crown in Canada and carries out the duties of head of State*.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2009)

I said it before in here and got crapped on for it, but I'll say it again. 

The whole GG, monarch, thinger ma bobster idea, needs to go.


----------



## 4Feathers (9 Oct 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> I said it before in here and got crapped on for it, but I'll say it again.
> 
> The whole GG, monarch, thinger ma bobster idea, needs to go.



 :nod:


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Oct 2009)

Folks, if you want to reprise that particular discussion, go read and then join the relevant thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2009)

Perhaps a MOD could move this entire thread to here.

In the interim: This leads us into tricky _constitutional_ terrain and especially into the _unwritten_ part of *our* Constitution, referred to in the very first part:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/1.html#anchorbo-ga:s_1


> Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom ... [9.] The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen ...  [10.] The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.



The constitution of the United Kingdom is where the *powers* of the Queen (effectively, according to Bagehot, the *rights* to be consulted, to encourage and to warn) are “defined” and that Constitution is wholly (and very sensibly) unwritten. Bagehot (whose book The English Constitution is still regarded as an authoritative reference) also identified three occasions when the monarch (or the GG) might exercise real, (and so called _residual_) political power:

1.	At the formation of a new administration;

2.	During its continuance – which is when the three “rights” come into play; and

3.	At its break-up.

We have seen, just recently, the GG exercise her *powers* in all three situations, (including, especially, her decision (during the _coalition_ crisis in Dec 08) to prorogue parliament). We should not “see” the GG exercising her *rights* with regard to her government. Those *rights* are best exercised in private – perhaps they can only be exercised, effectively, in private.

The GG and the provincial lieutenant governors are, indeed, _co-equals_ because Her Majesty is indivisible. The sovereign “exists” in three forms:

1.	For the legislative function (Parliament/Legislature) she is “The Queen in Parliament” and enacts (makes) the laws;

2.	For the executive function (the cabinets and governments) she is “The Queen in Council” and executes the laws (governs); and

3.	For the judicial function (the courts) is “The Queen on the Bench” and interprets the laws.

The sovereign does all these things, all the time, but she does them *through* her alter egos, the governor general and the lieutenant governors who are, therefore, co-equals.

But the *fact* that the governor general and the lieutenant governors are co-equals does not, in any way, imply that the nation and its constituent parts (the provinces) are co-equal. It is clear in our Constitution (§91 and §92) that each _level_ of government has its own areas of jurisdiction but Canada _qua_ Canada is *more* than a _collection_ of independent provinces it is a formal, legal _confederation_ in which the whole IS *greater than the sum of its parts*.

_Constitutionally_ (referring to the unwritten part) the sovereign is both:

•	*Formally*, the state itself – and we are her “subjects;” and

•	The *personification* of the _nation_ – she represents all of us to the state, “she” is “us” and she, therefore, in a ‘funny’ way, she represents us to herself.

In practice our constitutional system allows us, politically, to separate the _nation_ from the _state_. Some of us may thoroughly detest the government-of-the-day, _Her Majesty’s Government_, for wholly partisan, political reasons, but this does not, in any way, excuse any of us from doing our duty to Her Majesty, our sovereign.


----------



## PanaEng (9 Oct 2009)

Great summary Mr Campbell.

However, couldn't help but giggle after reading the line:


> The GG and the provincial lieutenant governors are, indeed, co-equals because Her Majesty is indivisible. The sovereign “exists” in three forms:


Sounds very Catholic - like the Holy Trinity....   ;D

cheers,
Frank


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2009)

At 6-ish this morning, you'd find this at the GG's roles & responsibilities page (PDF also attached, marked "Before")

The original link here now brings up this message:


> Error 404
> 
> Page not found
> 
> ...



Never fear, though, because now there's a new, improved roles & responsibilities page here:


> .... The Crown is a legal body or institution through which the head of State caries out his or her duties. Our head of State is placed above the government. The head of State does not exercise political authority and is non partisan.
> 
> The Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) places executive power in the Crown. However, in practice this power is exercised by the federal government. The governor general therefore acts on the advice of the prime minister and the government but has the right to be consulted, to encourage, to warn and to meet with them on a regular basis. Although free to refuse such advice, the Crown normally accepts by convention and sanctions bills to give them the force of law. In other words, the governor general provides formal consent to the government’s intentions and ensures its continuity ....



More about this in MSM here.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2009)

A buddy of mine earned the enduring nickname Corps Envelopement because when conducting a section attack he decided to go "flanking"  and flanked so wide he was half way to Fredricton before he returned to the Range.

First reaction - well there goes the election.
Second reaction - the Quebecers will be back in the Liberal/Bloc fold in no times flat
Third reaction - the Liberals will be looking at this as an opportunity for the election
Fourth reaction - the NDP: Socialists or Monarchists?  Unclear.
Fifth reaction - Harper's stand is strong beer for much of his base
Sixth reaction - Is this chosen ground for an election?


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2009)

Or, there could be machinations at work to replace Ms Jean.

Personally, I'd like to see the Queen appoint the GG from a list of potential candidates supplied by the PM. I think that if HM is going to devolve some of her powers then she has the right to have a personal stake in who they are devolved to.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> ... I don't mind the monarchy, but I'm not a fan of it.
> I am a staunch federalist, but I would like to see a Canadian republic after the current monarch's reign.



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, are Norman Spector’s (well informed, he was Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Mulroney and was also a very senior bureaucrat and diplomat) views:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/fixing-a-constitutional-grey-area/article1319854/


> Fixing a constitutional grey area
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




I think Prof. Bliss is exactly right. Her Majesty is _constitutionally *bound*_ to accept the advice of her prime minister, even when it might come to firing her own representative for crass, partisan political reasons, but the PM is also *bound* to hear, if not heed, her advice and warnings – and she would certainly have some for him.

The issue becomes the selection and appointment of the GG.

I do not believe that HM ought to have anything except the most formal role in that. It must, in my opinion be a 100% Canadian decision – made in Canada by Canadians.

The *constitutional duty* to advise the sovereign on who she should (*must*, actually) appoint to the office of GG lies with the prime minister, but there is no reason why (s)he cannot, perhaps even should not _delegate_ the nominating process to, just for example, the Senate of Canada. Or the PM might do the nominating and then allow another _agency_ to _elect_ the person he would, eventually, recommend for appointment.

No one should be excluded from consideration for being GG, but appointing superannuated political hacks should be avoided.

Of course, the current contretemps does bring us back to the _reality_ that *our*, Canadian, head-of-state is someone we “share” with several other countries and she, a most admirable woman in all respects, has a full time job in the United Kingdom.

Personally I *wish* we had a bornlives-in-Canada head-of-state, a _de jure_ rather than just a _de facto_ Canadian head of the Canadian state. I don’t mind sharing Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth with the Aussies, Brits and Kiwis but I hope she might be our last non-resident head-of-state.

But there’s a problem. The form of our state, a constitutional monarchy with the current British sovereign as monarch, is defined in our *Canadian Constitution* and it is defined in one of the parts that cannot be amended without the unanimous agreement of all the provinces and the federal parliament. The late Prime Minister Trudeau lamented that in constitutional negotiations the provinces were inclined to _“trade rights for fish”_. Can you even begin to imagine what they would want to trade for a reshaping of the very essence of the state?

But, as I have said before, there is a way.

Parliament could pass a resolution – not an Act of Parliament or a “law,” _per se_, just a resolution that expresses its _opinion_ – rather like the Nickle Resolution that *requested* that the sovereign (actually the British government) stop granting _honours_ (knighthoods and titles) to Canadians.

While the Nickle Resolution passed the House of Commons it never went father – not even to the Senate (where it was almost certain to be defeated) and it never resulted in anything being sent to London. But it served its purpose. It expressed the will of the *elected* House of Commons – the only *will* that, even in 1919, mattered in Canada and the only *will* that, even a dozen years prior to the Statutes of Westminster, bound the *King of Canada*.

A similar expression of the *will* of the Canadian House of Commons, the only *elected national* political will available to our good Queen, saying that we did not accept, for the Throne of Canada, the rules of succession of the United Kingdom – based, just for the sake of argument, on the anti-Catholic bias in the Act of Settlement of 1701 – would *bind* the entire British Royal Family.

Based on that resolution, that parliamentary opinion, when, as she must, sadly, Her Majesty dies, we would not *proclaim* anyone to be our monarch. We would still be a constitutional monarchy and the Throne of Canada would still be the “property” of the British Royal Family but “we,” Canada as represented by our parliament, and they, the Brit Royals, would be unsure of just which _Royal_ ought to have it. Into the vacuum steps the Governor General of Canada who, _de facto_ becomes the *Regent of Canada*, too. We would have a regency; now regencies are meant to be temporary, interim things but nothing says we ever have to resolve our monarchical _dilemma_. We could, almost certainly would, in our own good time, develop our own, made-in-Canada way to *select* our _de facto_ head-of-state, but (s)he wouldn’t get the job by _divine right_ any more.

I think it provides a *constitutional* way to square the circle.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2009)

Edward, 

I sense a Constitutional Conference in the making:

Current GG declaring herself de facto Head of State and PM demurs;
PM pushing for demographic redistribution in the Commons but Quebec demurs;
PM pushing for redistribution of powers between Commons and Senate but Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes demur;
Senate constantly, (hamfistedly?) sets itself up as a target for reformers
Quebec constantly pushing for devolution of powers fiscal but Ontario demurs (until acquiescing on the HST).
Most Western Provinces and Territories are/seem to be on side with some form of Constitutional Change.....

By the way, I agree with you in all of your above particulars beyond this one singular:  God Save The Queen (and the heirs and successors to which I, and I believe you as well, pledged fealty) ;D.

Edit: PS - we are adrift from the topic but all of these issues; constitution, election, Ignatieff, the Liberals, the direction of Canada..... all seem to be drifting on the breeze just now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2009)

One of the things that both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean have shown us is that we are better served when the GG is a good _communicator_. Another is the GG should be a _people person_ – someone who is comfortable in his/her own “skin” and makes other comfortable. The GG must be bilingual, of course. The GG should have a record of service to Canada. (S)he should be someone to whom we can all look up, someone we would like our children to emulate.

So, how about:







He’d be economical, too; he’s got his own uniform.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2009)

Would we have to change the GG's standard from the Lion to a Cod?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Edward,
> 
> I sense a Constitutional Conference in the making:
> 
> ...




No one in their right mind wants a constitutional conference.

I do, just for the fun of it, but that does not negate the "no one in his right mind" remark.

There is no political *will* in Canada for such a thing and no Canadian leader has enough political capital to bring the requisite _will_ to the fore.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One of the things that both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean have shown us is that we are better served when the GG is a good _communicator_. Another is the GG should be a _people person_ – someone who is comfortable in his/her own “skin” and makes other comfortable. The GG must be bilingual, of course. The GG should have a record of service to Canada. (S)he should be someone to whom we can all look up, someone we would like our children to emulate.
> 
> So, how about:
> 
> ...




The current GG's seven year term expires in 2012.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Oct 2009)

Please, no.

The man does not take advice, ignores established rules, regulations and precedence, enacts really stupid ideas...

In short, he displays the qualities we see in Parliamentarians, and not those we'd want in a GG.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No one in their right mind wants a constitutional conference.
> 
> I do, just for the fun of it, but that does not negate the "no one in his right mind" remark.



Notwithstanding the first assertion Edward, I think there is a real possibility of it being "forced".  In which case jollity will ensue.   

As I said earlier there is an awful lot of "stuff" drifting along out there and sometimes that makes for accidents..... in this case it would be an accident that might be put to good use IF you were of a mind to re-order the power structure.  Jus' sayin'.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No one in their right mind wants a constitutional conference.
> 
> I do, just for the fun of it, but that does not negate the "no one in his right mind" remark.
> 
> There is no political *will* in Canada for such a thing and no Canadian leader has enough political capital to bring the requisite _will_ to the fore.



The mind boggles at the prospect of another go at the constitution, or at the prospect of redefining the role or method of selection of the GG. Having suffered through the Charlottetown Accord (not the Conference of 1864), where the likes of Joe Clarke and Judy Rebick attempted to reorder Canada, I doubt that a solution that can gain acceptance from sea to sea to sea is dobable. 

Yes, there are all sorts of faults and fault lines in the present system, and plenty of people of ill will more than willing to exploit them. Watch and see how difficult a task the perfectly legal and constitutional distribution of seats based on population growth and patterns will be. Technically it is simple; practically it would take a majority government with its power base in the areas that would see their seats increased to pull it off without flinching. Even then, it still would be very, very untidy, especially if it was being perceived as a slight to old Canada east of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Perhaps a MOD could move this entire thread to here.
> 
> In the interim: This leads us into tricky _constitutional_ terrain and especially into the _unwritten_ part of *our* Constitution, referred to in the very first part:
> 
> ...




In the above you define the Sovereign as "The Queen in Parliament", "The Queen in Council",  "The Queen on the Bench".  I think you might have added "The Queen at the head of her Army"  except that the Queen has no army even though her Colonial Governors are Commanders - in - Chief of their Armies.

The  Governor General's site makes (woops made - the site is currently being redesigned again as of 8:08am Mountain Time), reference to the Crown as representing the State because she is Head of State.

I think/believe that all of those assertions are incorrect on similar grounds.  Since 1689 the Monarch has had no supremacy over Parliament or the Army nor over the Bench.  And she has had steadily diminished authority even in Council.  All of those institutions have progressively become the preserve of the demos and are, at least in theory (de jure or de facto) subject to civilian control.

I think that the statement the Crown represents the State errs.  I believe that it would be truer to see the Crown as the embodiment of the Nation with the Queen earning the Dantonesque title of First Citizen or the First of the Demos.  In Britain that position would probably not be as remarkable as it is here because patently the Queen does not connect with Canadians to the extent she connects with Brits, and even there her connection is "imperfect".

However, if we see Her Majesty as First Citizen then we see the Demos in authority over Parliament, over the Executive, over the Bench and over the Army, thus preserving intact the concept of Civilian Control.  

I suggest further that the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, as appointees of the Sovereign are in effect appointees of the Demos and thus, in effect nothing more than the most senior Civil Servants in the land.

So, in my view, the Queen, Elizabeth II, acting as Sovereign and Head of State with authority over Parliament,  Council, Bench and Army, and backed by the legitimacy of the Demos, would be an awesome and terrifying prospect.   The convoluted and misbegotten beauty of our system is that she is all of those things and had vestigial powers in all of those areas but has real authority over none.   Her role, perhaps analogously, could be likened to the President of the United States being told he has but one opportunity to influence events in the US - to press a button releasing all the Nation's nuclear assets in the event he doesn't like the direction discussions are going.  Beyond that he can only advise and warn in private.  But absent a credible threat he has no real leverage.  Likewise with Her Majesty, unless she is willing to "blow up" the entire system and hope to be in a position to conduct a reorg with the remnants (a process that some of my management has tried in the past), she has no credible method of influencing the debate.  

Effectively she becomes a virtual locus around which all the other power players circle playing out their interminable games. She exists but does not exist.  She referees but has no whistle.  She is necessary but superfluous.  

With Her, or the institution of the Crown broadly, we have a system that works, even if haltingly at times.  Without Her we have to invent Her......

And if we invent Her we run the risk of putting in her place someone who actually thinks that the powers of the Monarch, (Head of State, Sovereign, supreme in Parliament, Governance, the Bench and Commander - in - Chief,  possessor of the Button,) are theirs to use..... especially if legitimated by direct election by the Demos.

I would far rather have an illegitimate Monarch with constrained powers as figurehead of the Nation than a legitimated Monarch/Monarch Pro Tem/President/Governor-General with all the forces of the State at their beck and call.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2009)

Good! You understood Bagehot.

*Constitutionally* (again the unwritten part, the part that *really matters*) the Queen IS all the things I said but, *practically*, she is what Bagehot and you have described. And it has to be that way or else we, Australians, Brits and Canadians, would have to write down the important parts of our various constitutions, including the one we all share, and that would be disastrous.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good! You understood Bagehot.



Thank You, Yoda.   ;D

Edit:  Less facetious, and more concise - Is this a fair summation of the Role of Her Majesty? She denies supreme authority to all merely by being a place-holder (a Lieutenant?)


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The current GG's seven year term expires in 2012.



I don't think there is a term other than at the pleasure of Her Majesty.  It is understood to be five years with a 2 year bonus for not ticking off the PM.  Jean has 11 months to go.

While the PM could ask the Queen to replace the GG at any time, it would probably just provide fodder to the opposition to guarantee an election loss.  I doubt that the GG imagining herself as Queen is sufficient grounds to get the boot.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One of the things that both Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean have shown us is that we are better served when the GG is a good _communicator_. Another is the GG should be a _people person_ – someone who is comfortable in his/her own “skin” and makes other comfortable. The GG must be bilingual, of course. The GG should have a record of service to Canada. (S)he should be someone to whom we can all look up, someone we would like our children to emulate.
> 
> So, how about:
> 
> ...



Lest we forget.  The "misunderstandings" with Gordon O'Connor have probably not been forgotten nor foregiven so he isn't getting appointed by any Conservative.  Also he is too competent to be ever appointed by any Liberal government.


----------



## TCBF (11 Oct 2009)

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Grit+determination+many+faces+Lynda+Haverstock/2078692/story.html

- Lynda Haverstock gets my vote.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2009)

Happy Birthday - Joan Cook, Liberal Senator

http://www.liberal.ca/en/team/senators/1804_joan-cook


> Educated in the school systems of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, she was born in English Harbour West, Newfoundland on *October 6, 1934*. Senator Cook is a widow, and the mother of two children: Diane and Jean.



So she turns 75 and retires from the Senate. The GG will appoint a Conservative replacement at the request of the PM, bringing the Tories to 47 + 6 Independants = 53. At 52, the Lieberals now lose their Senate majority position. Although the Independants don't always vote with the Tories.

Two more Libs and an Indy will be retired at years end (well, by 02 Jan 10) also. http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp?sortord=R&Language=E


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Oct 2009)

At any time Harper could appoint 4 or 8 extra senators and end the charade.  It's about time.  Mind you the last time this was done was to push through the GST.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Oct 2009)

The way I read it, HM Queen Elizabeth II is not our "Head of State"...she _is_ the State.

As well, also the way I read it, the GG is not a _de facto_ Head of State, but has most of the duties and responsibilities of the Sovereign delegated to him/her by the Sovereign.  This would be like the Minister delegating his/her duties and responsibilities to other civil servants underneath.  Those civil servants do not become "_de facto_ Ministers".  

The Sovereign's authority and sovereignty are not transferred to her representative.  She merrily delegates certain responsibilities to her representative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2009)

Correct on both counts.

Here are the _Letters Patent_ through which the sovereign (King George VI) _delegated_ his powers. He could not _transfer_ his powers unless he *abdicated* in favour of the GG - he did not do that.

A very imprefect analog is CO and DCO. When the CO is away on leave or TD the DCO acts for him/her but the DCO does not become the CO - that lawful appointment remains the *property* of the person to whom it was assigned.

In the case of a sovereign we still purport to believe - according to the religious service of coronation - that a god _assigned_ the role of monarch to her/him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2009)

Given the imminent arrival of Prince Charles and Camilla, several members of the Canadian _commentariat_ have weighed in on the issue of the monarchy most, like the _Globe and Mail_’s Jeffrey Simpson and the _Ottawa Citizen_’s Janice Kennedy  - who are pretty ‘normal’ examples of the mainstream opinion - demonstrating a high degree of contempt for the Constitution.

Simpson says:

_”Canada has the luxury, assuming the Queen remains in good health – long may she reign! – to prepare for the transition to making the Office of the Governor-General the office of the head of state, period. No constitutional debates about whether the Queen or G-G is head of state, de jure or de facto, distinctions that leave all but the most discerning foreigner, to say nothing of ordinary Canadians, baffled.

There is no golden formula for executing this move, although options abound. The head of state could be selected by Parliament, the people, or the 150 Companions of the Order of Canada, a representative sample of the best citizens the country has produced.

We need only to make the decision that we should make a decision, and then figure out the modality to executing it. Polls, for what they are worth, suggest that Canadians in the majority would be prepared for a change, sensing that, yes, the time is right.”_

Kennedy says:

_”It is time to say goodbye to our indisputably British monarch. And it's time to replace that monarch with an indisputably Canadian head of state -- legally, culturally, constitutionally and no longer merely the "de facto" noted recently by Rideau Hall.

Predictably, conservative alarmists warn of dire consequences for such rashness, as if we'd be severing the limb of our own past and then bleeding to death. Some, like Calgary Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz, actually predict that a monarchy-free Canada would "only be able to identify itself as U.S. Lite." Except that it's not a limb we're severing. We won't bleed to death.

The power of the monarch -- yes (sigh), our official head of state -- is primarily and effectively symbolic, like the power associated with heads of state in numerous modern democracies around the world. So worrying about the modalities of choosing a head of state is pointless.

In Canada, if we ever got off our duffs and decided to add symbolic independence to actual independence, we could even maintain the process we have now for finding governors general, with governments appointing well-regarded Canadians to the post for fixed terms.

Those figures' authority would derive from and reside permanently in the people and nation of Canada, not in an anachronistic echo of our history.”_


That’s all true enough and it’s all well and good, as far as it goes but along comes uncommonly sensible Norman Spector to remind them and us, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, that we DO have a Constitution and that matters:




> We're stuck with Chuck
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...



But, Spector is wrong to say that we are “stuck, for the ages.”

There *IS* a provision to change the Constitution. While I agree with Spector that there is NO political will to do that, it means that the _possibility_ of changing the _form_ of the head-of-state is _Constitutionally possible_. Although getting rid of the monarch (but not the monarchy, _per se_) is a bigger ‘deal’ than getting rid of British _honours_ (lordships and knighthoods, etc) we did that in 1919 without ever passing a law – the Nickle Resolution *asked* the sovereign to stop awarding titles to Canadians and the sovereign is *obliged* – by the really, really important and wholly unwritten parts of the Constitution - to obey the will of her Canadian parliament; and the British parliament in Westminster is, equally, *obliged* to respect Canada’s sovereignty in all matters related to the Throne of Canada.

A simple resolution saying, for example, that Canada does not recognize the UK’s various Acts of Succession and Settlement (which discriminate against Roman Catholics and, therefore, offend our Charter values) will be sufficient to prevent Charles from claiming or ascending to the Throne of Canada on the sad day when his mother, our most gracious sovereign lady Elizabeth, dies – as she will. There will still be a Throne of Canada, not one word of the Constitution Act (1867 or 1982) will have been changed, and we will, explicitly, remain a constitutional monarchy, the _’property’_ of the lawful heirs and successors of Queen Victoria. But, since we will, on a fine Constitutional point,  _disagree_ with the UK and Australia and several other countries about just who those *lawful* heirs and successors might be, the new King of Australia and, separately, of new King the United Kingdom will not be the new King of Canada because he and his mother, respecting the will of Canada’s parliament as, Constitutionally, they *must*, will have surrendered _his_ claim to  _our_ crown.

The situation that will obtain is that we will not have a _named_ sovereign. Our sovereign will be absent. Our sovereign will exist, somewhere, we will suppose, but we will be unsure about who (s)he may be. Constitutionally we will all _assume_ that, eventually, we will get around to naming a sovereign but, in the interim – a long, long, long interim, we will _select_ (somehow) a Regent1 of Canada. The regent – we can call him or her whatever we want, governor general, president, whatever, just not king or queen, and we can select him or her in pretty much any way we want – will be both the _de facto_ and _de jure_ head-of-state. 


----------
1.	The Wikipedia article is useful because it links (by FN 1) to the OED’s definition - which specifies that a regent may 'protect' the throne during the _absence_ of the monarch - and it shows the long list of regents in current and former monarchies, demonstrating that regencies are not abnormal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting article about the gun registry and parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/rural-overrepresentation-defeats-the-peoples-will/article1353380/


> Rural overrepresentation defeats the people's will
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I agree with Ibbitson about the rural/urban split. I have complained, time and again, about the *inequality* in our system. But I also agree with parliamentarians: reducing the number of rural ridings, making them “impossibly large” is not the way to go. The right way to go is towards a larger and larger HoC – my  guesstimate is that we need about 451 seats in the HoC (up from 308 today – about a 50% increase).

With specific regard to the gun registry debate, in my opinion:

1.	It is unlikely to be drastically changed in committee. As a _general rule_ committees should avoid making fundamental changes to bills that passed first reading. It doesn’t always work that way, but I suspect that no one, not even the BQ, wants to really annoy rural voters. Delay may well be the best tool the pro-registry folks have;

2.	It may get delayed in the Senate but, for the same ‘fear of farmers’ reason it is unlikely to be voted down or altered in any fundamental way. This is a _wedge_ issue and the Conservatives want to exploit it; thus

3.	It *may* well die on the order paper and the long gun registry may survive as is.

But:

•	If this bill does die on the order paper or is altered in committee or in the Senate, the Liberals (and the NDP)  *will* pay a price in the next election – a price neither party can afford; or

•	If this bill passes the public will, fairly quickly, forget. When the long gun part disappears and when there is no spike in gun violence (as I am about 99.9% certain will be the case) people will shrug and say, as the _Globe and Mail_ did in an editorial:



> The money spent on the federal long-gun registry would be better spent on preventing handguns and other weapons from crossing the border into Canada, or on youth programs in the most at-risk neighbourhoods. If the registry dies because of a Conservative private-member's bill, which passed a key vote this week, it would not be a defeat for gun control. It would be the end of a costly bureaucratic system whose benefits are uncertain.
> ...
> Gun control will not die with the long-gun registry, if it is indeed scrapped. Canadians will still be required to register handguns, and they will still need a licence for all guns, whether pistols, rifles or shotguns. They will still need to pass safety and background checks meant to prevent dangerous or irresponsible people from owning guns. And rules for the storage of hunting guns need not change.
> 
> One member of Parliament argued that there is no reason to burn down a house one has overpaid for. But there is no reason to pay forever for a mistake, either.



This issue, guns, does resonate with Canadians; they want "gun control." The problem for the BQ, Liberals and NDP is that it is not a *key* issue and people in the fast growing "bedroom" suburbs are unlikely to vote one way or the other based upon the fate of the *long gun* registry. The central urban vote, which is already Liberal/NDP, that will not change based on the long gun registry. The rural vote will not change *unless the bill fails*. The place to exploit is the suburbs - where the BQ, Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are all _competitive_. The Conservatives need to be seen to be tough on guns - on *hand guns* in the hands of (visible minority) urban kids. That will get suburban voters' attention and support.

This _may_ be a watershed issue. Canadians say, in poll after poll, that they want parliament to work in a minority situation and that they ‘like’ minorities because they hope (against experience) that parliamentarians of all parties will _work together_. This private member’s bill is almost exactly what Canadians say they want. If parliament tinkers too much with the bill or delays it too long then the Conservatives will be able to say: “See? Minorities are not good. They cannot be made to work. Even when members of several parties vote together on something the Liberals will find a way to defeat the will of the majority.”

There are two questions here:

1.	How will parliament ‘work’ on this issue?

2.	How should we fix the *inequality* in our parliamentary system?


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2009)

In my opinion, Mr. Ibbitson makes a false claim:


> Urban voters support the registry, and any other measure that limits gun violence. Rural voters oppose the registry, seeing in it an insidious government conspiracy to pry rifles and shotguns out of hunters' and farmers' infuriated hands.


He is implying that the Long Gun Registry (LGR) is a measure that limits gun violence.  I believe that there is no evidence to suggest this.
He also implies that rural voters oppose the LGR because of some conspiracy theory.  I also believe that there is no evidence to suggest this.  (I'm certain that there are some conspiracy theorists who oppose the LGR on these grounds; however, it's not wide spread).
Mr. Ibbitson also ignores the urban folks who SUPPORT scrapping the LGR.  If 8/10 Canadians live in Urban areas, and if 2/3 support the LGR (as is suggested by the polls), then there MUST be some support in the cities, even if ALL those who support it live in cities.  (To illustrate using common denominators, 12/15 Canadians live in cities, while "only" 10/15 support the LGR.  What of the other 2/15 Urban dwellers?)

My opinion is that Rural Canadians who oppose the LGR do so because (a) they realise that it doesn't stop crime and (b) it affects them personally.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Nov 2009)

Mister Ibbitson has a thing about rural Canadians. In about 2005 he pounded on about how the CPC could never come to power as it was shut out of sophisticated, urban Canada. Apparently, places like Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa (as well as we rural rubes) are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the finer things in life such as Liberal MPs.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2009)

That the scion of a band of inbred Germans followed in his father's adulterous footsteps with a married woman, only to marry her after her husband divorced her, his wife left him, and his ex-wife was killed in an accident, should have no impact on a nation such as Canada.

Unfortunately, we're on the hook for that couple's sightseeing jaunt across the country.  And left with the unfortunate realization that, bad as it might be, the proposed republican alternatives may be worse...


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Nov 2009)

Does that mean that 20 % of the population produce the food for the 80 % who live in cities???

Have you ever met, or spoken one on one with John Ibbitson??


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Does that mean that 20 % of the population produce the food for the 80 % who live in cities???
> 
> Have you ever met, or spoken one on one with John Ibbitson??




Actually, a bit more than 1% of Canadians *produce* the food for the other 98+% of us. I am certain, but I cannot come up with a number, that at least as many, almost certainly more, Canadians are involved with the transportation, storage, processing and _distribution_ (selling) of food - much of which is imported.

Rural Canada ≠ Canadian farmers. Farmers have been a steadily declining _share_ of the population for over a century but _rural_ Canada has grown – not anywhere near as fast as _urban_ Canada, but the 6 million Canadians (nearly the population of Québec) who live in _rural_ Canada is more than lived there _circa_ 1910 when about half the population was _rural_ (the total population of Canada was just below 7 million in 1910).

What appears, to me, to be happening, right now, is that _urban_ Canada is _thinning_ or, at the very least, not growing, while _suburban_ Canada is growing fast and _rural_ Canada is growing slowly.

None of that *excuses* the gross representational inequality that is so characteristic of our political system. Canadians farmers or miners or _rustics_ of whatever sort have no ‘entitlement’ to votes that are *worth* more than say, factory workers or accountants or soldiers. One vote should be worth pretty much the same as another. In an earlier post, where I proposed a 451 seat HoC, I outlined how only about 250,000 Canadians (those living in PEI and the three territories) would have votes that are *worth* more than twice that of the other 33 million Canadians. The rest of us would all have votes *worth* only a few (single digit) percentage points more or less than those of anyone else.

Re: Ibbitson. In fact I have met him. He’s a pleasant, well informed and well intentioned gentleman. His _problem_ is that, like Jeffrey Simpson, for example, he’s a classic Torontonian – it doesn’t matter where one was born, being a Torontonian is a _state of mind_, but for many of them it is a _blinkered_ state of mind that causes them to be unable to see all the parameters of a problem. All they can see is what is straight ahead, in Toronto. 






Ibbitson, like Simpson, sees Washington, London and Beijing from Toronto’s perspective and that how they see Calgary (which Simpson detests, viscerally) and Unity, SK, too. 




Unity, SK – a prairie town a bit West of Saskatoon, near to the farm where my mother was born in 1910.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Nov 2009)

ERC: I was being a smart alec re the 20/80 %.

Spoke to Ibbitson a couple of times. You are right on with the analysis. 

He his also a bit vain re hair loss.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That the scion of a band of inbred Germans followed in his father's adulterous footsteps with a married woman, only to marry her after her husband divorced her, his wife left him, and his ex-wife was killed in an accident, should have no impact on a nation such as Canada.



Tell us how you _really_ feel!  

 >


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Tell us how you _really_ feel!
> 
> >


Hey, if we're going to be under a German (the house of _Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha_), make them a proper Emperor or Imperatrix, and get the army those funky spiked hats.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hey, if we're going to be under a German (the house of _Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha_), make them a proper Emperor or Imperatrix *Kaiser*, and get the army those funky spiked hats.  That's all I'm saying.


Like this one?




 >


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2009)

Disregarding the invidious slights to the Oldenburg clan (and we used to have nice pointy helmets - the Met still wears them sans pickel):

Setting that aside - what Mr. Ibbitson fails to recognise is that if the rural communities fail then there wiill only be "spaces" between his glorious "places".  Canada would quickly become 3-10 disparate islands with a whole bunch of Afghanistan in between.  The cost to maintain the Praire Village (Winnipeg-Calgary-Admonchuk Triangle), Northern Ont, Interior BC, The Territories, Lac St Jean, and most of the Maritimes is the price that Ibbitson pays to maintain the fiction that is Canada.  Consider it the Canadian version of the price of Empire.

Now if he wants to describe a set of laws that only apply to TOMOVA and leaves the rest of the land in peace he is welcome to do so.  The mechanism exists.  It is known as the By-Law.  He is quite welcome to suggest, implement and pay for the cost of said implementation out of his own municipal taxes - And if that includes Check Stops at the city limits - AKA Customs stations - so be it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All they can see is what is straight ahead, in Toronto.



Toronto has the Brass Rail. Can't be all bad.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2009)

Actually, Canada will probably become a Republic sometime in the mid century through demographic forces.

Short version of the argument: while Canada erodes with a very sub replacement birthrate, the United States is continuing to expand, with the population expected to be between 500 and 550 million. At the same time, Canada will be suffering acute labour shortages due to the demographic "bust" of the 2020's.

Large numbers of Americans can be expected to immigrate to Canada seeking the higher pay employers will be forced to offer to get workers, and they will also import their values. As they become more numerous and politically active, they will become the driving force behind many social and institutional changes.

Remember too that it is the "Red State" Americans who have large families, not "Blue State" Americans, and the generations leading up to 2050 will have seen Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid go bankrupt (along with many US municipalities and even some States like California, Michigan and New York). Come to think of it, most of us will be around to see it happen (some estimates put the entitlement programs into net deficit as soon as 2016), so there will be at least two generations of Americans who will not be disposed towards unsustainable entitlements, and certainly will work hard to see these things do not happen in their new home. 

"Oh say can you see...."


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Nov 2009)

Being a smart alec again, this will mean we will finally have some good Tex-Mex restaurants in Canada.

What year is it estimated that Hispanics will reach the 50% of the population of the USA??

In Texas, it is not unusual to see families of all stripes with 3 or more children.

Very interesting post Thucydides and Kirkhill.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Toronto has the Brass Rail. Can't be all bad.


Toronto also has the Village Idiot Pub, which I find coincidentally close to the Provincial Legislature.  

[/thread derail]


...oh, and St Louis Wings, south of Eglinton, is fine....when Connie's working   :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Toronto has the Brass Rail. Can't be all bad.



<contributing to the train wreck JM started>

Yes, indeed!

How I remember the trips from Camp Borden - ah, the good old RCSofI - and back (hazy, that part) to/from the _big smoke_ and the Brass Rail and the Brown Derby and so on.

There were others, but I'm too old to recall.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2009)

[Continuing derail]

How to embarrass any VanDoo:

"Remember that time at _L'Entre Nous_?"

Sort of like the Brass Rail, but less classy, with a wider array of ways for troops to spend their pay.

And (at least 20 years ago) they would cash Government of Canada cheques north of $1000...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

<drags the thread, kicking and screaming, back towards the topic>

This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, puts things in perspective:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/city-slickers-and-the-legend-of-canada-as-an-urban-nation/article1356147/


> City slickers and the legend of Canada as an urban nation
> 
> Roy MacGregor
> 
> ...



The Elections Canada web site is a good place to see what McGregor is saying. Look at these maps and pay attention to the scales at the bottom of each:






This is a *real* urban riding – hundreds of thousands of people _concentrated_ in a small area.





This, still in Ontario, is a real rural riding – several tens of thousands of people _scattered_ over vast areas.





Here’s another rural riding, with the town of Unity which I mentioned above.





Here is a mixed riding – several small towns scattered across real rural areas.





And here is one of those fast growing _suburban_ ridings: hundreds of thousands iof people _concentrated_ in a relatively small area but they have different *vital interests* than do the people who are _concentrated_ in the real urban ridings in downtown Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Nov 2009)

Interesting bit of work by Mr McGregor. Thanks for posting it, Edward, along with the maps. A good number of years ago I discovered that there were only 28 centres in Canada with a population greater than 100,000. That probably has grown, both by natural increase and by amalgamations. 

I live in North Grenville, Ontario which has a population of about 13,000. It therefore probably qualifies as urban, although it measures roughly 20 km by 20 km, includes three or four towns - the largest of which has a population of 3500 - 4000 - and prides itself on its rural roots. If North Grenville is typical, then Statistics Canada is talking through its butt.

Which leads to the classic "so what?" Perhaps there is another way of distinguishing between city and others, perhaps by population density. Even that might be skewed in Ottawa (and Timmins) which covers a very large geographic area compared to other places of equal population. Does it matter? Is there a difference in attitudes and ways of life? Probably, and that is a good thing, as the life styles are adapted to the local conditions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

Consider my third map, above - the one that has Unity in it. It also has one major *urban* centre: North Battleford (pop 14,000). Is North Battleford really an *urban* place like _Parkdale High Park_ (first map) or _Ottawa Centre_, where I live? *Not on your nellie!*

Unity, SK, which is a lovely little town - not just because my roots are there, has a population of about 2,500. Does anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thinks Unity belongs in the same _designation_ as Halifax?

I suspect that we are a _moderately_ urban nation, with very, very many _suburban_ and _small town_ centres and a substantial _rural_ population, too.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Consider my third map, above - the one that has Unity in it. It also has one major *urban* centre: North Battleford (pop 14,000). Is North Battleford really an *urban* place like _Parkdale High Park_ (first map) or _Ottawa Centre_, where I live? *Not on your nellie!*



You missed one; you forgot Lloydminister  (pop. 24,000+) which sits on the SK-AB border and has 8,000+ plus people on the Sask side. However, Lloyd (as the locals call it) is incorporated as a single city, not two cities with the same name, so I'm not sure if its considered an Alberta or Saskatchewan city? Or may be its in some prairie limbo?

An even better example is the new "city" of Meadow Lake*  which just became the newest city in SK (to be a city in SK you must have a pop over 5,000).  Now according to Statscan Meadow Lake (or just Meadow) is an "urban" entity but as anyone who has ever visited the place would never considered it to be urban in the sense that Statscan or Ibbitson envision. 

The problem with commentators like Ibbitson is that they never get out of that TO-Ottawa-Montreal area and have no ideal of the rest of the country if like.

* Meadow Lake is located in the Misssinippi- Churchill River electoral district. And yes, E.R., I'm SK born, 75 or so miles north of where you are from, except my town is so small its not even on the electoral map!


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2009)

Kirkhill's definition of urban - any body of humans that who generate smog.  If you can't see a cloud over your community from exhausts then you are probably not sufficiently "densified" to qualify as a top of the charts urban environment.  With the exception of certain resource extraction communities that seems to require, from personal observation a population upwards of 500,000 people.

From Stats Canada that would limit Urban Canada to the following cities:
Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.

They have a combined population of 15.6 million bodies in their metro areas including suburbs and exurbs or roughly half of Canada's 33 million residents - and that assumes that all of those 15.6 million have urban sensibilities..... On the other hand the civil servants of Regina are decidedly Urbane.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2009)

The issue smacks of the "group rights" mentality that infects most Socialist/Leftist/Progressive political thinking. Just because people live in urban rideings does not mean they have similar values (just like union menbers are rarely enamoured of the policy proposals of the NDP).

Torontonians are not like Calgarians, and even Calgarians and Edmontonians have different values and interests (note that Edmonton was a Liberal stronghold in the West throughout the 1990's, while Cargary was enthusiastically Reform minded). 

The essential issue is the number of voters being represented per riding, and the fact that we would have to either undo the BNA and Constitution acts or develop unwieldy 800 member+ parliaments to ensure relatively equal representation; both proposals too toxic for serious consideration.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a useful reminder from Jeffrey Simpson that Prime Minister Harper’s options are limited on the Senate reform front:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/senate-reform-an-altered-state-of-affairs/article1422994/
my *emphasis* added


> Senate reform: an altered state of affairs?
> *The Supreme Court has already said Ottawa is in no position to try anything unilaterally*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...




Essentially, as I have said, more than once, going back a long time, there is a way to do most of what Harper wants to do, *within the constraints of the Supremes’ ’79 ruling*:

1.	The PM writes two letters:

a.	The first to each provincial premier telling him/her than he intends, by _convention_, to limit the way he appoints senators. He will, effective whenever, appoint to the Senate of Canada only those who –

(1)	Are constitutionally qualified (§23 of the BNA Act),

(2)	Are *elected by their province*, usually in senatorial elections that are held in conjunction with a provincial general election and by a system that, broadly, reflects the outcome of that provincial general election, and

(3)	Present him with a signed letter of resignation - effective the date of the next provincial general election, before being appointed, and

b.	The second to each serving senator, asking for a signed letter of resignation, effective the date of the next provincial general election; and

2.	The PM needs to explain – publicly - that he will not let provinces go unrepresented in the Senate but he will still demand, of those he appoints for his own, political, reasons, the same letter of resignation – thus, _[de facto_ ensuring that senators are not appointed for life.

It will take a long time to achieve a fully elected Senate – not all serving senators will want to resign, some will hang on, in their sinecures, for 20 years or so but, eventually, appointed senators will understand that they are second class citizens compared to their elected counterparts and those who don’t bump into the age limit will resign out of frustration. Not all provinces will, initially, go along – but the hold outs will, eventually, understand that despite having enough senators they have ‘second class’ (unelected) representation and they, too, will sign on.

*Elected* senators will, with public support, make themselves *effective* because they will be willing to challenge the will of the elected HoC – putting provincial interests, including Quebec’s interests, into play and giving the overrepresented “Old Canada” (everything East of the Ottawa River) even more undue influence in the parliament of Canada.

An elected Senate will complicate life for the PM – even a majority government (in the HoC) may not be able to command the loyalty of the Senate. Even worse, who is to say that a BC Liberal senator will join the federal Liberal caucus – many BC Liberals are, in fact, Conservatives. The Saskatchewan Party Senators may, well, caucus with the federal Tories and so on.

But it – Senate reform – can be done, within the limits imposed by the SCC, and Senate reform might, sooner rather than later, lead to _constitutional convention_ that will, finally, deal with several aspects of the old (1867 thru 1982), rickety Constitution of Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2010)

Edward:

I've favoured a similar system, with senators selected from provincial party lists based on proportion of popular vote in the province - that is, they are senators at large for the province as a whole; for continuity, perhaps electing half in each provincial election - that is, a senate term would be two election cycles within the province.

In a better world, we'd also see some reshuffling of seats - I'd like a senate of 112: 5 seats per province, 2 per territory, plus the remaining 56 divided by population among the provinces, re-allocated three years after the census...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is another suggestion re: how to accomplish senate reform:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/fixing-the-red-chamber-step-by-step/article1465044/


> Fixing the Red Chamber, step by step
> *Senate reform requires a delicate dance, but Stephen Harper still has a constitutional trump card to play*
> 
> Tom Flanagan
> ...



I agree with Prof. Flanagan that the government should not refer this to the _Supremes_ – let (a) province(s) make the challenge. I also agree with the government that the senate, itself, should introduce a bill to limit senatorial terms but I do not agree that the senate (or the HoC) should try to force elections through legislation. I think my proposal – two letters, etc – is better because it establishes a _constitutional convention_ when the prim minister limits his own power and, in the long run, that is likely to be much more effective that any legislation and much tougher to challenge or change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2010)

Link Byfield, former editor and publisher of the now defunct but resolutely small ‘c’ _*c*_onservative _Alberta Report_, is on the right track in this column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/764818--let-provincial-voters-elect-senators


> Let provincial voters elect senators
> Published On Tue Feb 16 2010
> 
> Link Byfield
> ...



Indeed, senators should be elected by the provinces, during each provincial general election – on some sort of proportional representation system that reflects the (rough) split of the provincial vote.

That means (were such a system in place today) we would have _PQ_ senators – who would, most likely, caucus with the BQ, and NDP senators who would caucus with the NDP. We would also have BC and Québec Liberals, who might not (all) caucus with the federal Liberals and we will have Saskatchewan Party senators who would, likely, caucus with the Conservatives. It would make life more complicated for the prime minister and it might just rejuvenate democracy in this sad, tired country.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2010)

Anything to shake up the system, E.R.


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Mar 2010)

Now that we're running such massive deficits, I got to thinking "What do we _really_ need, and what can be dropped?"

Granted, we are still financially better off than most countries in the world, but that doesn't mean we can't still make some fundamental changes that would get us in the black faster and when we get there surge into big-time surplus territory.

There are 105 of them, and their requirements at work would almost be a joke if it wasn't such an abysmal waste of our money.  Everyone knows the story, they basically aren't accountable to go to work, and they aren't expected to move the yard sticks down the field.  I'm not saying they have no purpose at all, but in a time of financial hardship can they really be justified anymore?  

In terms of savings, the cost of having them is astronomically more than just their salaries.  If it were just a matter of (for argument's sake) $100,000 year x 105 of them it would be over $10 million per year alone, but that cost is a fraction of the true cost for them in terms of expenses, travel, staff, and infrastructure to keep the whole institution up and running.

By no means am I writing this in the context of "tell me how right I am", but I'd actually like to discuss it.  I would be more than willing to admit that I'm wrong if the majority believes the Senate serves enough of a purpose to be kept.

I just can't find the justification, though.  If we had more money than we could spend as a country then sure, but we don't.


----------



## Brasidas (25 Mar 2010)

I don't see it as a justifiable body.

If you're going to have a bicameral parliament, then do the "triple-E" thing that a particular party once talked about.

But there's no real need for a second house, let alone one with overpaid patronage appointments and questionable accountability for a job well-done.

Consolidate, pension off the ones we've got, and make a de jure unicameral parliament out of our de facto one.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Mar 2010)

Our senate, as currently constituted, is an anachronism.  If we pride ourselves in being a modern democracy, our senate should be a national embarrassment and a scandal.

Having said that, I believe that we would be worse off without an Upper Chamber.

All modern democracies, except for New Zealand, have two houses of parliament/congress.  A properly constituted Upper Chamber provides a regional balance to the mob rule of the popularly elected Lower Chamber.  Without a properly constituted Upper Chamber, we have the current situation where the population centres can ram legislation through the Lower House, and the lesser populated provinces/states have to live with the policy wishes of the higher populated provinces/states. 

As far as I'm concerned, both the status quo and dissolving the Senate are unacceptable.  If we wish to be in a modern democracy, the Senate *must* be reformed to check the power of the House of Commons.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2010)

A bicameral legislature is, in my opinion essential for a federal state. (New Zealand, being a unitary state doesn't really need one.)

The nature of a *federal* legislature requires that two interests be balanced:

1. Those of ALL the people, on a pretty close to equal basis - a situation in which Canada seriously lags most modern democracies. Votes in PEI have more than three times as much _weight_ (value) as votes in, say, downtown Calgary or Toronto; and

2. Those of the _constitutional_ partners in the federation - the provinces and states which should also be equal, regardless of size, population or wealth. Thus Ontario and PEI are _equals_ while PEI is _superior_ to Toronto because, _constitutionally_, PEI is a higher order of government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2010)

Edward has it right.  Disposing of the Senate would save a relative pittance of money.  As a body the Senate needs reform, not removal.  If you wish to save money, shear about 50% of the federal government's agencies and programs and taxation points and transfer all associated responsibilities to the provinces.  Let the provinces decide which courses to pursue, and see what happens when there are ten governments exploring best practices rather than one.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Mar 2010)

I agree with you that reforming it may be better overall than just disbanding it.

However, I disagree about downloading things to the provinces.  It may save money at the federal level, but at the end of the day now you have 13 agencies duplicating effort and that will cost us more in the big picture.

Don't get me wrong, I know Ottawa can't make the right decisions about everywhere in Canada, but if a particular service can be centralized then it should be.


----------



## Loachman (28 Mar 2010)

The federal governmemtn has certain powers and responsibilites, the provinces have others, and municipalities have their own as well. Our governments are in the messes that they are in part because higher levels of government have butted into the affairs of lower ones, generally in order to gain votes. This has caused confusion and much duplication. Each level should stay within its assigned lanes.

Duplication of effort means waste.

Regardless of which level "pays" for what now, there is still only one level of taxpayer funding all three levels of government.

I'd rather have some honesty and efficiency in the system.

This would mean that some things in which the federal government dabbles would, yes, be "downloaded", but that would only be a matter of the lower government assuming powers and responsibilities usurped by the federal government. Centralizing something is not necessarily a good thing. It takes control further from the people who are supposed to hold it, and can stifle innovation.

Regardless, our Country has been set up in the way that it has. Provinces were once colonies, with generally the powers and responsibilities that they now have under Confederation. As they freely entered into Confederation, they should retain them.

And were we to centralize all things, there would be no need for provinces and territories at all, no?

That might save far more money than abolishing the Senate, but it would also make things unwieldy - like having Corps with no Divisions or Brigades.

Are you sure that we are "allowed" to have and express opinions about this, though?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2010)

According to a report in the _National Post_, the government will introduce a bill (tomorrow) to limit senate terms. A step - but not necessarily in the best direction.

----------

Mods: could this thread be merged with the _stickied_, GG, HoC, Senate thread above, please?


----------



## SeanNewman (29 Mar 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Are you sure that we are "allowed" to have and express opinions about this, though?



Haha, that's pretty funny.

You seem like an educated man, so I will assume you know the difference between giving your opinion on concepts just as discussion (senate) and in other cases putting your opinion where it really shouldn't carry any weight (gays in the military).

We're not technically voting on anything here either, we're just talkin'.  And also about something so abstract that it's not an issue of being in/out of arcs.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2010)

I will rephrase your original question:

Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.


----------



## Yrys (29 Mar 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.



That was my thought, also, when I saw the title...

Who want to discuss the constitution, and spend time and money on that,
in "bad economic times" ?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I will rephrase your original question:
> 
> Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.



On the other hand, few people talk about this during economic good times, so when do "we" discuss these issues?


----------



## SeanNewman (29 Mar 2010)

I think that bad economic times is the best time of all, because everything has to be looked at closely.

I'm not saying that our morals should go out the door, I'm saying that money should only be spent on things that can be fully justified.

I see the Senate as having some use but nowhere near what it costs to run.  There could be 4-5 people doing the same job if the only function of the senate is to provide one extra level of top-cover oversight.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Apr 2010)

So far this doesn't seem to be an April Fool's joke:

 ;D

Canadian Press link



> *Ontario gets lion's share as government bill adds 30 new Commons seats*
> 
> 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (4 Apr 2010)

For the Senate to be an effective provincial counterweight to the House of Commons, all provinces should have an equal number of senators.  At the very least, there should be two senators per province, or twenty in total.  However, I'm guessing that twenty would be too small, since most upper houses in bicameral parliaments have more than 50 members.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2010)

I would suggest that a "triple E" senate needs to have an odd number of members (either per province or total) to ensure there are no deadlocks. Term limits and "rolling elections" like the US system (where Senators and members of Congress are not all elected at once) should also be considered.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Apr 2010)

The Senates I'm familiar with have an even number of senators, but I believe one sits as Speaker and only votes to break a tie.

Term limits and "rolling elections" would also be great to have.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2010)

Any attempt at _equality_ will require a Constitutional amendment with all that entails - which is more than politician i can think of wants to face.

An _elected_ Senate is fairly easy - as I have explained in the past, on an all too regular basis. An _equal_ Senate will, very soon, become an _effective_ one, too - no matter what the prime minister of the day may think or want. But _equality_ is a much, much tougher nut.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Apr 2010)

Agreed.  I'm just fantasizing about what it would be like if I were King of Canada.  ;D


----------



## GAP (2 May 2010)

'Bravo, Michaelle Jean': Ignatieff's GG endorsement raises eyebrows
By: Stephen Thorne, The Canadian Press 2/05/2010 
Article Link

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is urging the prime minister to extend Michaelle Jean's term as Governor General when her five-year appointment expires in September.

In an unusual break with the non-partisan tradition of all things GG, Igantieff issued a news release Sunday saying the Queen's Canadian secretary consulted him on a successor at Stephen Harper's request.

Jean has served her country with "distinction and honour" and deserves Canada's thanks, Ignatieff said.

"We just think somebody ought to get up and say: 'Bravo, Michaelle Jean; you've done a great job for Canada and in our view it would be great if you continue,'" Ignatieff told reporters after a Sunday speech.

Within hours on Sunday, the topic of Ignatieff's comments was becoming political fodder — just the sort of thing critics of his public declaration warned would happen.

The Prime Minister's Office issued an official statement saying Jean has done "an exceptional job representing Canada" and that she and Harper "have an excellent working relationship."

"It's a little disappointing that Mr. Ignatieff appears to be trying to politicize the appointment of a new GG, even after the unprecedented input that he's been asked to submit," offered a PMO source, who did not want to be identified.

"Maybe this is a bit naive, but we asked him in private and we hoped that he would keep it in private, but apparently that hasn't happened."

The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada, effectively — albeit largely ceremonially — the head of state.

Appointed by the prime minister — formally by the Queen — her roles include the power to name a new government, a particularly sensitive issue in the current minority Parliament.

"One of the governor general’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament," says the GG's website.

"In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion."

Her powers were put to the test in December 2008 when she tossed Harper a lifeline and granted his request to prorogue Parliament while his Conservative minority was about to be toppled by an opposition coalition.

"The governor general is non-partisan and non-political," says the website.

Robert Finch, dominion chair of the Monarchist League of Canada, said Ignatieff's "peculiar" public endorsement risks politicizing the appointment process and compromising the GG's independence.

"I'm a little bit blown away," Finch said in an interview. "It's certainly unusual for a leader of an Opposition — or anybody, actually — to go public with their suggestions as to who should be governor general.

"It kind of opens the realm to politics and you don't want politics entering into the nomination process of the governor general."

Finch suggested such a move can start a slippery slope, whereby political parties ultimately line up behind one candidate or another.

Jean was appointed by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin in 2005. The subject of her replacement has been widely discussed since Harper recently confirmed her term would not be extended.

Several names have been floated as potential successors, including disabled-rights campaigner Rick Hansen; former defence chief John de Chastelain; Inuit leader Mary Simon and Reform party founder Preston Manning.

A Facebook page has even sprung up where tens of thousands are advocating Montreal-born actor William Shatner — Star Trek's Captain Kirk — for the job.

"It's time for Canada to boldly go where no country has gone before," it says.

The traditional five-year terms of Canadian governors general have been extended on several occasions — by as much as two years. Among those who've been kept on were Roland Michener, Jeanne Sauve and Jean's predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson.

Said Ignatieff's release: "Ms. Jean has done a superb job. I am calling on Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision to replace her."

He said Canadians were "deeply moved by her strong and passionate performance" after the devastating earthquake in her Haitian homeland, which reportedly killed more than 200,000 people.

Her role in bringing attention to Haiti and its people's plight has been "significant, profound and needs to be sustained," Ignatieff said.

Jean has also been a powerful advocate for aboriginal and Arctic peoples, and a proud commander-in-chief who has stood alongside Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he added.

"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," said Ignatieff.

Finch said he can't imagine what Ignatieff's thinking.

"It risks (undermining) the whole non-partisan nature of the Crown," he said.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2010)

From the Liberals' news release:


> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff today called on Stephen Harper to extend the term of Governor General Michaëlle Jean when her current five-year term expires in September.
> 
> Mr. Ignatieff was consulted by the Canadian Secretary to the Queen at the request of the Prime Minister for suggestions on a successor to Ms. Jean. Mr. Ignatieff strongly urged, instead, that Ms. Jean's term be extended.
> 
> ...



Sorry, Iggy - if you can pick your own GG on your watch (if you ever get one), what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Or would YOU be willing to let the opposition tell you who to pick/keep?


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Sorry, Iggy - if you can pick your own GG on your watch (if you ever get one), what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Or would YOU be willing to let the opposition tell you who to pick/keep?



There's the small obstacle of winning an election.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's the small obstacle of winning an election.


Pfffft!  Details!  Details!

;D


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2010)

Mathematical proof there will never be a "fair" voting system. A close reading of the article indicates any system can be manipulated to get the outcome "you" want, which suggests that the best thing to do is limit the amount of damage by limiting the amount of power and reward winning an election gets.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?page=1



> *Electoral dysfunction: Why democracy is always unfair*
> •	28 April 2010 by Ian Stewart
> 
> IN AN ideal world, elections should be two things: free and fair. Every adult, with a few sensible exceptions, should be able to vote for a candidate of their choice, and each single vote should be worth the same.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2010)

A look at MMP. Note the other changes needed to make something like that work:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2010/04/revisiting-mixed-member-proportional.html



> *Revisiting the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system*
> 
> In 2007 Ontario voted to keep the traditional ‘first-past-the post’ electoral system and rejected the Mixed Member Proportional system. At the time I campaigned hard against MMP. I felt that it would lead to small parties controlling the agenda and other unpredictable outcomes. The proponents of MMP held up New Zealand as an example of why I was wrong. And New Zealand is indeed a fair case study for how the system works. New Zealand has similar cultural and institutional roots as Canada (as much as any two countries share such roots). The problem was that the proponents of MMP drew the wrong lesson from New Zealand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2010)

The Liberals ride to the rescue, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-party-favours-more-federal-seats-for-quebec/article1570822/


> Liberal Party favours more federal seats for Quebec
> *Liberals’ stance at odds with Conservative legislation, which provides 30 extra Commons seats but none in Quebec*
> 
> Daniel Leblanc
> ...



Some time back I presented a “model” based on New Brunswick, with 10 seats, being “fairly and properly, represented. I allowed that the three territories and PEI would remain grossly overrepresented and that no province should have a ‘variance’ from the ‘national average’ of more than about 10%. That produced a 451 seat legislature. I amended that to produce a 351 seat legislature - one with greater and, according to the anonymous Liberal official, unacceptable variances. 

I have refined it further. A model which meets the Liberals goal of (very nearly) 100% equality of representation for all provinces except PEI (and the territories) requires about 500 seats in the HoC – more, I think, than Canadians will accept. There is another model that has 399 seats – something we could achieve in, say, three steps, on every five years, with about 30 new seats in each step. That model has a variance of about +15% (for Newfoundland and Labrador, on the plus side) (PEI and the Territories are still excluded but their overrepresentation “falls” to around *only* 250%.) and -3% (Ontario) which, I think, ought to be acceptable.

Here is the HoC using that model:

NV .......     1
NW .......    1
YK .......      1
BC .......    51
AB .......    42
SK .......    14
MB .......   15
ON ....... 150
QC .......   92
NB ........   10
NS .......    11
PE .........     4
NF .........     7
Canada  399

(I hope the numbers add up, i.e. that there are no transcription errors.)


----------



## Journeyman (17 May 2010)

Instead of simply adding more and more politicians, I suppose it would be heretical to suggest that any reform include making current ridings larger to take in more constituents.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 May 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Instead of simply adding more and more politicians, I suppose it would be heretical to suggest that any reform include making current ridings larger to take in more constituents.



It seems to me that that would only exacerbate the PEI advantage.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mathematical proof there will never be a "fair" voting system. A close reading of the article indicates any system can be manipulated to get the outcome "you" want, which suggests that the best thing to do is limit the amount of damage by limiting the amount of power and reward winning an election gets.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?page=1



Good article, even if the calculations and conclusions are almost depressing...


----------



## Journeyman (18 May 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> > Instead of simply adding more and more politicians, I suppose it would be heretical to suggest that any reform include making current ridings larger to take in more constituents.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that that would only exacerbate the PEI advantage.


Only if the Hon Member from Borden-Carleton also assumes responsibility for some NS constituents based on the bridge's abutments 'ashore.'  

If anything, PEI would lose, so this amendment would only refer to constituencies with populations (southern BC, central Alberta, southern Ontario and Quebec)


----------



## armyvern (19 May 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It seems to me that that would only exacerbate the PEI advantage.Only if the Hon Member from Borden-Carleton also assumes responsibility for some NS constituents based on the bridge's abutments 'ashore.'
> ...



Those would then have to be New Brunswick abutment constituents ... but I know what you mean.


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Those would then have to be New Brunswick abutment constituents ... but I know what you mean.



Insert face-slap icon here. 
All those places east of Lloydminster, Alberta baffle me


----------



## armyvern (19 May 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Insert face-slap icon here.
> All those places east of Lloydminster, Alberta baffle me



Considered yourself to have been struck with the white glove; pistols at dawn.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 May 2010)

Now I know I haven't been home since Christmas but I didn't think they'd gone and moved the bridge...

 8)

And, for the record, the MPs from PEI are a force to be reckoned with...fear them, ALL (3) of them!   :blotto:


----------



## armyvern (19 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And, for the record, the MPs from PEI are a force to be reckoned with...fear them, ALL (3) of them!   :blotto:



True that.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Now I know I haven't been home since Christmas but I didn't think they'd gone and moved the bridge...
> 
> 8)
> 
> And, for the record, the MPs from PEI are a force to be reckoned with...fear them, ALL (3) of them!   :blotto:




There are four (4) of them, actually: Easter, MacAulay, Murphy and Shea, making it (whatever it is) even worse!


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2010)

Spud Island's escape route bridge goes to NS? NB? Three seats? Four? 
It's just the maritimes; details are inconsequential  >


----------



## SeanNewman (19 May 2010)

I have always been dumbounded that with 300+ MPs and 32 million people, we don't do something like having 1 MP for every 100,000 people in a cluster.

Granted the population ebbs and flows and grows in some places and drops in others, but it would simply be a matter of shifting the boundaries on fixed dates every 10 years or so if required.

Yes there are going to be some obvious fudges like one area with 90,000 and another with 100,000 due to an obvious natural or political boundary, but it would still be far better than the disproportionate representation now.


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2010)

Wow.  Have you ever read the BNA Act to understand where these questions come from?  Do you understand the process required for amendment of that document?

Or are you just randomly shooting off your ill-informed opinions?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 May 2010)

In a Parliamentary system such as ours, there is a democracy advantage to having a large number of constituencies, as you have in the U.K., if only you agree to party leader appointment process similar to that of the U.K.: The confidence of the party's members of parliament (i.e. appointment by the caucus).

With a large number, few M.P. can expect to accede to the Cabinet, and as a result, serving your constituency well, on the one hand, and making sure the PM doesn't do anything so as to cause you to lose the next election, on the other hand, become two important considerations in all your decisions. This creates a lot of back-room dealings within the backbenchers to keep the leader in check and makes the whips a little less powerful. 

For instance, with the numbers suggested by  E.R. Campbell  (399), you would need 200 members to have a majority. Even with a large Cabinet of 50, that would still mean the average MP would have a 75% chance of not making it in and little prospect of getting there later. To maintain his chances of re-election, such MP would not be inclined to necessarily support the government in all votes that are not confidence vote, would likely be a lot more vocal in caucus, may ask questions of the government in the commons that are a lot more difficult to answer than the usual "set up" questions they now ask just to make ministers look good by publicizing achievements and would likely be a lot tougher on government ministers and officials in the house committees they are member of.

All this could only be good for democracy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wow.  Have you ever read the BNA Act to understand where these questions come from?  Do you understand the process required for amendment of that document?
> 
> Or are you just randomly shooting off your ill-informed opinions?



I know we aren't allowed to do this, but:

+1

Petawhatever: I believe you are an officer; you should know better enough to avoid appearing ignorant.


----------



## SeanNewman (19 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or are you just randomly shooting off your ill-informed opinions?



(And Mr Campbell).

I'm well versed in the reasons why things are the way they are, but thank you for the insult nonetheless.

However, amendments are made to every facet of everything legal or political that has ever been a good idea at one time of another, so there are no reasons things can't change.

What I brought up is the fairest possible way to do it.  Yes I would require a fundamental shift in the way we do things, but what could be more fair than equal representation by population?  Why should one riding that's 10 times the size of another have the same say?

Edit: Going back and reading my original post I see where the confusion may be coming from (if you thought I was suggesting that the boundaries weren't adjusted now).  Yes, it was specifically the PEI-types of scenario (senatorial clause) that I was talking about that I see was also covered already.

Another example is a seat being automatically given to each territory, regardless of population.

My apology for not mentioning PEI in my first post and not seeing it above anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2010)

Although this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a bit of partisan Liberal fluff and is, in fact, offered _tongue in cheek_, it highlights an important point about *proportional representation*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/silver-powers/harper-suggests-israels-government-is-illegitimate-oops/article1593926/


> Harper suggests Israel’s government is illegitimate. Oops.
> 
> Rob Silver
> 
> ...




Israel has one of the most _proportional_ of all the various PR systems and the result has been that ‘coalitions of losers’ are almost the norm. For a period, in the ‘50s and ‘60s, Labour managed to form coalitions with only a few other small parties but, starting in the ‘70s, the situation has looked more and more like Canada when one contemplates the electoral map – left, centre and right are about evenly balanced and the religious parties fill the _spoiler_ role of the BQ.

I mentioned before that I did a quick and dirty analysis of several recent Canadian general election – taking Québec out of the equation because Québec does not vote like the rest of the country – and I determined that our ‘first-past-the-post’ does, indeed, reward large parties and punish minor ones. What surprised me, though, was how *little* the rewards and punishments mattered. When I did some extrapolations I found that, under PR, we would have had a Chrétien majority, a Martin minority and two Harper minorities, albeit somewhat differently structured than the Chrétien majority, Martin minority and Harper minorities we got, mainly in having more NDP members and a tiny handful of Greens. But I asked myself: is it *wrong* to reward those who get the *most* votes and ‘punish’ those who get fewer? Do we really want an Israeli system wherein we might well have two or even three parties to the *right of the Conservatives* and two or even three to the *left of the NDP* and two or three or even four _Québecois_ parties? Not for me, thanks.

Coalitions are legitimate, coalitions of losers are a little less legitimate than others but with some PR models, like Israel’s, and in some societies, like Canada’s and Israel’s, coalitions of losers are what you get.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2010)

Budget shenanagins in the Senate provide a powerful argument for Senate reform. Opposing Senate reform has actually cost the Liberals this round:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/302687.php



> *Budget bill passes in the Senate; naming the names*
> Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 07:46 AM
> 
> The Liberal Party has real problems with the Conservative budget.  So much so that Michael Ignatieff felt compelled to expend what little political capital he has within the Liberal Party to convince them to enter into the sort of voting charade that had become commonplace under his predecessor, the hapless Stephane Dion:
> ...


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2010)

> But what of George Baker, Romeo Dallaire, Pierre De Bane, Joyce Fairbairn, Mac Harb, Serge Joyal, Colin Kenny, Jean Lapointe, Vivienne Poy, Claudette Tardiff, Charlie Watt, and Rod Zimmer?



Some of the most rabid (if a senator can be rabid?) Liberal senators stumping the circuits, especially Baker.....hypocrisy knows no bounds...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2010)

It is not often that I agree almost unreservedly with Jeffrey Simpson, but in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, he has it about right:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/welcome-david-johnston-and-thanks-michalle-jean/article1735806/


> Welcome, David Johnston. And thanks, Michaël Jean
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




The office of Governor General may well become more and more _presidential_, in a European manner, if we are, indeed, stuck with a generation or so of minority governments. The GG may have to select prime ministers and invite them to form governments based on his/her (the GG’s) assessment of which leader might be able to form a stable government that can command the confidence of parliament. If that’s the case then Mr. Johnston might well be the gold standard.

But that begs a question: if the office is to be more and more _political_, albeit non-partisan, then how do we, how *should* we select our own GG? And if we are going to have a more _political_ GG then is it not more appropriate that (s)he be a *real* Canadian, a resident of Canada with a good, personal feel for Canada and not a British _implant_? (Yes, yes; I know that HM and HRH are, legally, Canadians, but for all of her GREAST work as our head of state there is no doubt that, first and foremost HM is the Queen of the United Kingdom – that’s where she is, regularly, _consulted_ by her *real* prime minister.)


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But that begs a question: if the office is to be more and more _political_,



I don't see any reason to think that it will be.  Even in a minority government, it's generally clear who the PM should be according to the conventions of our parliamentary system.



> And if we are going to have a more _political_ GG then is it not more appropriate that (s)he be a *real* Canadian, a resident of Canada with a good, personal feel for Canada and not a British _implant_?



Every GG in my lifetime has been a "real" Canadian, resident here, despite the fact that some have been immigrants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't see any reason to think that it will be.  Even in a minority government, it's generally clear who the PM should be according to the conventions of our parliamentary system.
> 
> Every GG in my lifetime has been a "real" Canadian, resident here, despite the fact that some have been immigrants.



Last point first: sorry, I pressed post without double checking. I really wanted to talk about the _de jure_ head of state, not the GG who is the _de facto_ head of state. Despite my enormous affection and respect for HM the Queen and her office, I think it is time that we _patriated_ our head of state - finding some sensible way to select an eminent person to 'wear' the Crown of Canada; that eminent Canadian must be, in my opinion, one of us - and, as I mentioned, I understand that the _royals_ are, legally, Canadians but no one really believe that.

First point: consider this scenario, please - we have a budget early next year and the government loses the budget motion and we go to the polls. The results are something like this:

BQ -      55
Cons - 127
Libs -   100
NDP -    25
Others -  3

So, obviously, the GG calls upon the Conservative leader to form a government.

The Conservatives bring down a budget which, once again, fails to win parliament's confidence.

The PM goes to the GG and asks for another general election.

Now is when the GG becomes _presidential_. His (the GG's) *primary* duty is to ensure that Canada has a government that has the confidence of parliament. Generally, but not absolutely, its is also the GG's duty, to follow the advice of his PM, but he (the GG) is not the PM's slave.

In this case, given that the Liberals + the NDP + the Independents/Others have a workable minority he (the GG) can, maybe should, call on them to try to govern Canada - it is his _constitutional *right*, even duty_ to do that.

Now, let's suppose that the Lib/NDP _coalition_ brings down a budget that still cannot secure parliament's approval (perhaps because the BQ has a vested interest in making Canada fail). The Liberal PM asks for a general election but it is still less than one year since the last one. The GG *could* decide to haul the Conservative and Liberal leaders into Rideau Hall and ask them to craft a *majority* coalition - that would be a very European _presidential_ thing to do. It would also be _constitutionally_ legal and, maybe, proper too.

That's what I meant by being _presidential_.


Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2010)

Ohhhh.....that would quickly put paid to the incestuous  catfighting presently going on, or......hmmmmm....I dunno....might work.....


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Ohhhh.....that would quickly put paid to the incestuous  catfighting presently going on, or......hmmmmm....I dunno....might work.....



The ghost of Viscount Byng of Vimy would like to have a little chat with you........


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2010)

Americans do it right, again:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/states-with-lower-taxes-smaller-government-fewer-unions-seeing-the-most-population-growth/



> *States With Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Fewer Unions Seeing The Most Population Growth*
> Rob Port  •  December 21, 2010
> Share |
> 
> ...



The fact that States can gain seats as population grows and shifts is a no brainer, but the fact that States can lose seats in the Congress i interesting. We are froze in time, Provinces which lose population never lose seats in Parliament. Reapportation like this would make Parliament more representative of real shifts in demographic and economic power.


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2010)

I love this one....I think I will email the link to Jack Layton..............

Oregon Raises Taxes On The Rich, Collects Less Revenues
Rob Port  •  December 21, 2010
Article Link

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 02: People attend a rally outside of the office of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to protest an extension of tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans on December 2, 2010 in New York City. The protest, which was organized by MorveOn.org, called the tax cuts millionaire bailouts and vowed to pressure Democratic senators to oppose the cuts, which Congress is currently considering extending. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

It’s almost like higher levels of tax burden inhibit economic activity and development or something, but that can’t be true. According to liberalism, bigger government means more prosperity, right?

Right?

    Oregon raised its income tax on the richest 2% of its residents last year to fix its budget hole, but now the state treasury admits it collected nearly one-third less revenue than the bean counters projected. …

    Instead of $180 million collected last year from the new tax, the state received $130 million. The Eugene Register-Guard newspaper reports that after the tax was raised “income tax and other revenue collections began plunging so steeply that any gains from the two measures seemed trivial.”

    One reason revenues are so low is that about one-quarter of the rich tax filers seem to have gone missing. The state expected 38,000 Oregonians to pay the higher tax, but only 28,000 did. … These numbers are in line with a Cascade Policy Institute study, based on interstate migration patterns, predicting that the tax surcharge would lead to 80,000 fewer wealthy tax filers in Oregon over the next decade.

The rule of thumb is that when you tax something you get less of it. Oregon taxed rich people, so the rich people left.

The moral of the story is, you cannot solve debt problems by taxing the rich. Everyone should pay taxes, all taxes should be low and the government should be small.
end


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Americans do it right, again:



Correlation doesn't imply a causal relationship.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2011)

A new political party. Based on the interview, I suspect the founder has developed the "mechanics" of a 21rst century political party, but since there are no "core" issues around which members would gather, this is an empty shell. Worst case scenario, the party is infiltrated by "leftists" who dominate and "guide" the discussions within the Online party, making it a rather irrelevant clone of the NDP. OTOH, current parties can look at the structure and see how they can adapt it to their needs (not taking the Online Party over, but creating a CPC/Liberal/NDP online organization) Part 1:

http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-interview-with-michael-nicula.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwVPTZ+%28The+Blog+of+Walker%29



> My interview with Michael Nicula, the founder of the Online Party of Canada - director's cut
> 
> A little while ago, I had the real pleasure of conducting an interview with the founder of the Online Party of Canada, Michael Nicula.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2011)

Part 2



> 5) What is it that the Online Party of Canada is hoping to accomplish? Are you in place more to send a message to other parties as a sort of 'protest' party? Do you have ambitions to sit in parliament? What ambitions do you have provincially or municipally?
> 
> OPC is here to become a political force of change. We need to play by the existing rules in order to get seated, then we'll do all we can to change the system at its core to make it more functional. We would ask Canadians if there's any sense in keeping the current form of government - Constitutional Monarchy. Do we really need this layer of leadership - the Queen, General Governor, Lieutenants etc. Do we really need the Senate, what is its role in a democratic society where the decisions are made by the people. Do we need 3 levels of Government ( Federal and Local make sense, but why do we need Provincial governments? ) Yes we have big ambitions - Parliament and every public office is our target. Don't quite understand the disconnect between Local, Provincial and Federal politics...how come even the big parties have different political agendas and behaviour at these three levels - shows the partisanship nature of the current politics.. There are too many wrong things in politics as we know it, that need to be changed. Small improvements won't do, we need sweeping changes. We're counting on the Internet media, social networking, bloggers...to get Canadians on board and swell the membership of OPC and then let them drive it wherever they want to go. 6) What advantage do you think the OPC could have over larger, more conventional, parties? Do you think its focus on things like social networking will give it access to some untapped political markets, maybe reduce advertising costs, make the party lighter on its feet, etc.?
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a useful reminder from Jeffrey Simpson that Prime Minister Harper’s options are limited on the Senate reform front:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/senate-reform-an-altered-state-of-affairs/article1422994/
> my *emphasis* added
> ...





It’s  :deadhorse:  time again!

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ gives me an opportunity to revisit one of my pet projects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-house-that-stephen-harper-built/article1871123/singlepage/#articlecontent


> The House that Stephen Harper built
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




First, on a matter of principle: I believe that a federal state must have a bicameral legislature: one chamber, which I would prefer to call the _National Assembly_ because it is (should be) a body, an assembly, where everyone in the whole nation is represented on a (roughly) equal basis, and a Senate where the _*equal* political partners_ in the federation, the provinces, are represented.

Second, also on a point of principle: no legislative chamber in a modern, liberal democracy should be appointed. All legislators must be elected by the people.

Third: I suspect that Prof. Jennifer Smith is both right and wrong:

1.	She is surely correct when she says, _“They're_ [elected senators]_ not going to be elected to play second fiddle … They will have a much more robust view of what their position is. ... It would disable governments when they needed to make tough decisions.”_ We should change “would disable governments” to “*might* disable,” but the risk of ending up with US style gridlock is real. Of course we understand that some of the very wise men who set up the US government thought gridlock is a good thing, it prevents government from being too radical, in any political direction; but

2.	She is wrong, I think is suggesting that an alected Senate would be unconstitutional. The PM’s authority to recommend almost anyone to the Queen for appointment to the Senate is relatively unlimited. I can see nothing that would prevent any PM from adding some _conventions_ to the process, like –

a.	being elected, on some sort of PR system, during a provincial general election, and

b.	submitting a letter of resignation, effective the next provincial general election, as a condition of appointment;

Fourth: while an equal Senate might be desirable it might not be practical. For one thing the size differential between ON and PEI is vast – far greater than in most federations. *Perhaps* we could have a constitutional amendment that would recognize five sets of provinces/territories:

1.	Very large – ON and QC, for now – 24 seats each (48);
2.	Large – AB and BC – 16 seats each (32);
3.	Medium – MN, NB, NL, NS and SK – 10 seats each (50);
4.	Small – PEI – 4 seats (4)
5.	Very small – NV, NWT and YK – 1 seat each (3).

That would yield a 137 seat Senate of Canada – elected, probably effective and more equal than is now the case.

A few years ago I did a quick staff check on what an elected (my system) sebate might look like based on the (then) mix of Conservative, Liberal and NDP governments in the provinces. There was a Liberal _plurality_ but only if one assumed that all provincial Liberals would caucus together. 

I updated that and reassigned some provincial Liberals to other parties and gave the ADQ and Saskatchewan party candidates to the Tories and got this result for 2010:

Caucus 
Conservative	34
Liberal	          26
NDP	              19
BQ	                  9
Independent	17
Total	          105

Anyway, food for thought, I hope.


----------



## Redeye (13 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because he heads a party with seats in the House of Commons, she does not.  If we open the debates to all parties, then we'll have the Marxist-Leninists, the Christian Heritage Party and all the others demanding equal time.



Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, *and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system* - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.


It may not be a great system, but it's the best going system, bar none.  

With "first past the post", locals vote for "their man", as it were, to represent them in Ottawa.  Now, I haven't had pot since the mid 80's, so no, I'm not high, and I have no delusions; however, the alternate is for proportional representation to have Jack, Iggy, Stephen et al select their cronies to sit for us.

As well, those who oppose the FPTP come normally from the fringe ("loony left" or "radical right") or where-ever.  And their arguments only serve to illustrate how wacky their ideas are.  They say that "only the US, Canada, Australia" (etc) have the FPTP.  Great, use the most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on Earth as an example of why their systems don't work :

I'd much rather have a parliament with 3 or 4 parties, coalitions or not, rather than some whackjob from the Greens going on about hemp and veganism in Parliament, when there are more important issues to debate/discuss.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2011)

I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.

(Of course, I'd also like to see a Senate where the Senators are elected based on proportional share of votes in provincial elections, therefore making it a true house of the provinces, but baby steps...)


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Apr 2011)

I've always liked the idea that the House of Commons should be elected as is, and the senate is elected by percentage of popular vote throughout the country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.
> 
> (Of course, I'd also like to see a Senate where the Senators are elected based on proportional share of votes in provincial elections, therefore making it a true house of the provinces, but baby steps...)




I'm with dapaterson on both issues.

I believe we want, indeed need to retain constituency representation so a 'simple,' pure proportional representation system is a non-starter. STV works for a single member constituency, effectively requiring that the elected member (eventually - which is actually very quick with automation) is the one who gets 50%+1 of the votes cast. I would be willing to consider multi-member constituencies - say five (larger) constituencies in Ottawa (rather than the current nine) each with two members (first and second place finishers) which makes it a bit more "proportional" - but I would be unwilling to go much further than that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Apr 2011)

The very real problems with proportional representation are single issue parties and lack of local representation.  While I am sure that the Greens are all very nice people, what is to stop some really nasty people from getting together and forming a party with racist (or worse) overtones?  If they get enough votes, they are in Parliament.  Now, at least they would have to convince at least a plurality voters in at least one riding to get a seat in Parliament.


----------



## ballz (13 Apr 2011)

Canada is too big geographically and ideologically too diverse for proportional to work. Unlike a small scandenavian country where the geography is basically the same causing most places to face similar economic conditions, similar industries, etc, and where "right-wing" is barely to the right of "left-wing," we've got people that want universal childcare while some people want two-tiered or private healthcare, as well as 40% of country considered rural.

The differences in issues and ideologies between Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Fort McMurray, Alberta are pretty wide and deep. This is why we need MPs to represent our areas and our unique issues compared to other areas, and is also why the public finance system is much more decentralized than most places.

I'm not sure of the details of this single transferable vote system, but if it's anything like vote-trading, I want no part of it.

I'd like to see more analysis of a two-tiered vote system. The only problem I see is that it guarantees majority power which seems nice at the moment seeing the current string of minority governments, but I'm not sure I'd like a party that's only capable of winning 100 seats being granted majority power for 4 or 5 years.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Fair enough - though her party draws a much larger share of the popular vote than any of those, and is probably a pretty good demonstration of why first-past-the-post isn't a great system - though I don't know that there's any better without reconciling ourselves to permanent minority governance and coalitions.  Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> It may not be a great system, but it's the best going system, bar none.
> 
> With "first past the post", locals vote for "their man", as it were, to represent them in Ottawa.  Now, I haven't had pot since the mid 80's, so no, I'm not high, and I have no delusions; however, the alternate is for proportional representation to have Jack, Iggy, Stephen et al select their cronies to sit for us.   ...





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of the single transferable vote, myself, where voters rank candidates by preference, so if my first choice gets the lowest number of votes, he's kicked off the island and my vote then goes to my second choice.


I too like the transferable vote concept.  Additionally, for dense urban centers (with public transit) that are currently subdivided into multiple constituencies, I would propose the idea of larger multi-representative constituencies (ie: Toronto could be cut to half or one third as many constituencies but would still produce the same total number of MPs).

... we have another thread for this tangent though.  Must be time for a split.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2011)

Split done ... and if anyone wants to jump back 6 years in time, it looks like we were proposing about the same things in Apr '05 as now.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> The differences in issues and ideologies between Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Fort McMurray, Alberta are pretty wide and deep.



Well, given the accents you hear in the oil fields, I'm no so sure about that...


----------



## GR66 (14 Apr 2011)

I'm also a big fan of the Single Transferable Vote.  It solves many of the problems of vote splitting and gives a much clearer mandate to our elected representatives.  No longer would you have a situation where a party that only gets 35% of the votes claiming to be the true voice of its constituents (even though the other 65% voted AGAINST them).

I'm not a fan however of the concept of multi-representative constituencies.  One representative per riding makes that individual much more directly accountable to the electorate that voted for them.  Having multiple representatives over a larger area (and therefore with more diverse needs possibly) weakens that direct accountability.  The same goes for proportional representation.  It's one of those things that SOUNDS quite reasonable on the surface but when you dig into the details I think actually does more harm than good to the democratic process.

The Senate is another can of worms.  I'm actually not in favour of a directly elected Senate.  I think it would dilute the power and authority of the House of Commons (after all...if you're a Senator elected by the people don't you have the same rights to speak for those people as an MP?).  Having a House and Senate competing with eachother to do the same things would weaken both.

I'd be much more in favour of making the Senate more effective and accountable in the legitimate role they do have by design...a House of Sober Second Thought.  Give them a 6 year term to serve (1/3 coming due every 2 years?) so that members that aren't fulfilling their duties can be removed.  Maybe a system for reviewing and approving appointments and vetting the qualifications of the candidates (possibly including a multi-party House committee, approval by the Province being represented or even a Referendum of the citizens in that province?).

I know that in the US the Senate is elected however they also have an appointed Cabinet which allows for developement and review of policy and legistation outside the focus of trying to get re-elected.  An EFFECTIVE and ACCOUNTABLE appointed Senate can actually fulfill a meaningful role.


----------



## Saskboy (14 Apr 2011)

GR66, I couldn't agree more on every point.

 I just finished writing a paper on senate reform for one of my university courses and some (not all) of the academic literature suggested a couple inherent problems with an elected Senate.  The main one, quite simply was that by making the Senate elected, you duplicate the House of Commons and also duplicate the problems inherent with the House of Commons ( i.e. politicking, seeking undeserved credit, and avoiding due criticism in order to improve chances of being re-elected).  Further, what one would essentially create is something which has the potential to be even LESS responsive than it is now.  Imagine the size of the Constituencies necessary to elect senators, thus you would have fewer politicians within the Senate trying to represent the same population as the larger House of Commons.  Those large constituencies may also develop in a manner that does not acknowledge regional differences in culture, economy or geography which would render the job of any senator exceedingly difficult.

I believe that senators are most effective when they are appointed because it allows them to operate without fear of retaliation from disgruntled voters of certain blocs and without the need to tip toe around any of the regional or cultural divisions in Canada to garner favour.  It's the Senate's job to tell a government when it is being too ambitious in its attempt to pursue their agenda in Parliament. While it may not be a perfect a solution, at least senators can operate without the muzzle of party discipline.

Although, if the Senate was to become elected, as many have said the Constitutional reforms necessary to make that happen would be difficult to put through. E.R.'s solution is a fantastic one. That's probably the most effective use of conventions I've seen in my short time mucking about in politics.

Cheers.

Edit: Typo.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2011)

I'm afraid that I find an appointed legislature completely inconsistent with a modern liberal democracy. The Canadian people, just like their American, Australian, German and Indian confreres, are smart enough to elect the representatives they want; the people's representatives do not need to have "sober second thought" applied to their decisions - they didn't in 1867, either; the _family compact_ and _chateau clique_ were both put to bed in 1837, even if the constitution scribes in Whitehall didn't quite grasp that fact.

At the risk of repeating myself: a federal state needs a bicameral legislature: one chambre to represent the people on an *equal* basis and the other to represent the interests of the *equal* partners in the federation, the provinces. In 2011 we can trust Canadians to elect the members of both chambres.


----------



## GR66 (15 Apr 2011)

I'm not sure that the American or Australian models are something we'd necessarily like to recreate here.  Some might argue that sacrificing "Effective" in order to obtain "Equal" and "Elected" would be a poor trade-off.

That's not to say that I'd be totally opposed to some form of elected Senate...just not a constituency based elected Senate with effectively the same mandate and powers as the House.  I think that model puts a brake on effective executive governance that is not reasonably offset by regional representation in the modern world.

Politics today is not the same as it was when either the Canadian or American (or Australian) bicameral systems were designed.  The age of instantaneous communication, dominance of political parties and strick party discipline in order undermine the originally intended system of regional representation and protection.  Members vote based on their party affiliation because modern electioneering is based almost exclusively on "branding", media management and centralized campaign control.  All these things make the representatives we elect largely beholden to their central party leadership.  Hardly a system to encourage members to think about their region over their party.  Is that any worse than a system where the Senators owe their position to direct appointment by the Prime Minister?  Nope.  However at least those Senators don't have to keep going back to be re-appointed thereby renewing their obligations to the leaders that got them in.   I just don't see the huge benefit of going through the huge political/constitutional screaming match that would exchange a poor system for a marginally less poor system.

An Australian-style Proportional Representation Single Transferrable Vote system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate) where members can directly elect Senators (either by selecting the party OR individual(s) they wish to elect) combined with a Senate that does not directly compete with the powers of the House (can't initiate taxation legislation, can delay but not defeat House money bills, etc?) would be something I could support.

A KEY part of that puzzle to my mind would however be to have the election of the Senators tied to PROVINCIAL as opposed to FEDERAL elections.  This elimination of the direct link between the various party candidates and the Federal political party apparatus (and leadership) would give the Senate a much more reasonable chance of honestly putting their Province's best interests ahead of the partisan politcal interests of the federal political parties.


----------



## jwtg (15 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Politics today is not the same as it was when either the Canadian or American (or Australian) bicameral systems were designed.  The age of instantaneous communication, dominance of political parties and strick party discipline in order undermine the originally intended system of regional representation and protection.  Members vote based on their party affiliation because modern electioneering is based almost exclusively on "branding", media management and centralized campaign control.  All these things make the representatives we elect largely beholden to their central party leadership.  Hardly a system to encourage members to think about their region over their party.



Would it be unfair to say that political parties have ruined politics?

Sure, call it radical, but wouldn't it be nice if political parties disbanded and every candidate became independent?  No longer voting blue, red, orange, green, etc. but rather voting for individuals whose platforms would likely encompass the political stances of the parties we currently have without having the restriction of having to raise their hand because Harper, Iggy, Jack, etc. told them to.  Rather, they could raise their hands because their constituents told them to.

Obviously this is a speculative fiction, but I wouldn't cry if all the parties ceased to exist.  That would be great political reform (albeit with a significant logistical headache, and a dire need to determine a method of picking a PM/Caucus....).

You may say that I'm a dreamer......and you're right.  But where better to dream than a thread about political reform?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2011)

The American model prior to direct election of Senators is instructive:

The Congress is the house of the people, and elected directly to examine and legislate on day to day type issues and represent the rights of the people

The Senate was the house of the States, and Senators were elected by State legislatures to represent the rights of the States

The Executive is elected by the votes of an electoral college, which prevents or limits the ability of States with large populations to override the desires of smaller, less populous States by sheer weight of numbers.

Three different branches, representing three different constituencies and using three different voting systems. 

Canada could model the Senate on the old US system where each Provincial legislature elects their Senators. A single long term would straddle the terms of office of Provincial legislatures so Senators might have to represent provinces with different governing parties than the ones that elected them, and the term limit would allow for fresh blood in the Upper Chamber.

A Canadian Electoral College would elect the GG, as the sort of Vice Regal Regency Edward Campbell has proposed in the past. The GG does have some fairly awesome reserve powers (as recent events have suggested; see coalition) so an elected Regent would have the legitimacy to wield these powers when so needed. The Regent would serve for a single, fairly long term to provide stability and to (sometimes) mentor new governments.

WRT disbanding political parties; parties are not mentioned in the constitutions of Canada, the US or the (unwritten) UK; they arose as people with common interests banded together. Some aspects of modern politcal parties should be changed, like tight party discipline or the centralized power of the PMO; non political changes should also be made IMO to reduce the power and influence of the permanent bureaucracy. How to go about this is hard to say, history shows the main way to make far reaching changes is a revolution or Civil War; I am not thinking we want to go there....


----------



## dapaterson (15 Apr 2011)

GR66 said:
			
		

> A KEY part of that puzzle to my mind would however be to have the election of the Senators tied to PROVINCIAL as opposed to FEDERAL elections.  This elimination of the direct link between the various party candidates and the Federal political party apparatus (and leadership) would give the Senate a much more reasonable chance of honestly putting their Province's best interests ahead of the partisan politcal interests of the federal political parties.



My thought exactly - I'd even be willing to let Senate terms bridge two provincial elections to provide some continuity - and perhaps limit senators for two such terms (which would run up to 20 years).

But turning the Senate into a "house of the provinces" to go along with the house of commons would increase federal legitimacy and cut out some of the whining premiers - as they would already have a national voice.


(Edit because I'm a horrible, horrible typist)


----------



## GR66 (15 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Would it be unfair to say that political parties have ruined politics?
> 
> Sure, call it radical, but wouldn't it be nice if political parties disbanded and every candidate became independent?  No longer voting blue, red, orange, green, etc. but rather voting for individuals whose platforms would likely encompass the political stances of the parties we currently have without having the restriction of having to raise their hand because Harper, Iggy, Jack, etc. told them to.  Rather, they could raise their hands because their constituents told them to.
> 
> ...



Banning political parties wouldn't solve the problem since people of like mind will still block together to advance their collective interest.  However electoral expense reform could possible have an effect.  If there were no national level advertising or materials permitted and each local representative were required to foot the entire bill of spreading their word there would likely be a much more diverse message within each party (and electors would have to work a heck of a lot harder to become engaged in their local race).

That could be combined with other fairly simple changes like NOT having members seated in the house along party lines but rather geographically or just alphabetically to symbolically help eliminate the US vs THEM mindset of members.  More significantly the defeat of money bill could NOT be automatic confidence votes in the House.  Allow members to defeat any bill they don't like without automatically triggering the fall of the government.  This would give much more power to individual MP's within their own party.


----------



## GR66 (15 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My thought exactly - I'd even be willing to let Senate terms bridge two provincial elections to provide some continuity - and perhaps limit senators for two such terms (which would run up to 20 years).
> 
> But turning the Senate into a "house of the provinces" to go along with the house of commons would increase federal legitimacy and cut out some of the whining premiers - as they would already have a national voice.



A simplified version might be to just have half  of each Province's Senators elected at each provincial election (regardless of how long each Provincial government's term lasts).  Therefore when the political landscape changes more rapidly in a Province (indicated by more frequent elections) the Senate will turn over more quickly.  In more stable times Senatorial terms will be longer.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2011)

Cheers and applause:

http://fildebrandt.ca/2011/04/national-post-column-it’s-time-to-kick-the-politicians-off-electoral-welfare/



> Published in the National Post and other Post Media outlets
> 
> When the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pulled its National Debt Clock in front of Parliament Hill last month, a formerly homeless man approached and stared in amazement. After a minute of staring at the massive, spinning clock, the man said, “I’ve lived on the street and it doesn’t take a lot of money to live. What the hell are politicians doing?” Before leaving, he added, “These guys need to get a job!”
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (3 May 2011)

With the 2011 election now over ...





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110502/vote-split-110502/20110503?s_name=election2011
> 
> The first on what will be many stories about the vote split.  Once all the dust is settled, I shall be interested how many NDP wins against Con/Lib splits and how many Con wins against NDP/Lib splits occured.
> 
> ...


We have lived through years where a split on the right kept the left-of-centre in majority power, and now we are at a point where a split on the left has put the right-of-centre in majority power.  What are the chances that the average Canadian will now be open to the idea of a transferable vote system?  Today, the majority of Canadians will preceive themselves as having been disadvantaged by a vote split at some point in time.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan however of the concept of multi-representative constituencies.  One representative per riding makes that individual much more directly accountable to the electorate that voted for them.  Having multiple representatives over a larger area (and therefore with more diverse needs possibly) weakens that direct accountability.


Suggestions for multi-representative constituencies (at least, suggestions within this thread) have been to use these exclusively in dense urban areas.  This negates the concern of larger areas introducing greater diversity of needs.  In fact, I would imagine that any multi-member constituence would still be magnatudes smaller in size than any rural constituency in the country ... except maybe rural PEI.


----------



## GR66 (3 May 2011)

Perhaps our new Conservative majority will open the opportunity for Senate reform to be revisited.  I however don't see PM Harper eager to do anything that would require opening up the Constitution.  Instead I'd look for more procedural-type changes for the selection of Senators.

I'd also love to see changes to our balloting system in elections to bring in a Single Transferable Ballot which would do away with any "problems" with vote splitting inherent in out First Past The Post system.  However, since the Conservatives basically owe their majority to the splits I don't see a huge political incentive to make any changes.  Ideology rarely trumps politics in our leaders (of any stripe).

The Globe & Mail recently had an article with various opinions on renewing our democracy...some interesting points (and some scary ones too)...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-to-redesign-a-tired-democracy/article2003072/

One suggestion that I'd never really given much thought to was a system of "Primaries" similar to the US for selecting candidates for elections.  I really have no idea if or how you could make it work when you don't have set election dates but on the surface it would seem like it has some potential.  

I'd also love to see a change to the voting system in the House where defeat of the government on a money bill does NOT automatically trigger the defeat of the Government.  It could TRIGGER an subsequent confidence vote, but not in itself defeat the Government.  This would give individual MP's the freedom to vote against their party on a particular Bill without fear of triggering an election.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

I wonder how much the NDP will call for Proportional Representation now that it would mean they need to give a few of their seats up to the Liberals?


----------



## vonGarvin (3 May 2011)

I am an extremist zealot when it comes to opposing "proportional representation".  It would mean an unworkable country, in which appealing to the lowest common denominator would make us a laughing stock of a democracy.

I find it interesting that opponents to our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system will utter such statements as "Only in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do we have FPTP!"  Yes.  Nice.  Use the four most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on the planet as a reason to NOT use that system which they use.  Our system offers fair representation, local representation and a functional (if not functioning) and somewhat stable government that allows us to get things done.  Things that really matter.

"60% voted against the conservatives, and they have a majority?  What a joke!" (or words to that effect) were muttered last night.  I could also offer that 60% voted *for* middle of the pack parties (conservative and Liberal) and some 35-40% voted for the far left.  Or I could say that a Conservative/NDP coalition got 70% of the vote, or I could say.....


For me, I would rather select the guy I send to Ottawa, rather than have some party hack being forced upon me based on numbers of votes.  (Arguably, however, sometimes party hacks and cronies are parachuted into ridings).  But the beauty is that when we have our current system, things like this  happen, which would NEVER happen in proportional representation.


----------



## jwtg (3 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is faulty logic. 60% of Canadians voted for the BQ, Greens, Liberals, NDP and a few others, but they were never given an option to vote against anyone or anything. We do not have an electoral system that allows you (or me) to vote *against* the prime minister or Joe Blow - only *for* the candidate you prefer in your riding. Those, like Ms. Elizabeth May, who are looking to deny Prime Minister Harper's legitimacy will trot out the "60% voted against" argument but it is, at best, dishonest and it betrays an abysmal ignorance of the Constitution. Anyone who actually believes that "60% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives' is, clearly, way too stupid to vote, much less to be an MP.



If 60% voted against the Conservatives, maybe they should be a little more concerned about the % that voted against their own parties.

Looks like 96% voted against Elizabeth May, 70% against Jack, 81% against Iggy's old gang, and 93% against the Bloc.

I'm not getting involved in the proportional vs. FPTP debated, but if voters/MPs want to cry about majority governments being earned by parties with less than a majority by % of popular vote, then maybe they should look at the 70-90% of Canadians that don't want them in power.  Or look at the fact that (as has been mentioned before) nobody has had a majority of the popular vote in many, many years.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

> Yet there’s no sign that her parachute ever landed in Berthier-Maskinongé, a Quebec riding near Trois-Rivières that is about a three-hour drive from her home.



Perhaps this is one of the electoral reforms that needs to happen. It should be a requirement that you live in the riding you represent. The exception would be party leaders or winners of by-elections who would then have to conform at the next general election.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is one of the electoral reforms that needs to happen. It should be a requirement that you live in the riding you represent. The exception would be party leaders or winners of by-elections who would then have to conform at the next general election.



Why?  If I live alone on an island in Northern Ontario, why shouldn't I be able to run in Rosedale?

Ultimately, it's the voters who decide - and in this case, they decided that someone they've never seen, who went to Vegas instead of campaigning, who doesn't speak the same language as them would better represent them than any of the others in the running of the reptiles.  If voters wish to make that choice, it's up to them.


(And it may force a bit of sober reflection by the other parties - a good thing. )


----------



## Redeye (3 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I am an extremist zealot when it comes to opposing "proportional representation".  It would mean an unworkable country, in which appealing to the lowest common denominator would make us a laughing stock of a democracy.



I used to be.  I'm not anymore, and the degree to which I become passionately involved in scrapping FPTP will be a function of how Harper governs from here on in.  Fact is, the only outcome I considered remotely palatable was a Conservative minority - the status quo.  Ignatieff bet the farm on bringing down the government and lost big time, so when my friends who are more up in arms about the outcome of the election bitch, I tell them they can thank him and Jack Layton.  In fact, Harper had better send quite a thank you card to Mr. Ignatieff.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that opponents to our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system will utter such statements as "Only in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do we have FPTP!"  Yes.  Nice.  Use the four most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on the planet as a reason to NOT use that system which they use.  Our system offers fair representation, local representation and a functional (if not functioning) and somewhat stable government that allows us to get things done.  Things that really matter.



The UK looks like it's going to scrap FPTP, and while I'm not an expert on Australian politics, I am pretty sure they have a two party system.  They also have an elected, functioning Senate which would be nice.  And the US, well, I'm not remotely interested in copying any feature of their system.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> "60% voted against the conservatives, and they have a majority?  What a joke!" (or words to that effect) were muttered last night.  I could also offer that 60% voted *for* middle of the pack parties (conservative and Liberal) and some 35-40% voted for the far left.  Or I could say that a Conservative/NDP coalition got 70% of the vote, or I could say.....



Again it is worth reminding people that the last PM to win a majority of the popular vote was John Diefenbaker in 1958.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> For me, I would rather select the guy I send to Ottawa, rather than have some party hack being forced upon me based on numbers of votes.  (Arguably, however, sometimes party hacks and cronies are parachuted into ridings).  But the beauty is that when we have our current system, things like this  happen, which would NEVER happen in proportional representation.



Fact is, the local guy you sent to Ottawa in most cases is so beholden to party discipline that he doesn't really represent your riding to Ottawa, he represents the ruling party in your riding.  That's not the way I think it should be.  Consider Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley where my parents live - the former MP, Bill Casey, was furious about what he viewed as a travesty of a budget because it wasn't a benefit to his constituents, so he voted against it and was booted from the party.  That's a rare thing to see, but that's what should be the case - a vigourous debate that builds consensus, not a top-down approach where party sycophants who allegedly represent me just rubber stamp what the backroom dreams up as policy.

Some form of PR would force the parties to actually work together and represent the nation broadly.  It's no wonder voter turnout sucks in this country, so many people walk away with a bad taste in their mouth feeling like they just wasted their time.


----------



## McG (3 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some form of PR would force the parties to actually work together and represent the nation broadly.


I cannot agree.  We would be better served with the transferable vote.

There are people who will argue that political parties are what is wrong with our system and that we should do away with them, but the fact is that political parties are not going away.  In many ways, they do serve a necessary function.  That being said, a PR system would strip any ability of the individual to compete for and gain office.  We as a nation would be beholden to the political parties to select our acceptable candidates before our opportunity to vote.  For the most part, that is what happens - but every now and again an individual stands-up to the parties and successfully gains office.  We should not close the door to this.

Another problem with the PR system is that it removes the responsibility of the incumbent to the constituents.  Sure, an MP can be booted from the party for choosing the home riding over the scripted message.  Coincidentally (or not) these are the individuals who are more likely to be re-elected as independants for thier troubles.  In a PR system, the incumbent's only responsibility is to the party.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I used to be.  I'm not anymore, and the degree to which I become passionately involved in scrapping FPTP will be a function of how Harper governs from here on in.  Fact is, the only outcome I considered remotely palatable was a Conservative minority - the status quo.



Well, I for one am glad you aren't running the show.  Sure, Casey was booted from the party, but  it wasn't because of his riding:



> "I have never seen a budget that has had more in it for the people of my riding than this one does," Casey said from his Ottawa office, yesterday.
> He said benefits can be easily pinpointed throughout the budget for the high population of seniors, working families with children and low-income families in his riding.



It doesn't matter.  Mr. Casey was re-elected as an Independent:


> And in Nova Scotia, MP Bill Casey — who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget because he believed Mr. Harper broke his promise to leave offshore resource revenues untouched under the Atlantic Accord — won by a huge margin to keep his seat as an Independent.




  He wasn't part of a party.  How then, could that happen in a PR system?

Again, it offers stability, and too bad for you that Mr. Harper has a majority.  I'm sick of minority governments, as are many Canadians.  Our system works, and if anyone thinks that being part of the political process stops when you mark your X, they are sadly mistaken.

Besides, any change from FPTP to PR would require constitutional reform, and I think we better get Quebec to sign on first.


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Again, it offers stability, and too bad for you that Mr. Harper has a majority.  I'm sick of minority governments, as are many Canadians.


Shhhhh....gentle.....he's spent most of the day in denial -- sulking in various "I love Obama" threads   >


----------



## Loachman (6 May 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> We as a nation would be beholden to the political parties to select our acceptable candidates before our opportunity to vote.  For the most part, that is what happens



And who makes up these political parties?

Ordinary citizens willing to pay the princely sum of ten dollars annually and contribute a little of their time and effort to influence things.

If one wants more say in who is nominated as one's candidate, and perhaps a little more say in how that candidate represents one, then one only has to increase one's participation.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2011)

On the subject of parliamentary reform:



> AV Referendum results map
> Results by area for the AV Referendum.
> 4:15PM BST 06 May 2011
> The UK has voted to keep First Past The Post over changing to the Alternative Vote system for parliamentary elections.



Map and Story

Apparently not one riding came out in support of changing the system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Voting system of ranking your choices.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 May 2011)

And to add another twist to the story, in almost half of the Canadian ridings the winner received over fifty percent of the vote:

Cons 107 (64%)
NDP   36  (35%)
Lib       2  ( 6%)


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And to add another twist to the story, in almost half of the Canadian ridings the winner received over fifty percent of the vote:
> 
> Cons 107 (64%)
> NDP   36  (35%)
> Lib       2  ( 6%)



Conservative supporters seem to be like Keith's drinkers: "Those that like them like them a lot".  That appears decidedly less so for the Liberals.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The UK looks like it's going to scrap FPTP,



Wrong:



> The UK has voted to keep First Past The Post over changing to the Alternative Vote system for parliamentary elections.





> Plans to change the way the MPs are elected have been *overwhelmingly *  rejected by voters.
> More than two thirds of people voted to keep the first-past-the-post system in what was the first UK-wide referendum for 36 years.


(My emphasis added)


Source


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 May 2011)

As with everything Canadian, electoral redistribution can never be simple.   Simple would be taking 300 seats and divvying it up based on population of each province and throwing in one each for the territories.  Way too simple.

Instead we get




> 51. 	(1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
> 
> 1. 	There shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and seventy-nine and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, counting any remainder in excess of 0.50 as one after the said process of division.
> 2. 	If the total number of members that would be assigned to a province by the application of rule 1 is less than the total number assigned to that province on the date of coming into force of this subsection, there shall be added to the number of members so assigned such number of members as will result in the province having the same number of members as were assigned on that date.
> ...



The killers for growing provinces are no less MPs than senators and then no decrease in the number of MPs for a province.  The provisions mean that provincial growth is minimally reflected in redistribution.

Trudeau, while having some silly ideas, seemed to provide an over-ride button.  In this case Section 52.



> 52. The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.



The ridiculousness of this is that if population growth continues in the same provinces the House of Commons will become very large.  The choice is undemocratic representation or a ridiculously large House Of Commons.   So Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are behind 30 seats to 2001 and many since then.  At least the next election will be fought with fair electoral distribution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

Correct and, as we have 105 senators, we also have a 'floor' of 105 MPs. But in fact we have 308 due to several redistributions and some "special" factors being applied - special beyond those in the Constitution, proper. There is a porposal to add 30 seats next year - in plenty of time for the 2015 election, to AB, BC and ON.

Province or Territory 	Number           Number         Number
                                 of Senators	     of MPs           of MPs
                                                            (2011)        (proposed)
British Columbia	               5                   36                 43
Alberta	                             6                   28                 33
Ontario	                           24                 106               124
Quebec	                           24                   75                 75
Manitoba	                          6                   14                 14
Saskatchewan	                 6                    14                 14
Nova Scotia	                    10                    11                 11
Newfoundland  
and Labrador	                   6                      7                   7
New Brunswick	               10                    10                 10 
Northwest Territories	       1                      1                   1
Prince Edward Island	       4                      4                   4
Yukon	                               1                      1                   1
Nunavut	                           1                      1                   1
TOTAL                              105                  308               338

There will be further redistributions until we, sooner or later, get to something which is both _constitutionally_ proper and more _generally_ - bout not completely - equitable; something akin to what I have proposed before:

NV .......     1
NW .......    1
YK .......      1
BC .......    51
AB .......    42
SK .......    14
MB .......   15
ON ....... 150
QC .......   92
NB ........   10
NS .......    11
PE .........    4
NF .........    7
Canada  399

This could be done with redistributions in 2012, 2017 and 2022.


Edit to add: Mods - I think this should be merged into the Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen) thread. which is 'stickied' at the top of this page.


----------



## ballz (7 May 2011)

Mr Campbell,

Is there any possibility of redistributing the seats without adding seats... At $110,000 per MP it seems to me adding 91 seats as you have proposed is pretty steep.

I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.


----------



## infantryian (7 May 2011)

If only it were just $110,000. It is closer to $160,000, not including travel allowances, staffing, and all other ways that the government loves to spend money.

Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/Salaries.aspx?Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 May 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.



I'll leave it to you to explain it to Quebec.  Shouldn't be a big problem, should it?  The Bloc was displeased with adding to Anglo provinces without reducing Quebec representation.


----------



## ballz (7 May 2011)

Well, whatever which way we realign the seats, Quebec will get less representation. The change to the balance of influenc isn't much different between adding more seats in Ontario and the West, and taking away seats from places that are overrepresented... But there's a big difference in cash flows.

Either way we do it, it has to be done. Quebec can complain all they want (they're going to do that anyway, so who cares), once it's done it just means the less we have to bend over and be afraid of upsetting them. Besides, there's only 4 BQ MPs now, I thought that meant Quebec was now part of the team ;D


----------



## wannabe SF member (7 May 2011)

I always wondered, won't they end up running out of space in the commons if they keep on adding seats (and desks)?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> I always wondered, won't they end up running out of space in the commons if they keep on adding seats (and desks)?




The simple thing is to provide desks for the front row only - ordinary padded benches will do for the _back benchers_, and then we can fit a whole lot more in.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The simple thing is to provide desks for the front row only - ordinary padded benches will do for the _back benchers_, and then we can fit a whole lot more in.


And only sell cabbage gruel in the Parliament Hill restaurant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Mr Campbell,
> 
> Is there any possibility of redistributing the seats without adding seats... At $110,000 per MP it seems to me adding 91 seats as you have proposed is pretty steep.
> 
> I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.




I think others have answered most of your question: It is a practical and, very often, a legal impossibility to reduce seats in many provinces. The only practical method is by adding seats.

Oh, and as to the cost - figure each MP costs you (and me, and all the other Canadian taxpayers) about $1 Million per year by the time you've added up all the costs of running the HoC. It also costs about $1 Million per riding for each general election. But what is the _value_ of equality of representation?


----------



## ModlrMike (7 May 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Mr Campbell,
> 
> Is there any possibility of redistributing the seats without adding seats... At $110,000 per MP it seems to me adding 91 seats as you have proposed is pretty steep.
> 
> I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.



I realize this wasn't addressed to me, however I have to ask. How do you propose redistribution? We already have ridings where one vote counts more than it does in another riding. Witness Labrador: 10200 votes cast vs Winnipeg South at 43000 votes. It's easy to see a 1:4 vote disparity. The urban ridings run about 50K, while the urban about 10K. The challenge is to represent the large rural ridings like Labardor without making them too large to represent, while not disenfranchising more densely populated ridings. This is why we need more seats, particularly in Ontario and the west where the population has expanded more rapidly than in the east.


----------



## ballz (7 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I realize this wasn't addressed to me, however I have to ask.



No problem. I only addressed him because of the proposed extra 91 seats....



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How do you propose redistribution? We already have ridings where one vote counts more than it does in another riding. Witness Labrador: 10200 votes cast vs Winnipeg South at 43000 votes. It's easy to see a 1:4 vote disparity. The urban ridings run about 50K, while the urban about 10K. The challenge is to represent the large rural ridings like Labardor without making them too large to represent, while not disenfranchising more densely populated ridings. This is why we need more seats, particularly in Ontario and the west where the population has expanded more rapidly than in the east.



I haven't put a ton of thought into who would get what seats, I figured I'd ask to see if my question was even valid before I started making proposals. However, I guess I had a false idea in my head that keeping it simple would be the best solution. Perhaps I am using too much common sense for a situation that requires more than common sense, but here is the logical  answer (according to my logic ;D):

35 million / 300 seats = ~116,667 people per seat, within geographic reason of course.

But then take the province's population and divide it by the 116,667 to see how many seats they should have to be represented close to properly in the HoC, and then just start grouping seats together within the province's new "limit" according to what makes sense and sticks to somewhere around the rule of thumb.

NL = 5 seats... Common sense = 4 in Newfoundland 1 for all of Labrador.

Not everybody is going to pleased but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 1.43% of the population shouldn't represent 2.27% of the HoC (so over 59% more influence then they should have).

There's really no need for all these small ridings to be represented by an individual MP at the Federal level. From what I can see most of these riding-level issues are the responsibility of the provinces. The federal election seems to be more about the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. How all these neighboring ridings in Ontario can possibly have different issues that need to be addressed at the Federal level is beyond me.

NL = 5
NS = 8
PEI = 2
NB = 7
QC = 68
ON = 113
MN = 11
SK = 9
AB = 32
BC = 39
YK = 1
NWT = 1
NV = 1

= 297 seats... use the other 3 as necessary (or give them to QC and tell them to go frig their hat with them, whatever).

Equal representation in a democracy. I'm a dreamer, I know. I guess I have too much faith that your average citizen is going to be reasonable and accept that equal representation AND saving money is important.

Now, I expect I will shortly be told by this is more complicated than common sense answers allow for :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> No problem. I only addressed him because of the proposed extra 91 seats....
> 
> I haven't put a ton of thought into who would get what seats, I figured I'd ask to see if my question was even valid before I started making proposals. However, I guess I had a false idea in my head that keeping it simple would be the best solution. Perhaps I am using too much common sense for a situation that requires more than common sense, but here is the logical  answer (according to my logic ;D):
> 
> ...




The _constitutional_ problem with your proposal is that PEI must have four MPs because it has four senators and NB and NS must have 10 MPs each because they have 10 senators, and NL must have six for the same reason. Somewhere in this thread - many pages/three or so years back - I did the math and calculated that by 2025 we would need nearly 900 MPs if, big Big *IF* we wanted one PEI seat to be 'worth' the same as one Toronto or Calgary seat and we didn't or couldn't amend the Constitution. We can get a _fairer_ system with fewer than 900 MPs but not with 308 or even 380.


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2011)

Starting with getting candidates might be a good first step:

http://spinassassin.blogspot.com/2011/05/absentee-ndp-mp-should-open-door-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SpinAssassin+%28Spin+Assassin%29



> *Absentee NDP MP should open the door to electoral reform*
> 
> Ruth Ellen Brousseau's life time absence from the electoral riding she now represents could become common.  The NDP may have forged her nomination documents and Elections Canada officials may have helped her do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2011)

It is common practice in *all* political parties to run "sacrificial lambs" in ridings where the strategists believe there is not even a remote hope of victory. It is not the fault of Mlle Brosseau or the NDP, _per se_, that the BQ vote collapsed and the _Dipper_ "sacrificial lambs" cruised to victory. It is the fault of the 20,000+ voters who elected her, sight unseen, voice unheard and so on.

Mlle. Brosseau is qualified to be a member of parliament; she won the election; she deserves an opportunity to serve.

Case closed until the next election, in my opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

She won by playing by the rules.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> She won by playing by the rules.



Which should tell us that if we're unhappy with the outcome, we should seek to change the rules.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2011)

Regarding Spin Assassin's 'good' and 'poor' ideas:



> Good electoral reforms measures include:
> 
> creating new riding's to account for population changes    Agreed, good idea.
> remove per vote subsidy                                              Agreed, good idea
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which should tell us that if we're unhappy with the outcome, we should seek to change the rules.



Perhaps ... but maybe we shouldn't be over hasty in doing so.  Systems have a tendency to self-correct and often, IMO, it is appropriate just to sit back and watch for a while.   In this instance I think a number of "electors" will have been educated to the possibility of this type of outcome.  I find it hard to believe that the same dynamic will be in play the next time around.  I think that both the electors and the press are more likely to be on the hunt the next time around and offer more scrutiny of the candidates.  And if they press doesn't then I would anticipate that opponents' tweets will.

As well, these particular candidates will be under a microscope like no others and will have to work really hard to gain re-election.  

Frankly, I would not like to be young Mlle Brosseau facing her constituents for the first time - Neville Chamberlain's comment about the Czechs comes to mind "strange people, in foreign lands about which we know nothing".  She will confront them in a foreign tongue, imperfectly understood with people in the crowd anxious and willing to make her look as bad as possible.

And she has never even faced a nomination crowd of friends in her own language.

Talk about your learning curve.


----------



## Infanteer (8 May 2011)

As Edward says, I don't see a problem with Ms Brosseau's election or the way she achieved it.  The electorate of a riding chooses whom they want to represent them - it is up to them to decide and we don't need to interfere by imposing limitations.  The fact that many Canadians have second homes/cottages/lands seems to underscore how tricky it could be to implement this.  If the better candidate happens to be from the next town (or next province) over, then so be it - we should respect the will of the electorate.  If the electors of Quebec sent 75 cowboys from Alberta to represent them, then so be it.

I don't see how forcing parties to run in all ridings is a good idea for reform; it - like ideas for Proportional Representation - only further reduces the standing of the Representative.  Is this guy saying that if I'm an independent, I am SOL now?  Ridings vote for a representative, and the backing of a party that can run across Canada shouldn't determine who can or can't run for office.

Same for the by-election trigger in crossing the floor.  This locks representatives to their caucus.  This further binds the representative to their party.  A system of recall should exist to deal with dishonoured contracts between the representative and their electors, but this shouldn't be automatically triggered through representative actions, but rather by overwhelming initiative by the electors.


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2011)

The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.

The real blame rests on the voters who elected a candidate without seeing or hearing the individual, and they get to reap the "benefits" of having such a person as a representative.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Regarding Spin Assassin's 'good' and 'poor' ideas:



Argyll, as a fellow Burkean (I think it is safe to categorize you that way) I agree with most of your commentary.  However I have to disagree with "on line votes".   I find that that both reduces the distance between thought and action to such a thin sliver that it will impose results equivalent to those published on TFLN, and as well, it will gradually diminish the role of MP as Burkean representative.  

On the other hand, perhaps I have misread you and you find yourself more in tune with direct democracy Swiss style where every issue is determined at the Canton level by a show of swords by the entire electorate.

Cheers.


----------



## Donaill (8 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.
> 
> The real blame rests on the voters who elected a candidate without seeing or hearing the individual, and they get to reap the "benefits" of having such a person as a representative.



This could be said of any party though, as how useful is it to run a Liberal in a staunch Tory riding?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A system of recall should exist to deal with dishonoured contracts between the representative and their electors, but this shouldn't be automatically triggered through representative actions, but rather by overwhelming initiative by the electors.



I really like this idea.


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.



Agreed; however, it wasn't just the NDP who ran pylons.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> This could be said of any party though, as how useful is it to run a Liberal in a staunch Tory riding?



Donaill has a point there Thuc.  Somebody once said you can't score if you don't shoot.  Same rules apply.


----------



## Infanteer (8 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Agreed; however, it wasn't just the NDP who ran pylons.



Those are accusations and nothing more.  Parties of course run candidates with the hope of winning - any money they get is a product of the system (which will soon be gone).  The NDP would have fielded candidates in all 308 ridings without the vote subsidy.  The NDP were rewarded for finding a candidate to run in a Quebec riding and the electorate will be rewarded with having a Member of Parliament sitting as a member of the Official Opposition.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Parties of course run candidates with the hope of winning



:rofl:




Oh, wait, you were serious?  ???


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 May 2011)

There are regularly candidates belonging to a dozen or more parties receiving 100 or less votes in elections.  I was asked once to be a Social Credit candidate and declined.  If I had ever been a party member I might have given it some thought.  I would have had no thoughts about beating the Tories but I would have gone through the motions.   The fringe parties are great for democracy.

The Quebecois were voting honestly when they thought an NDP bale of hay was better than a Grit or a Tory.  Nothing wrong with that.  I can respect it.


----------



## Infanteer (8 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Oh, wait, you were serious?  ???



What would a party run a candidate for if it didn't want to compete for the seat?  Do you think, if there were no vote subsidies, that the NDP wouldn't run 308 candidates with the objective of winning as many seats as possible?  Of course, in many ridings it's a long shot, but as this year's election showed us, nothing is ever for certain.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 May 2011)

Personally, I think there's a difference between being a "lamb" and a "pylon". If I were to run, I would have no objection to contesting a riding that I had little chance of winning, solely to gain the experience. As the old adage holds: there's often more to be learned from losing than winning. 

I don't think it serves democracy to run as a pylon. Just the same, the voters in these ridings got the MP they selected, so they will have to live with that choice. I accept that's the nature of the process we've developed.

With the $2 vote subsidy on the chopping block, perhaps the "pylon" effect will be reduced at the next vote.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What would a party run a candidate for if it didn't want to compete for the seat?  Do you think, if there were no vote subsidies, that the NDP wouldn't run 308 candidates with the objective of winning as many seats as possible?  Of course, in many ridings it's a long shot, but as this year's election showed us, nothing is ever for certain.


No, I don't think that ANY party would run in all 308 seats, certainly not in the manner in which the NDP ran in this past election.  Bartender from Ottawa thrown into Three Rivers, Quebec?  Another candidate who couldn't campaign because she couldn't get time off from work: as an NDP fundraiser!



It ran for a few things.  One was to have a legitimate speaking line about 50% of their candidates being women, or some other such nonsese (as opposed to the most competent, to wit, they could all be women).  The NDP is "Democratic" in name only, much like many so-called "democratic republics", past and present.

The other was as stated: the vote subsidy.  Money talks, and there is no friggin' way that even Jack Layton thought that Miss Brosseau was going to win.

As an aside, from my Quebcois colleagues, Mr Layton appeared on a very popular TV show in Quebec, and he did very well, as one would expect.  The polls immediately following its telecast showed the NDP surge starting.  THen it took off.  The votes showed many things, and I think the main thing is that as a province, Quebeckers are fairly socialist: high taxes, nanny state, etc.  So, out with the Bloc, in the the New (democrats, that is).


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2011)

Like I said, once the subsidy is ended, a party may still choose to run candidates in all or most ridings to establish a national presence. Since the reason for having a candidate has changed the people being recruited as candidates will also change.

Fringe parties will continue to run people who are true believers in whatever cause they espouse (there are political parties that campaign for animal rights or to abolish monetary interest). More mainstream parties will need to run serious candidates even where there are limited chances in order to show they are serious (governments in waiting), and to take advantage of missteps of the established party candidate. 

Regardless, parties will still round up less than suitable people (it is hard enough to find 308 excellent candidates for anything, now multiply 308 X 19 registered political parties....) and of course the voters are still responsible for their choices.


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2011)

Switching gears a bit, I mentioned in another thread that defining a Triple E Senate in Canada in terms of "equal" would be difficult.  How is equal defined when the goal is regional representation when we have Provinces that are so vast that they compose different regions?  As I stated, the default may be simply to give Provinces a certain amount of seats (say 5).  That being said, there are vast differences within provinces, especially larger ones with metropolitan areas.  Does a province take its seats and divide them up as they see fit along geographic grounds?

I'll propose a Senate of 60 members:
1.  40 members from the provinces - each province is allotted 4 Senators to represent it in the Senate.  Provinces may individually determine how they wish to assign Senate seats within their province (one per geographic area, top 4 out of all candidates, PR from all parties, whatever).
2.  14 members from Canada's major cities, with each city getting 2 Senators.  I've classified a major city as a metropolis with over 1 million people.  At this point, there are 7 - Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, and Edmonton.
3.  6 members from each Territory - 2 per territory.

Due to the majority of seats in a rep-by-pop House of Commons for major cities, some may find para 2 undesirable.  I included it as major cities have unique regional interests that might be distinctly recognized from the interests of smaller cities/rural areas.


----------



## GAP (10 May 2011)

You'd have to reopen the constitution to do that....senate seats were defined under the charter....that simple? act, opens an entire pandora's box....


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2011)

Package it right and it is doable; Constitutional Reform isn't, nor shouldn't be sacrosanct.  Meech Lake/Charlottetown were disasters because they were packaged around matters of identity and Quebec's position in Canada which are contentious at the best of times.  Focusing more on structural aspects of Canada should be easier.


----------



## CougarKing (10 May 2011)

link



> ..*Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien, the architect of the current system*.
> 
> Harper tried to kill the $2 per vote subsidy in 2008, sparking a rebellion by the opposition parties that nearly cost him his minority government. *During the just-concluded election campaign, Harper said a majority Conservative government would phase out the system over two to three years in consultation with the other parties.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 May 2011)

Chretien put the libs on the road to ruin. People should really stop listening to him. His stale date is past. I'm sure Harper doesn't put a whole lot of stock in him. The PM has pledged to end the subsidy. I'm sure he will.

I don't want my tax money supporting paties I don't like. I'll donate to the party I want in power.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 May 2011)

From my perspective, Chretien recommending one COA is reason enough to go in the other direction.


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, I don't think that ANY party would run in all 308 seats, certainly not in the manner in which the NDP ran in this past election.



Missed this one.

The NDP ran 294/295 candidates in the 1993 election and 295/295 candidates in the 1988 election, before Chretien brought in the vote subsidies.  So you are categorically wrong in your assessment.

The NDP is a national party and will run candidates across Canada; they may not be the most qualified, but they legally passed the test.  I saw Ms Brosseau made an appearance in her riding - she is definitely easy on the eyes!


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2011)

There.....the Commons is Reformed (almost)........................

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-seating-chart/article2045299/?from=2045567


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2011)

Prime Minister Harper may be mulling other options for Senate reform:

http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2011/06/senate-nuclear-option.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BackOffGovernment+%28Back+Off+Government%21%29



> *The Senate Nuclear Option *
> Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2011
> 
> Harper's Aussie meanderings are spooking some back home:
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2011)

And the Chess Master says "Check" once more


----------



## TheNewTeddy (3 Jul 2011)

I've been a keen follower of Senate Reform for many years, and wrote a number of university papers on the topic. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue.


There is one thing people always forget that must be key: Whatever is proposed will need to actually work, and be accepted.

This means no EEE. Quebec will never settle for having 6 Senators (or PEI having 24)
This means no as-powerful-as-the-commons Senate.

There are a few things that I can see being accepted and working.

1 - Term Limits
This is as good as done. Be it 8 years, 9 years, 12 years; the Senate will now have a term limit.

2 - More seats for AB and BC.
Currently, AB and BC each have 6 seats, while NB and NS have 10. This is due to history. If NB and NS could be bribed to giving up their seats, they could, as stupid as it sounds, trade with BC and AB. A more sensible idea that would result in more Senate seats (and thus anger Quebec) would be to give AB and BC 12 each. This is actually what I think will happen at the end of the day.

3 - Elected? 
This will come down to exactly how the government does reform. It can either keep everything tightly federal, and hold federal elections to the Senate; or it can hand over responsibility to the Provinces, in which case you'll have some (IE Alberta) electing Senators while others (IE Quebec) will have the Premier appoint them. I can't tell which direction Harper or Canadians are going, but with term limits, and more seats for the western provinces, the desire to also elect Senators may die down, and not happen any time soon.

If we do go elected, the only systems we would likely use are proportional. Either STV as in Australia, or a direct proportional representation system. I also think that we would copy Australia and split our elections over two or three periods so that (in a 6 Senator province) you have either 3 up every 4 years, or 2 up every 4 years, which would make the total term either 8 or 12 years. If you did 2 every 3 years, you could do a 9 year term.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Since the essential _discriminatory_ nature of the Act of Settlement of 1701 - something that should  burn in the breast of every right thinking Canadian   - provides me with the basis for my proposal for a _regency_, I hope Prime Ministers Cameron and Harper do not manage to reform the thing. More in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/13/a-woman-first-in-line-to-the-throne-harper-consults-on-succession-changes/


> A woman first in line to the throne? Harper consults on succession changes
> 
> Postmedia News  Oct 13, 2011 – 10:34 AM ET
> 
> ...




I love it when 300 year old laws create problems today.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Oct 2011)

The fact that the whole thing revolves around *birthright* makes me supportive of your Regency proposal....


----------



## RangerRay (13 Oct 2011)

As an ardent monarchist, I am in favour of modernising the Act of Settlement.

I would also be open to look at repatriating (or is it patriating?) the monarchy.  But that's another debate.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> As an ardent monarchist, I am in favour of modernising the Act of Settlement.
> 
> I would also be open to look at repatriating (or is it patriating?) the monarchy.  But that's another debate.



Heah, Heah..... and a Huzzah or two for good effect  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

Given HM is the Queen of Canada, is it not possible to write Canadian Laws which would resolve this problem so far as Canada was concerned? This could be a regency as Edward proposed (and I am free should the position open up  ), or even a Canadian "Act of Succession" which simply states the Sovereigns oldest child becomes the next Monarch of Canada.

Just wondering


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given HM is the Queen of Canada, is it not possible to write Canadian Laws which would resolve this problem so far as Canada was concerned? This could be a regency as Edward proposed (and I am free should the position open up  ), or even a Canadian "Act of Succession" which simply states the Sovereigns oldest child becomes the next Monarch of Canada.
> 
> Just wondering




I think (and I would be most happy to be corrected) that there are two HUGE problems:

1. We _inherited_ the Act of Succession along with the whole panoply of laws and customs designed to federally unite the Canadians provinces "into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom;"1 and

2. Our Constitution says2 that we can only alter the _fundamental_ 'shape' of our government - and altering the monarch's status would surely be that - by unanimous consent of the Parliament of Canada and ALL provinces. That means a full blown constitutional conference with all that entails - something almost no one in their right mind desires.
----------
1. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Page-1.html
2. PART V, 41


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2011)

30 new seats, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/26/pol-house-seat-distribution.html


> 30 more MPs for rebalanced House of Commons
> 
> CBC News
> 
> ...




Not as "good" as I wished, not as bad as I feared:

BC: *42* (36+6)  AB: *34* (28+6)  SK: 14  MB: 14 ON: *121* (106+15) QC:* 78* (75+3) NB: 10 PEI: 4 NS: 11 NL: 7 = *338*


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2011)

So further data:

*British Columbia*
Population: 4,113,487
New # of seats: 42 (up 6)
% of Canadian population: 13.0
% of seats: 12.2 (up 0.3)
Average population per riding: 97,940

*Alberta*
Population: 3,290,350
New # of seats: 34 (up 6)
% of Canadian population: 10.4
% of seats: 10.1 (up 1.0)
Average population per riding: 96,775

*Saskatchewan*
Population: 968,157
Seats: 14 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 3.1
% of Canadian seats: 4.1 (down 0.4)
Average population per riding: 69,154

*Manitoba*
Population: 1,148,401
Seats: 14 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 3.6
% of Canadian seats: 4.1 (down 0.4)
Average population per riding: 82,029

*Ontario*
Population: 12,160,282
New # of seats: 121 (up 15)
% of Canadian population: 38.5
% of seats: 35.8 (up 1.4)
Average population per riding: 100,498

*Quebec*
Population: 7,546,131
New # of seats: 78 (up 3)
% of Canadian population: 23.9
% of seats: 23.1 (down 1.3)
Average population per riding: 96,745

*New Brunswick*
Population: 729,997
Seats: 10 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 2.3%
% of Canadian seats: 3.0 (down 0.3)
Average population per riding: 72,999

*Prince Edward Island*
Population: 135,851
Seats: 4 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 0.4
% of Canadian seats: 1.2 (down 0.1)
Average population per riding: 33,963

*Nova Scotia*
Population: 913,462
Seats: 11 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 2.9%
% of Canadian seats: 3.3% (down 0.3)
Average population per riding: 83,042

*Newfoundland and Labrador*
Population: 505,469
Seats: 7 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 1.6
% of seats: 2.1 (down 0.2)
Average population per riding: 72,210

*Yukon*
Population: 30,372
Seats: 1 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 0.10
% of seats: 0.3 (down 0.02)
Average population per riding: 30,372

*Northwest Territories*
Population: 41,464
Seats: 1 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 0.13
% of seats: 0.3 (down 0.02)
Average population per riding: 41,464

*Nunavut*
Population: 29,474
Seats: 1 (no change)
% of Canadian population: 0.09
% of seats: 0.3 (down 0.02)
Average population per riding: 29,474


Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/house-seats-redistribution/


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2011)

I wonder, given how votes are tallied, if someone were to count the votes by polling station (if that stat is available), if based on the previous election, how things would have turned out this time?  Bigger majority?  Same sized _*Orange Crush*?_  Assuming, of course, that every vote were the same as last time....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Oct 2011)

So if I read your table right ERC, contrary to the bull we always hear from the "blame Quebec for everything in Canadian politics", its not really Quebec that is screwing BC, Alberta or Ontario's proper representation, its the other six provinces and three territory, that no one ever mentions. In fact, Quebec is just about as screwed as they are - or at least as screwed as Alberta is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2011)

Precisely.

Leave the Territories aside, please, but: PEI's four HoC seats are _constitutionally_ guaranteed (no province shall have fewer seats in the Commons than it has in the Senate) and it, SK, NL, and NB are all significantly over-represented. MB and NS are also, albeit less significantly, over-represented. ON, BC, QC and AB are all, albeit not too badly, now, under-represented.

As I said, this is an improvement. We'ere not going to get to anything like equality unless we accept an HoC with 900+ seats. We can get pretty close, Territories and PEI excepted, with slightly less than 400 seats. Successive governments should aim for that; Canadians should wonder why PEI is a province at all, rather than, say, a county in NB.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians should wonder why PEI is a province at all, rather than, say, a county in NB.


Well, three counties, but yes, good point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I wonder, given how votes are tallied, if someone were to count the votes by polling station (if that stat is available), if based on the previous election, how things would have turned out this time?  Bigger majority?  Same sized _*Orange Crush*?_  Assuming, of course, that every vote were the same as last time....




My guess is that when the boundaries are redrawn we will see that urban centres, where the NDP and Liberals are strongest, will not gain much. It will be the suburbs (inner more than outer) that will gain along with fast growing "new" centres like Kelowna in BC. That _should_ favour the Conservatives who have made significant gains there, election after election, since 2006.

We, Canada, have usually done fairly well at redistribution boundary drawing, avoiding the gerrymandering that plagues this process in the USA.






The Illinois 4th District (US House of Representatives) the "strip" that holds the district together is the median in
I-294! This district provides a predominantly Hispanic district in, broadly, non-Hispanic Chicago. But the two 
halves, while Hispanic, are not united: one half is predominantly Cuban and the other is Mexican, but what the hell ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a much easier to understand representation of the (CBC) data I posted yesterday

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-seats-rebalance-the-house-of-commons/article2216717/?from=2216665





The _Globe_ says: _"The Conservatives want the bill passed before the House rises in December for the winter recess so the changes will be in time for the 2015 election."_ That, doing it in a timely manner, is just as important as getting it _exact;y_ right.

_"To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."_
Magna Carta


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2011)

It actually looks like they could have got away with giving Quebec only 2 new seats to maintain the 23%.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> It actually looks like they could have got away with giving Quebec only 2 new seats to maintain the 23%.....




Politically it is, I think, better to take away QC's right duty to be humiliated.

This gives them just a sliver more share of seats (23.28) than they have of population (23.22). Québec's _share_ of seats has declined from 24.59% to 23.28%, that's sufficient. In a near perfect world Québec will get at least one more seat at the next (2016?) redistribution while AB, BC and ON each get several more.

The _political_ point, I believe is to keep QC's _share_ of seats at or just above its _share_ of population while, gradually, moving the other provinces (even PEI) closer and closer to their fair shares. That works for me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2011)

Senator Nicole Eaton (Conservative, Ontario) has proposed replacing the beaver, which she has described as a “dentally defective rat,” with the polar bear as the symbol of all things Canadian, including, I suppose, the collar badges of some famous regiments. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










Sen. Eaton E-mail: eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The _Globe and Mail's_ editorial cartoonist responds, just a wee bit waspishly, with a thought on beavers vs. senators that I think we might all enjoy:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-october-2011/article2180808/?from=2217431


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

Another appropriate cartoon:





Source:  http://www.artizans.com/image/MAY2845/stephen-harper-needs-seats-to-accommodate-clowns-in-commons-color/


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2011)

Edward, next time you have Conrad Black over to your place, invite us too!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/05/conrad-black-playing-the-monarchist-game-of-‘what-if’/



> *Conrad Black: Playing the monarchist game of ‘What if?’*
> 
> Conrad Black  Nov 5, 2011 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Nov 4, 2011 5:08 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Politically it is, I think, better to take away QC's right duty to be humiliated.
> 
> This gives them just a sliver more share of seats (23.28) than they have of population (23.22). Québec's _share_ of seats has declined from 24.59% to 23.28%, that's sufficient. In a near perfect world Québec will get at least one more seat at the next (2016?) redistribution while AB, BC and ON each get several more.
> 
> The _political_ point, I believe is to keep QC's _share_ of seats at or just above its _share_ of population while, gradually, moving the other provinces (even PEI) closer and closer to their fair shares. That works for me.




Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition must propose _improvements_, and it does, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, by suggesting that Québec should have seven new seats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/three-extra-seats-not-enough-for-quebec-ndp-tells-tories/article2228008/


> Three extra seats not enough for Quebec, NDP tells Tories
> 
> JANE TABER
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




The NDP has to do this; they, more than any other party, _represent_ Québec in Ottawa and this - maintaining _more_ than a fair share of seats, is Québec's _position_. It will not cost them anything in ROC. I'm not sure that the Liberals are on as 'safe' a course in threatening to sue the government over hiring a unilingual Auditor General - that may not play as well in ROC.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2011)

A proposal from 308.com

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2011/11/proposal-for-house-and-senate.html



> *A proposal for the House and the Senate*
> 
> The Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats have all proposed changes that could be made to how seats are allocated and distributed in the House of Commons.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2011)

Here is a really good (if long) article that outlines the roles of the GG and the PM, and clarifies a lot of nebulous arguments about reserve powers, who does what and so on:

http://parliamentum.org/2011/11/28/constitutional-scholarship-or-political-activism-the-role-of-the-academy-following-the-coalition-prorogation-crisis-of-2008/



> *Constitutional Scholarship or Political Activism? The Role of the Academy Following the Coalition-Prorogation Crisis of 2008*
> Posted on 2011/11/28
> 
> Introduction
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good news about new seats in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/adding-seats-to-house-of-commons-a-political-windfall-for-tories/article2271940/
> 
> Roll on 2015!




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is a good graphic showing the details of the (pending) new seat redistribution:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/15/graphic-renovating-the-house-of-commons/


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Dec 2011)

The next major renovation for the parliament building will be the removal of all the desks in the House of Commons, as like the UK.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The next major renovation for the parliament building will be the removal of all the desks in the House of Commons, as like the UK.




I agree with you because if we are ever going to get anywhere near something like "rep by pop" (excepting for the three Territories, PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador which, for constitution reasons must remain badly overrepresented in a house with less than about 900 seats) then we need, by 2019, to have a HoC with 399 seats distributed as shown below (assuming the provincial shares (for eight provinces) of the national population remains the same as now).


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2012)

Seven new (Conservative) senators, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-appoints-seven-new-senators-many-with-tory-ties/article2294404/


> PM appoints seven new senators, many with Tory ties
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2012)

So, I'm confused... I thought PM Harper was appointing Senators before so he could get a majority in the Senate, in order to reform it... "playing at their own game" so to speak....

Is it really necessary, now that he has a majority in the HoC and a majority in the Senate, to appoint 7 more? Seems like a lot of extra cash being spent for no reason, by a self-proclaimed "fiscally responsible" government...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> So, I'm confused... I thought PM Harper was appointing Senators before so he could get a majority in the Senate, in order to reform it... "playing at their own game" so to speak....
> 
> Is it really necessary, now that he has a majority in the HoC and a majority in the Senate, to appoint 7 more? Seems like a lot of extra cash being spent for no reason, by a self-proclaimed "fiscally responsible" government...



Seriously? 

The NDP would do exactly the same thing given the chance.

The liberals always have anyway.

It's an opportunity to hamstring future opposing governments.

It's called politics.

If provinces elected their Senators, like Harper has asked, he'd pick from them, no matter their stripe. Maybe he's fed up asking and is intent on forcing them.


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Seriously?
> 
> The NDP would do exactly the same thing given the chance.
> 
> ...



Yes, seriously, I was asking for an analysis of what he's doing... I don't care what other parties "would do," that's not a good excuse to make the same mistake and it's not why I voted for the Tories. If I wanted what the Libs would do, I would have voted for them.

If it's all part of the political process to actually end up with Senate Reform, fine, I'd just like to have an idea of how this ties into it. I don't understand a lot of the "political games," but quite frankly I would hope it's for a better reason than the reasons the Libs were stacking the Senate before (aka, to hamstring the Tories when they are in government). 

If I'm going to complain when a party I didn't vote for does it, I better complain when the party I voted for does.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

I think the PM might be on constitutionally shaky ground were he to stop appointing senators for no good reason. The Senate is a legislative body; it does have a role; its members, the senators, are a legitimate part of our process - someone has to represent the provinces. The PM *should* keep the Senate "up to strength," or near there.

I do not see Stephen Harper doing anything radical, such as I have proposed many pages back. Changes to the Senate will be incremental until Prime Minister Harper is gone.


----------



## GAP (8 Jan 2012)

Although some seem to backtracking, all the new appointees have committed to an eight year term.....now if the LPC gets back into power, it would be amusing to watch how many say....who, me? uh uh....never heard of that!....it's 75 or bust!!

 :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2012)

More on the Senate, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/appointments-give-harper-upper-hand-in-senate-reform-battle/article2297093/


> Appointments give Harper upper hand in Senate-reform battle
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I have, previously, expressed my views on how the Senate can and should be _reformed_ without amending the Constitution ~ elect senators, on a pure proportional representation system, during provincial general elections and, maybe, enlarge the senate to give more seats to the Western provinces.

I did a quick survey of the most recent provincial general election results and this is what *my Senate* would look like right now, assuming all senators were elected as described:

BQ/PQ:                  8
Conservatives:     29
Liberals:              38
NDP:                   19
Other QC Parties:  4
Others:                 3
Sask Party:           4
TOTAL:              105


But I had to revise my numbers because it is not clear that, for example, all BC and QC Liberals would caucus with the Liberal Party of Canada. Some, in fact, would likely choose to sit with the Conservatives, as would the Sask Party senators. 

My revised standings are:

BQ/PQ:               8
Conservatives:  40
Liberals:            33
NDP:                 19
Others:               5
TOTAL:            105


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jan 2012)

In the next while or so, it may be easier to differentiate between liberals and conservatives in BC.  Recent polls show the BC Conservatives are tied with the BC Liberals, as former BC Liberal supporters abandon the party in droves.


----------



## McG (15 Jan 2012)

It seems the Liberals are in favour of a preferential ballot:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/15/pol-liberal-convention-sunday.html?cmp=rss


> ...
> 
> Finally, Liberals also voted 73 per cent in favour of a preferential balloting system. The motion titled states that the party "implement a preferential ballot for all future national elections."
> 
> ...


It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such a system in place.  While it would correct for vote splitting within a given riding, it would not do the same at the trans-riding level.  In other words, those parties competing for the split vote would win more ridings collectively but they would still split the total ridings between eachother. The years of huge Liberal majorities while the right was split would instead have been Liberal minority governments (or Conservative/Alliance coalition governments), and the current Conservative majority would likely have been another minority.

If one believes the role of the MP is to contribute to the empire of the party, then this would be an unfavorable idea.  However, since the role of MP is to represent the riding, a preferential ballot or transferable vote would ensure the MP is more representative of the riding.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2012)

As a small "l" libertarian I find this article quite refreshing, as the closure of debate is quite objectionable, but the SuperPAC model is simply silly:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/andrew-coyne-a-less-comedic-balance-for-the-political-marketplace/



> *Andrew Coyne: A less comedic balance in the political marketplace*
> Andrew Coyne  Jan 20, 2012 – 7:33 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 20, 2012 7:40 PM ET
> 
> For once, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have met their match. If you’ve not been following, Stewart has taken over control of Colbert’s “Super PAC” — a private, supposedly independent fundraising organization, or “political action committee” as they’re called in the States — while Colbert runs for “President of South Carolina.” The two comedians make an elaborate show of not communicating with each other, in obedience to U.S. election law, even as they are very obviously communicating with each other.
> ...


----------



## OOTBthinker (15 Feb 2012)

I'm new to this forum so I haven't had time yet to read all the posts, but has anyone discussed the possibility of a mixed electoral system using our current constituency-based system and incorporating elements of proportional representation to it?

The advantages of a mixed system would be that it would be easy for the electorate to understand since they would be voting in exactly the same way, but the results would more closely match a proportional system.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2012)

In my opinion, there are many things wrong with mixed proportional systems.

The constituencies become much larger.  This may not seem like a problem in relatively homogenous urban areas, but when you merge 2 to 5 rural areas into one super-riding, you lose representation, especially if the super-riding is dominated by a medium sized city 3 hours away.  Rather than having an MP to represent, for example, 100,000, that MP will represent 300,000 or more.

You still have "list candidates" not voted directly by constituents, but elected via proportional representation.  In other countries, these pols may be unpopular amongst the voters, yet due to their ties to the party, they could be the first candidate on the list to be elected on proportional lists.

You also get the fringe party tail wagging the mainstream party dog.  In many countries, mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties have to form coalitions with extremist parties to form government.  This often ends up with small unpopular extremist parties getting disproportionate power in setting policy relative to their popular vote with predictable results.

Talking to people in New Zealand where they have MMP, most said they would like to go back to the old First Past the Post system.  They say government has become a gong show since they adopted that system because every special interest group now has a party and it is relatively easy to get at least one seat in Parliament.

IMHO, our system isn't perfect, but it's better than the others that have been tried.


----------



## OOTBthinker (15 Feb 2012)

> In my opinion, there are many things wrong with mixed proportional systems.
> 
> The constituencies become much larger.  This may not seem like a problem in relatively homogeneous urban areas, but when you merge 2 to 5 rural areas into one super-riding, you lose representation, especially if the super-riding is dominated by a medium sized city 3 hours away.  Rather than having an MP to represent, for example, 100,000, that MP will represent 300,000 or more.



True, constituencies do become larger but it doesn't mean less representation. Under the mixed proportional system that I'm proposing, ideologically divided ridings could be represented by more than one MP (2 or 3 MPs per "divided" riding; I'll describe this system in a bit more detail below). Plus, look at our present system; sure your MP might represent only 100,000 people, but if you didn't vote for that MP does that MP really represent you and your political views. And if that MP got elected with only 40% of the vote, how well does that MP represent the majority of electors in the riding who didn't vote for him or her? Now they want to add more seats; this will only add to the number of backbenchers who really don't do much; how well do you think backbenchers represent the people in their ridings, even within their own party caucus?



> You still have "list candidates" not voted directly by constituents, but elected via proportional representation.  In other countries, these pols may be unpopular amongst the voters, yet due to their ties to the party, they could be the first candidate on the list to be elected on proportional lists.



I agree with you there, lists are not the way to go, but proportional representation does not necessarily mean lists of candidates. Under the mixed system that I would propose, winning candidates would gain their seats just as is done today under our existing system, and the remainder of the seats would be filled using those candidates that did not come in first place in their ridings but who nevertheless got the most votes for their party. In other words, in a highly contested riding, two or three candidates might still end up with seats; one for winning the election in the riding, and the other(s) to make up a party's proportion of seats because they got the most votes for their party. Highly divided ridings get more representation while highly homogeneous ridings get 1 MP because they don't need more. Compared to party lists, under this system that I am proposing, people actually have a say as to whom might represent them one way or the other.



> You also get the fringe party tail wagging the mainstream party dog.  In many countries, mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties have to form coalitions with extremist parties to form government.  This often ends up with small unpopular extremist parties getting disproportionate power in setting policy relative to their popular vote with predictable results.



A mixed system would still favour the more popular parties as fringe parties would sort of get the left overs. Also, the more people realize that their vote counts for something - as under a system that features proportional representation - the less likely they are to vote for fringe parties.



> Talking to people in New Zealand where they have MMP, most said they would like to go back to the old First Past the Post system.  They say government has become a gong show since they adopted that system because every special interest group now has a party and it is relatively easy to get at least one seat in Parliament.



The major drawback of proportional systems has always been minority governments and in many parts of the world this means instability. But this is not true everywhere; there are some countries where minority governments are a fact of life but they are still able to make accommodations and function effectively. The most important thing is leadership; a minority government lead by an able leader can find accommodation with other parties and make government work. And this is exactly what Canadians want from their political leaders. We are an idealogically diverse nation and we want that diversity to be represented in the House of Commons, but we also want our leaders to work together to find common ground. What we don't want is one "minority" group ruling over the others for four to five years.



> IMHO, our system isn't perfect, but it's better than the others that have been tried.



IMHO, our present electoral system is far from perfect, and not everything has been tried. What I'm proposing is not really a radical change, simply a change for the better.


----------



## Furniture (15 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> The major drawback of proportional systems has always been minority governments and in many parts of the world this means instability. But this is not true everywhere; there are some countries where minority governments are a fact of life but they are still able to make accommodations and function effectively. The most important thing is leadership; a minority government lead by an able leader can find accommodation with other parties and make government work. And this is exactly what Canadians want from their political leaders. We are an idealogically diverse nation and we want that diversity to be represented in the House of Commons, but we also want our leaders to work together to find common ground. What we don't want is one "minority" group ruling over the others for four to five years.
> 
> IMHO, our present electoral system is far from perfect, and not everything has been tried. What I'm proposing is not really a radical change, simply a change for the better.



The key advantage to our system as it stands is that under a majority government things that need to be done can be done without all the political games such as the ones being played south of the border. Sure the PM has powers not far short of a dictator for the four years they hold the office, but if they piss off enough people they get turfed at the next election. Not having the threat of an election hanging over the head of the government at all times also allows them to govern with an eye to slightly longer term goals.


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I'm new to this forum so I haven't had time yet to read all the posts, but has anyone discussed the possibility of a mixed electoral system ...


We've discussed a lot of things.  Multi-member constituencies, preferential ballots/transferable votes, proportional systems, constituency systems, hybrid systems, and so on, and so on, ... 

Have a look:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-200633.html#msg200633

One of the concerns with a proportional system is that it makes representatives answerable to the party more so than now, and to the electorate less so than now (because under such a system it is the party that owns the seats).  It also means the end of independants sitting in the house.


----------



## OOTBthinker (15 Feb 2012)

> The key advantage to our system as it stands is that under a majority government things that need to be done can be done without all the political games such as the ones being played south of the border. Sure the PM has powers not far short of a dictator for the four years they hold the office...



I agree that politicians who play political games do so at the detriment to the country. But majority governments rarely form their majorities with a majority of the votes; when such governments get things done "that need to be done," that's according to a minority of people while the majority thinks it's to the detriment of the country. Regardless of the outcomes of what these governments do, acting that way is a detriment to this country.



> Sure the PM has powers not far short of a dictator for the four years they hold the office, but if they piss off enough people they get turfed at the next election. Not having the threat of an election hanging over the head of the government at all times also allows them to govern with an eye to slightly longer term goals.



Ever notice how these majority governments make all the unpopular decisions at the beginning of their mandates hoping that the electorate will forget by the time they're up for re-election, and how they play it safe and make all kinds of nice promises near the end of their mandates trying to 'buy' our votes? Whether they be Liberal or Conservative, majority governments all govern with a four to five year goal: to change the country as much as they can to the way they want and still get re-elected.


----------



## OOTBthinker (15 Feb 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> We've discussed a lot of things.  Multi-member constituencies, preferential ballots/transferable votes, proportional systems, constituency systems, hybrid systems, and so on, and so on, ...
> 
> Have a look:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-200633.html#msg200633
> 
> One of the concerns with a proportional system is that it makes representatives answerable to the party more so than now, and to the electorate less so than now (because under such a system it is the party that owns the seats).  It also means the end of independants sitting in the house.



I would agree with you that PR makes representatives answerable more to the party than the electorate under a 'list system', but that's not what I would be proposing. You can have PR where the parties owe their standing to their elected representatives that got them the votes. Also, I would say that elected representatives today, under our current system, are more answerable to their party than to their constituencies. Rarely will an MP vote against the wishes of his party though his constituency might want them to do so; when they do it's usually political suicide and there are many recent examples that prove this point. The mere existence of "party whips" proves this point. The only way around this, whether in a PR system or our FPTP system, are party leaders who trust their fellow party members and allow them to represent their constituents and/or vote according to their conscience as much as possible.

As for independents, it's already hard for them to get elected. A PR system wouldn't necessarily make it harder, especially in a mixed system.


----------



## Furniture (15 Feb 2012)

The problem is that you will never have a majority of Canadians agree to much of anything beyond Winnipeg is cold, and paying taxes isn't much fun. Anything beyond that you are going to have about 32 million differing opinions. 

Sometimes governments have to do things that are unpopular, look at the situation we are in with needing to make cuts to control deficit spending. If you need to fight for votes because you may have an election in two months it's hard to make the cuts that are needed to secure the long term prosperity of the country. While the cuts made may not be exactly what everybody wants, they are what's needed. Making those cuts in a minority where you need to make concessions for a party trying to gain influence and seats in the next election you may be forced by the reality of politics to do things poorly and end up hurting the country in the long run.


----------



## OOTBthinker (15 Feb 2012)

Weatherdog, you may never get "all" Canadians to agree on something, but you can certainly get a "majority" of them to agree on a course of action. Sure you'll get millions of different opinions on something, but in the end, through good leadership and enough accommodation and tolerance, a majority can certainly agree on tough decisions and the rest accept the decision. That's what democracy is all about.

Whenever we decide to go out to eat, it has never happened that my wife and I and my two kids have wanted to go to the same restaurant, but we debate it and discuss it and eventually make a decision that we can all live with. What would be inappropriate is for one member of the family to always decide and always choose what he or she wants without considering the wishes of the others or perhaps the greater good of all. Sadly, with majority governments under our present electoral system, that's exactly what we get for 4 to 5 years.


----------



## Furniture (15 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Whenever we decide to go out to eat, it has never happened that my wife and I and my two kids have wanted to go to the same restaurant, but we debate it and discuss it and eventually make a decision that we can all live with. What would be inappropriate is for one member of the family to always decide and always choose what he or she wants without considering the wishes of the others or perhaps the greater good of all. Sadly, with majority governments under our present electoral system, that's exactly what we get for 4 to 5 years.



I like that analogy, but I'll take it a step farther. 

Lets say the parents want to go to Smittys for a reasonably priced meal that may have some nutritional value. The teenager wants to go to the Keg for a steak and the youngest wants McDonalds. The vote happens and the parents win (they have more ridings), now the children spend the whole meal complaining that they never got what they wanted and weren't given a fair say. 

All parties got the chance to cast their vote but the two children refused to vote together so they end up losing overall. Then they procede to blame the system for their failure to get their act together and work as a team to get what they wanted. 

Don`t get me wrong, I don`t think our current system is perfect by any means, but at the same time I`m hesitant to agree with you that a system that more regularly gives us minority governments is the way to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2012)

One of the problems is that a Canadian political _majority_ is so elusive as to be, effectively, extinct. The last time we had such a thing at the national level was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney earned 50.03% of the popular vote; before that it was John Diefenbaker in 1958 with 53.66% of the vote; in each case the majority wasn't so much for the Conservatives as it was a reaction to too many years of Liberal rule.

There is not, most emphatically *not* a majority *against* Stephen Harper and the Conservatives; it is dishonest to suggest that the Liberals and the NDP and Greens and the Bloc are in any meaningful way "united."

Readers who are interested can scan back several pages (I'm too lazy to do it) to find a post of mine where I analyzed recent election results and suggested that our curent _first past the post_ system is not as unfair as most people appear to believe - yes, it does reward the most successful party and it does 'punish' the least successful ones, but, all in all, it is not grossly unfair.


----------



## MJP (15 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Sadly, with majority governments under our present electoral system, that's exactly what we get for 4 to 5 years.



That in it self is not a bad thing.  Stability over a medium term is a good thing for running government and the economy.  It also gives the voting populace at large an ability to assess policy properly rather than knee jerk changes that come with constant changes.  When one party reaches too far on the pendulum they are punished for it ( Ei: Tories in 1993, Liberals 2011)


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I like that analogy, but I'll take it a step farther.
> 
> Lets say the parents want to go to Smittys for a reasonably priced meal that may have some nutritional value. The teenager wants to go to the Keg for a steak and the youngest wants McDonalds. The vote happens and the parents win (they have more ridings), now the children spend the whole meal complaining that they never got what they wanted and weren't given a fair say.
> 
> ...



The problem wasn't with the two children not voting together but with the parents not explaining enough to their children why they had made their decision, why it was the right one at the time, and how at another occasion, under different circumstances, the decision might be to go to another restaurant. This takes leadership capable of accommodating diversity.

Let's not kid ourselves, Canada has a diverse population, and our government has to be able to accommodate Canadians, a government "of the people, for the people." A minority government, which would be more prevalent with PR, simply reflects the reality and forces us to lead the people while striving to find common ground. A majority government under our present electoral system simply allows a minority to rule over the others without having to make any accommodation, until they get replaced and their decisions get turned around. There's no unity in this, there's no common goal or vision. It shows a lack of leadership - the only way a political leader can lead is by "lording it" over others. How different is that from the situation in Syria? This is not how governments should be in the 21st century.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One of the problems is that a Canadian political _majority_ is so elusive as to be, effectively, extinct. The last time we had such a thing at the national level was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney earned 50.03% of the popular vote; before that it was John Diefenbaker in 1958 with 53.66% of the vote; in each case the majority wasn't so much for the Conservatives as it was a reaction to too many years of Liberal rule.
> 
> There is not, most emphatically *not* a majority *against* Stephen Harper and the Conservatives; it is dishonest to suggest that the Liberals and the NDP and Greens and the Bloc are in any meaningful way "united."
> 
> Readers who are interested can scan back several pages (I'm too lazy to do it) to find a post of mine where I analyzed recent election results and suggested that our curent _first past the post_ system is not as unfair as most people appear to believe - yes, it does reward the most successful party and it does 'punish' the least successful ones, but, all in all, it is not grossly unfair.



The problem with our system is that it doesn't reflect the reality - it doesn't reflect our diversity of opinion. I would never suggest that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are united in any meaningful way, but the reality is they might be of common accord on certain issues (as an example, the gun registry, or environmental issues). Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another, but our electoral system isn't allowing that common 'bond' to be voiced. Instead we have a majority Conservative government, representing a minority opinion, pushing their down the throats of a majority of Canadians. That is completely unfair!

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Conservative and will readily acknowledge that the Liberals have done this in the past also. An electoral system with PR would force our leaders to find common ground, and in a country as diverse as ours, that is what is needed.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> That in it self is not a bad thing.  Stability over a medium term is a good thing for running government and the economy.  It also gives the voting populace at large an ability to assess policy properly rather than knee jerk changes that come with constant changes.  When one party reaches too far on the pendulum they are punished for it ( Ei: Tories in 1993, Liberals 2011)



You can have stability even within minority governments, but you have to work at it a little harder. It takes good leadership, accommodation and tolerance, all things that we could use a little more of from our political leaders. Minority governments also prevent "pendulums" from happening in the first place and that's a good thing. When pendulums happen, Canadians get punished too through bad policy. Governments should be in tune with its citizens and never going against the wishes of a majority of them; an electoral system with PR would make this happen.


----------



## GAP (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> You can have stability even within minority governments, but you have to work at it a little harder. It takes good leadership, accommodation and tolerance, all things that we could use a little more of from our political leaders. Minority governments also prevent "pendulums" from happening in the first place and that's a good thing. When pendulums happen, Canadians get punished too through bad policy. Governments should be in tune with its citizens and never going against the wishes of a majority of them; an electoral system with PR would make this happen.



Minority governments prevent long "pendulum" swings, but cause short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> The problem with our system is that it doesn't reflect the reality - it doesn't reflect our diversity of opinion. I would never suggest that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are united in any meaningful way, but the reality is they might be of common accord on certain issues (as an example, the gun registry, or environmental issues). Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another, but our electoral system isn't allowing that common 'bond' to be voiced. Instead we have a majority Conservative government, representing a minority opinion, pushing their down the throats of a majority of Canadians. That is completely unfair!
> 
> And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Conservative and will readily acknowledge that the Liberals have done this in the past also. An electoral system with PR would force our leaders to find common ground, and in a country as diverse as ours, that is what is needed.




But on some other issues the Conservatives and Liberals or Conservative and some NDP members might be united - witness the gun registry vote a few days ago. Party discipline and partisan politics, not the electoral system, is the problem.

I do not oppose coalitions and, provided it was announced ahead of the election, I would likely vote for, say, a Conservative-Liberal _alliance_ if it was intended to prevent a NDP government which, unless the party does a 180o policy shift, I would regard as being disastrous for Canada. But I oppose "after the fact" _alliances_ such as were bandied about by all parties during the Martin and Harper minority administrations. If a _national unity_ government is necessary then say so during the election campaign ... otherwise it, like the incessant calls for PR, is crying over partisan spilled milk.

By the way, I am not, unalterably, opposed to weighted voting but I'm not persuaded that it is that much better than our current "simple plurality" system.

The problem, I repeat, is that there is no "common ground" in Canada - about half of the 25% or so of Canadians who are _independent_ voters can be persuaded to shift towards one of their fellow Canadians' _traditional_ partisan favourites (currently *about* 30% Conservatives, 20% Liberals, 15% NDP, 5% Greens, 5% Bloc) - enough to give a plurality and a majority government. The closest we have to "common ground" in this country is greed and envy - maybe our defining national attributes; no one wants to see their little share of "free" something or other cut back or even off; we are like the sly old Russian peasant who was envious of his neighbour who had two cows, each morning, at dawn, the peasant used to go to a shrine and pray, "please God, make us all the same, kill one of Ivan's cows."


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Minority governments prevent long "pendulum" swings, but cause short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants....



Canada's experience with minority governments is very limited and for the most part has not been very successful, but I thought the last Conservative minority government did quite well and I'm sure with with more minority government experience we could make it work quite well. As for the ''short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants'' I go back to the fact that it's a question of leadership - good leaders seek accommodation in the interest of the country, not for ideological or electoral gain. Again, with more experience in minority government situations, I think our political leaders could start getting a hang of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Canada's experience with minority governments is very limited and for the most part has not been very successful, but I thought the last Conservative minority government did quite well and I'm sure with with more minority government experience we could make it work quite well. As for the ''short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants'' I go back to the fact that it's a question of leadership - good leaders seek accommodation in the interest of the country, not for ideological or electoral gain. Again, with more experience in minority government situations, I think our political leaders could start getting a hang of it.




I think your 'definition' of political leadership is hopelessly naive. Good leaders don't "seek accommodation," they seek power in order to lead the country in the right direction. Now you and I might quibble with the direction chosen but that, not seeking accommodation, is what leaders do.

We have had plenty of experience in minority governments over the past two generations - nine of the last 20 governments (in 55 years) have been minorities. They are harmless in "good times" - think Mike Pearson in the 60s, but Canadians want firm leadership - *majority government* - when they (finally) understand that leadership, in some direction, is necessary.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But on some other issues the Conservatives and Liberals or Conservative and some NDP members might be united - witness the gun registry vote a few days ago. Party discipline and partisan politics, not the electoral system, is the problem.
> 
> I do not oppose coalitions and, provided it was announced ahead of the election, I would likely vote for, say, a Conservative-Liberal _alliance_ if it was intended to prevent a NDP government which, unless the party does a 180o policy shift, I would regard as being disastrous for Canada. But I oppose "after the fact" _alliances_ such as were bandied about by all parties during the Martin and Harper minority administrations. If a _national unity_ government is necessary then say so during the election campaign ... otherwise it, like the incessant calls for PR, is crying over partisan spilled milk.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about party discipline and partisan politics; taken too far it's bad in any electoral system.

As for coalition governments, you can't announce them before an election; political parties go into an election to win the right to lead the nation, not to share it with another party. If a minority government situation occurs, then they can think about coalition governments, but even that doesn't mean that the coalition government will agree on everything. As you stated, sometimes Conservatives will align themselves with Liberals, at other times with the NDP; that is how it is supposed to work - that's finding the common ground and that's good. It means that these representatives are finding common ground for their respective supporters and thereby a majority of Canadians, even if that mix of Canadians being represented changes from issue to issue.

The problem is not that there is no common ground in Canada; our diversity is just a reality. The problem is that our political leaders don't strive hard enough to find common ground within this diversity, and a majority government within our present electoral system offers no incentive to do so. An electoral system incorporating PR would simply reflect Canada's diversity and force our political leaders - our representatives - to find common ground on issues.

I would argue that another problem with our present political leaders or the political parties that they represent is that there is a lack of long term vision for Canada, something that would grab the interest of a majority of Canadians, and that this is one reason why we are so divided. Again, another sign of a lack of good leadership.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I agree with you about party discipline and partisan politics; taken too far it's bad in any electoral system.
> 
> As for coalition governments, you can't announce them before an election;




Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think your 'definition' of political leadership is hopelessly naive. Good leaders don't "seek accommodation," they seek power in order to lead the country in the right direction. Now you and I might quibble with the direction chosen but that, not seeking accommodation, is what leaders do.
> 
> We have had plenty of experience in minority governments over the past two generations - nine of the last 20 governments (in 55 years) have been minorities. They are harmless in "good times" - think Mike Pearson in the 60s, but Canadians want firm leadership - *majority government* - when they (finally) understand that leadership, in some direction, is necessary.



I don't think my definition of political leadership is naive, but it is perhaps idealistic. To be honest, I haven't seen 'my kind of good leadership' that often. What you describe as good leaders I have seen plenty of - there are many political dictators all around the world. What kind of leader would you think most Canadians would want? Also, your kind of leader might be good for you if that's who you actually want to lead you, but what if the leader is the guy from the other side? Would you be okay with an NDP majority government in Canada?

I'll take an accommodating leader over a dictator anytime.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.



I acknowledge that it has been done in the past, and that a political party might announce a willingness to form a coalition government with another party before an election, but I'd think that they would have to be pretty close in ideology for that to happen. It's hard for me to see it happening in Canada. I remember the Liberals and the NDP talking about forming a coalition with the support of the Bloc, but there the purpose was to counter the Conservatives and NOT have to go into an election. They definitely tried to stay away from all talk of forming a coalition in the subsequent election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

But, OTBthinker, the essence of a Westminster style democracy is that the _executive_, the cabinet (the _committee_ of the Queen's Privy Council, to be exact) has near _dictatorial_ powers so long as it can command the _confidence_ of the House of Commons and of the sovereign (largely a matter of not breaking any rules - like staying in office too long (but there are exceptions - see the UK in the 1940s)). Do you propose that we change our system to something akin to that of, say, France?

The "system" has evolved, sometimes slowly, sometimes (1600s and 1830s to 1850s) rather briskly into the workable _jumble_ we have now. It is far from perfect but it is, I suggest, as good as anything else and better than most - including the great constitutional republic to the South. We, Canadians, do have important, _democratic_ issues with which to grapple: inequality of representation and an appointed legislative chambre to name just two, but PR is not, in my opinion very high in the list and I will wager that any proposal that is made by any government over the next decade will fail in a referendum. Why? Because it is not a matter of any import to anything but a small minority of (usually poorly informed) Canadians.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another,



Have a link to that?  All the polls I have seen have consistently shown that a majority want it scrapped.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.



As well, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have a semi-permanent coalition.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

The problem with any electoral reform is that the people in power - those elected under the present system - must change what got them elected for a system that might not get them re-elected. Such political leaders must do so out of conviction, at the risk of political loss. Again, a question of good leadership.

As for incorporating PR into our present electoral system, your quote of John Stuart Mill is reason enough for such a change. 



> If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
> John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)


One of my favorite books by the way.

Under our present system, not all opinions are heard equally and some are silenced altogether. And all too often with our majority governments, the opinion of a minority silences the others. Incorporating PR into our present system would simply help in allowing all opinions to be heard. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an evolution into something better... *if done right*. I will grant you that some forms of PR systems would be for the worst.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

I agree with Mr. Campbell in that a better way to fix our system would be to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons into a much more representative fashion than they currently are distributed (sorry PEI, you only get one seat, not 4) and to create a Senate that is elected with equal representation amongst the provinces (ON = PEI).  A Senate with equal representation amongst the provinces would be a much better check on the power of a House of Commons, i.e. the PM.

The contention that a mixed PR system would not result in loss of representation is false.  To make a "mixed" system, some MP's would be elected to represent a riding and others would be elected based on the popular vote of a party.  This would mean that ridings would have to be enlarged, meaning a loss of *local* representation.  In BC, we had a proposed STV/PR system that I at first supported.  However, when I saw that my rural riding would become a super-riding with 5 MLA's dominated by one city three hours away, I could not support it, and neither could a large majority of BC'ers.  Under such a system, it is conceivable that all 5 MLA's could be from that one city, and not have any idea what goes on where I lived.

Every time electoral reform has gone to referendum in Canada, it has failed (BC, ON).  It failed recently in the UK as well.  Because Canada is so diverse, local representation is very important.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Have a link to that?  All the polls I have seen have consistently shown that a majority want it scrapped.



Two-thirds of Canadians back long-gun registry: poll
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/05/two-thirds-of-canadians-back-long-gun-registry-poll/

Support Shifts In Favour Of Gun Registry: Poll
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/92363--support-shifts-in-favour-of-gun-registry-poll

I know I saw one as recently as the fall of 2011; I'll try to get it to you. I will admit that while googling the topic, I did find polls stating the opposite. I guess what polls one is exposed to depends on where one lives in the country.

Another example of ''the Harper government flexing its majority muscle to push through the Commons a controversial bill'' was stripping the Wheat Board of control over grain sales.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-majority-topples-wheat-board-monopoly/article2252644/
Farmers had voted in a plebiscite in favour of keeping the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over wheat and barley sales.
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=091211.jsp

And I don't want to sound like I want to bash the Conservatives; I take exception with any majority government that acts this way.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> The problem with any electoral reform is that the people in power - those elected under the present system - must change what got them elected for a system that might not get them re-elected. Such political leaders must do so out of conviction, at the risk of political loss. Again, a question of good leadership.
> 
> As for incorporating PR into our present electoral system, your quote of John Stuart Mill is reason enough for such a change.
> One of my favorite books by the way.
> ...




You are still guilty of wishful thinking. All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament - they are expressed, heard, considered and then, mostly, rejected by the government of the day. PR, no matter how effected, would have absolutely no impact on that fact of life.

Sometimes the system does distort the voting outcomes, most notably during the Jean Chrétien majorities (1993 and onwards) when his seat tally was far out ofd proportion to his vote count. But that occurred while the conservatives were reorganizing and had to endure the _Parson Manning_ (and Stockwell Day) interregnum until Peter MacCay and Stephen harper could effect a reunion of the conservative factions. I suspect the the misnamed "liberal" factions are going through the same thing right now.

We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system: one major right of centre/centre right party and one major centre left/left of centre party, probably "bookended" by a hard right and a hard left party, too. I'm not sure such a thing provides the desired _stability_. I'm guessing that the only way to find stability is to have a large _centre_ party with two smaller parties on each of the (economic and social) right and left wings - the voters from the right of centre and left of centre will gravitate to the centre as, mostly, economics dictate: in "hard times" the fiscal conservatives will prevail, in good time the "free spenders" will be in power - look for 8-12 year cycles. (the hard right and hard left voters will be permanently shut out of power, as they should be. their voices are heard and, properly, ignored.

Once again nothing in any PR system offers anything useful for the process. PR proponents betray only their own misapprehensions of the workings of the social, economic and political processes.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I agree with Mr. Campbell in that a better way to fix our system would be to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons into a much more representative fashion than they currently are distributed (sorry PEI, you only get one seat, not 4) and to create a Senate that is elected with equal representation amongst the provinces (ON = PEI).  A Senate with equal representation amongst the provinces would be a much better check on the power of a House of Commons, i.e. the PM.
> 
> The contention that a mixed PR system would not result in loss of representation is false.  To make a "mixed" system, some MP's would be elected to represent a riding and others would be elected based on the popular vote of a party.  This would mean that ridings would have to be enlarged, meaning a loss of *local* representation.  In BC, we had a proposed STV/PR system that I at first supported.  However, when I saw that my rural riding would become a super-riding with 5 MLA's dominated by one city three hours away, I could not support it, and neither could a large majority of BC'ers.  Under such a system, it is conceivable that all 5 MLA's could be from that one city, and not have any idea what goes on where I lived.
> 
> Every time electoral reform has gone to referendum in Canada, it has failed (BC, ON).  It failed recently in the UK as well.  Because Canada is so diverse, local representation is very important.



I agree with the need to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons, and I agree that it shouldn't be done by simply adding new seats - we already have too many MPs - but from taking away seats from less populous provinces (ie. PEI and others, including Quebec). As for ''super ridings,'' I don't know the details of what was proposed in BC but I am pretty sure it's not exactly what I would be proposing (Under my proposal, ridings would perhaps double in size, if that, so there wouldn't be super ridings with 5 MPs).

But let's remember that the purpose of incorporating PR into a mixed system is to enhance ideological representation; I don't care if the person representing me lives three hours away as long as I know the he is representing me ideologically. Under our present system, if the representative has ideological opinions different and perhaps even opposed to mind, he is not representing me even if he were my next door neighbour. And what of representatives elected with less than 50% of the vote in the riding; is that person truly representing the riding? No! To me, ideological representation is far more important than local representation, and that's why we need PR. Just ask yourself, what do most people vote for? Do they vote for the person, or do they vote for the political party that the person represents? If you're honest you'll agree that most people vote for the party and really don't care too much who the person is. People want ideological representation and that's why we need PR.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I agree with the need to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons, and I agree that it shouldn't be done by simply adding new seats - we already have too many MPs - but from taking away seats from less populous provinces (ie. PEI and others, including Quebec). As for ''super ridings,'' I don't know the details of what was proposed in BC but I am pretty sure it's not exactly what I would be proposing (Under my proposal, ridings would perhaps double in size, if that, so there wouldn't be super ridings with 5 MPs).
> 
> This is Constitutional nonsense. You have to totally remake the country, into something you would not recognize, to accomplish such a thing. You are not thinking "out side the box," you are smoking dope.
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> But let's remember that the purpose of incorporating PR into a mixed system is to enhance ideological representation; I don't care if the person representing me lives three hours away as long as I know the he is representing me ideologically. Under our present system, if the representative has ideological opinions different and perhaps even opposed to mind, he is not representing me even if he were my next door neighbour. And what of representatives elected with less than 50% of the vote in the riding; is that person truly representing the riding? No! To me, ideological representation is far more important than local representation, and that's why we need PR. Just ask yourself, what do most people vote for? Do they vote for the person, or do they vote for the political party that the person represents? If you're honest you'll agree that most people vote for the party and really don't care too much who the person is. People want ideological representation and that's why we need PR.



That's nice that you want someone to represent your ideology, but in my experience, most voters want their MP/MLA to be their local representative in Parliament.  _Most_ people couldn't give two figs for ideology, holding views that are often contradictory (myself included).  They may vote for a party that reflects mostly what they agree with, but they _want_ to send someone to Parliament who understands their _local_ issues.  I lived in a riding that had and MLA from party that was not traditionally elected in that riding.  Because he effectively represented the riding in Parliament, rather than represented the party and its ideology, people voted for him despite coming from a party that they would not normally vote for.

All politics is local.

Because you want a representative that agrees with you ideologically does not mean most people do.

EDIT TO ADD:  The Westminster system we have, and the representative system in the US, is based on electing local representatives, not ideological representatives.  As Mr. Campbell says, to do what you say is to turn our system upside down.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

> All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament



Hence the need for PR.



> All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament - they are expressed, heard, considered and then, mostly, rejected by the government of the day.



Should the government of the day have the right to reject the opinion of a majority of Canadians? Doesn't the government exist to represent Canadians and to serve them? So how would they be serving Canadians by going against their wishes?



> We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system



The question should be, what do Canadians want? I would say that they want to be properly represented and heard and their views taken into consideration when decisions are made. Hence PR!



> We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system: one major right of centre/centre right party and one major centre left/left of centre party, probably "bookended" by a hard right and a hard left party, too. I'm not sure such a thing provides the desired stability. I'm guessing that the only way to find stability is to have a large centre party with two smaller parties on each of the (economic and social) right and left wings - the voters from the right of centre and left of centre will gravitate to the centre as, mostly, economics dictate: in "hard times" the fiscal conservatives will prevail, in good time the "free spenders" will be in power - look for 8-12 year cycles. (the hard right and hard left voters will be permanently shut out of power, as they should be. their voices are heard and, properly, ignored.



Most Canadians don't view themselves that way anymore; they are individuals with differing opinions on different issues. Even members within a political party don't agree on everything. On certain issues, I myself lean right, whereas on other issues I lean left. Canadians don't want to be stuck under the rule of one ideology for a time and then under another ideology for a time; they want to be properly represented all the time. Only PR can help with that.



> PR proponents betray only their own misapprehensions of the workings of the social, economic and political processes.



Times have changed, and Canadians have evolved. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> That's nice that you want someone to represent your ideology, but in my experience, most voters want their MP/MLA to be their local representative in Parliament.  _Most_ people couldn't give two figs for ideology, holding views that are often contradictory (myself included).  They may vote for a party that reflects mostly what they agree with, but they _want_ to send someone to Parliament who understands their _local_ issues.  I lived in a riding that had and MLA from party that was not traditionally elected in that riding.  Because he effectively represented the riding in Parliament, rather than represented the party and its ideology, people voted for him despite coming from a party that they would not normally vote for.
> 
> All politics is local.
> 
> ...



When I want someone to represent local issues, I look towards my municipal councilor or perhaps my provincial representative. The federal issues that concern me are rarely local issues and if they are, it's usually because someone has done something they shouldn't have. When I think of issues concerning the economy or social welfare, or defence related and foreign affairs, these issues are governed by ideology, so yes I do want ideological representation and I think most Canadians would on those issues as well.


----------



## GAP (16 Feb 2012)

I think you think you have found an audience for you views. You have made your points and they have been roundly discounted for good valid reasons. So.............stop  :deadhorse:


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> ...
> Times have changed, and Canadians have evolved. Welcome to the 21st century.




You cannot effect change in the 21st century until you understand what it is that you want to change, and that means mastering the complexities of what evolved in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Simon de Montfort and Robert Walpole must be as familiar to you as Stephen Harper and Bob Rae or you cannot hope to make changes in an enormously complex system.

In my considered opinion you do not understand much of anything about political history, political science, the Constitution or, for that matter, Canada and Canadians. The changes you say you want and that you imply, without foundation, that some (many? more than just a few hundred?) Canadians want, reflect the sophomoric yearnings that one hears most often late at night in the junior common rooms of some universities. You are whining because some votes in parliament do not go your way; they don't go my way either and I work from inside the system, as an active, due paying and maximum allowable donor to a political party. I make my voice heard by presenting the government and the party I support, when they are not one in the same, with coherent ideas on specific policy issues.

Your ideas - an Israeli style constitution for Canada - are so far from the mainstream and from the possible as to be laughable.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You cannot effect change in the 21st century until you understand what it is that you want to change, and that means mastering the complexities of what evolved in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Simon de Montfort and Robert Walpole must be as familiar to you as Stephen Harper and Bob Rae or you cannot hope to make changes in an enormously complex system.
> 
> In my considered opinion you do not understand much of anything about political history, political science, the Constitution or, for that matter, Canada and Canadians. The changes you say you want and that you imply, without foundation, that some (many? more than just a few hundred?) Canadians want, reflect the sophomoric yearnings that one hears most often late at night in the junior common rooms of some universities. You are whining because some votes in parliament do not go your way; they don't go my way either and I work from inside the system, as an active, due paying and maximum allowable donor to a political party. I make my voice heard by presenting the government and the party I support, when they are not one in the same, with coherent ideas on specific policy issues.
> 
> Your ideas - an Israeli style constitution for Canada - are so far from the mainstream and from the possible as to be laughable.



I don't want to be stuck in our ways because of history. The world has changed - it has evolved - and so must Canada. Sure I would like to see Constitutional change; though I love Canada I recognize that it isn't perfect and wish it could be changed for the better. And though I recognize that Constitutional change is difficult - which is why the government is seeking to add additional seats to the House instead of negotiating Constitutional change that would allow taking seats away from certain provinces - sometimes it must be tried and we should be able to bring about Constitutional change. The framers of our Constitution did not envision all the changes that have occurred in the past 145 years, and so we should be able to bring about change that better responds to the current reality and to the desires of Canada's citizens.

As for the changes that I would bring to our electoral system, they are not as radical as you seem to think and would require no constitutional change. It's a mixed system because it would simply incorporate components of PR to our present FPTP system. Canadians would see no change in the way they vote, but the end results would be more closely proportional to the actual vote. What's so wrong about that?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> ... What's so wrong about that?




It would, fundamentally, alter the rationale for any representation at all.

Peoples' views on issues, great and small, reflect much more than just political _ideology_ - because, I would argue, Canadians, in the main, are not especially ideological. Canadians vote because of how things happen to them, personally, in their homes, in their communities (that's why we have _"une chambre des communes"_, it is a House of Communities (not of commoners)) far more than they vote for (or against) some abstract ideology. That's why Jack Layton moved the NDP away from the ideological "left" and towards the centre: to make his party more attractive to more people by offering solutions that made sense to them in their _local_ communities; that's why he did so well in Québec - he offered himself and his party as being "in tune" with Québec's aspirations and sympathetic to Québec's point of view; that counted for a lot more than left wing _ideology_ which is more popular in Québec than elsewhere in Canada. Ditto for the Liberals' failures: Liberals post St Laurent/Pearson have been _ideological_ and they have steadily, inexorably declined from being the natural and _national_ governing party to being a regional, urban rump; in other words they forgot that "all politics is  local."

There is a reason we have, for 10,000 years, banded together in communities and, more recently, in organizations of like minded people - political parties: we have local issues that matter to us and, to a great degree we want and need the support of other communities; it's not about _ideology_, it's about communities and local concerns. Political representation needs to be local. PR is a solution looking for a problem - it is an unnecessary frill designed to make clueless people think that life is (somewhat) "fair."


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell,

I first have to tell you how much I am enjoying our interaction; it's nice talking to people who have strong opinions about things that matter to you.

Let me ask you this: do you find you have more in common with the people in your community, or do you find you have more in common with other members of the Conservative Party? If it's the latter, I would think ideology matters more to you than your local community. Your ''community'' is a group that you see yourself as belonging to, and it can very well be based on ideology rather than on proximity.

I agree with you that most Canadians don't view themselves along the ideological spectrum but that is how they vote, whether they know it or not, and their ideological leanings can vary from issue to issue.

As for the NDPs success in Quebec, it had everything to do with the NDP being a left of center party. Quebecers wanted to try something different than voting for the Bloc and did not want to vote Liberal (mostly a question of Liberal leadership). As you say, being more left leaning than the rest of Canada, they never would have voted Liberal, so they parked their votes with the left leaning NDP whose leader they could relate to. As far as I can see, this is a temporary arrangement which will probably change at the next federal election.

As for the Liberals, I would argue that their problem is that they have lost touch with their ideology. They have become a party bent on winning at all costs and therefore shifting their policies to fit the latest polls. They have lost direction and no longer stand for anything except opportunism.



> There is a reason we have, for 10,000 years, banded together in communities and, more recently, in organizations of like minded people - political parties: we have local issues that matter to us and, to a great degree we want and need the support of other communities; it's not about ideology, it's about communities and local concerns.



What you are describing here are ideologically-based communities, so how can you say it's not about ideology?



> PR is a solution looking for a problem - it is an unnecessary frill designed to make clueless people think that life is (somewhat) "fair."



Life isn't fair, but wouldn't you agree that it should be? And if it should be, shouldn't we work at making life a little more fair?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> ...
> Life isn't fair, but wouldn't you agree that it should be? And if it should be, shouldn't we work at making life a little more fair?




No and no.

Life is what you make of it ... then it's over. "Fair" is about apportioning the chocolate cake to children, not running countries.

For all the rest ...  :nevermind:


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No and no.
> 
> Life is what you make of it ... then it's over. "Fair" is about apportioning the chocolate cake to children, not running countries.
> 
> For all the rest ...  :nevermind:



Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.




I was going to quit, but ... that's  :bullshit:

Running the country, in a responsible manner, is all about creating equal *opportunities* for individuals to succeed and become productive members of society - their communities. "Equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects" are all about _equality of outcomes_ and all are, therefore, to some large degree wasteful, morally unjustified and destructive.


----------



## OOTBthinker (16 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was going to quit, but ... that's  :bullshit:
> 
> Running the country, in a responsible manner, is all about creating equal *opportunities* for individuals to succeed and become productive members of society - their communities. "Equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects" are all about _equality of outcomes_ and all are, therefore, to some large degree wasteful, morally unjustified and destructive.



Wow! Quite revealing. Are you sure you're in the right country? The land of ''equal'' opportunities, where the rich get richer and poor get poorer and where the quality of services that one receives is dependent on how much you can afford, is just south of here. This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor. People here still get rewarded for their hard work, but it doesn't come at the expense of the less fortunate (in theory anyways; life isn't always fair as you know). Our programs offering ''equality of outcomes'' as you call them, are what Canadians have come to view as being morally justified. If you want to change that about Canada I think you're in for a harder fight than I am with PR.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Feb 2012)

Perhaps you ought to purchase a shirt like this one:







And there used to be a country that was all about equal outcomes irrespective of input:


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> This is Canada where *we* value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor.



Please quit saying "we." You represent yourself and yourself only, and that's why you get one vote.

You don't represent me, I can do a poor job of that without your help.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Wow! Quite revealing. Are you sure you're in the right country? The land of ''equal'' opportunities, where the rich get richer and poor get poorer and where the quality of services that one receives is dependent on how much you can afford, is just south of here. This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor. People here still get rewarded for their hard work, but it doesn't come at the expense of the less fortunate (in theory anyways; life isn't always fair as you know). Our programs offering ''equality of outcomes'' as you call them, are what Canadians have come to view as being morally justified. If you want to change that about Canada I think you're in for a harder fight than I am with PR.




The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that ... you are just parroting the mindless babble of campus drones.

Welcome to the  :ignore: feature which our host so kindly provided.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country *is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services*. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.



Must have come from an Occupy camp. Sounds like their drivel!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> This is Canada where we value free  access to quality services to all, rich or poor. .



This just assures me you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. My 15 year old daughter understands the workings of life better that you.

I feel sorry for you actually.......


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2012)

TNSTAAFL


----------



## OOTBthinker (17 Feb 2012)

I see that my views are generating quite the response. I should have known that this type of forum would attract people with particular views over others.



> Please quit saying "we." You represent yourself and yourself only, and that's why you get one vote.
> 
> You don't represent me, I can do a poor job of that without your help.



I'm only describing Canada as it is and how it is different from other countries, and more specifically the U.S. It's what Canadians have chosen to make of their country and I agree with it. When I say ''we'' I'm only including myself in what Canadians clearly value because that is what they have made of their country. I'm clearly not alone in this and in fact, it would be safe to assume that a majority of Canadians feel the same way as I do or we would have a different country built on a different set of values.



> This just assures me you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. My 15 year old daughter understands the workings of life better that you.
> 
> I feel sorry for you actually.......



I feel sorry for your daughter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2012)

:


----------



## ballz (17 Feb 2012)

Sorry RG, I know you're right but dear lord the self-righteousness is awful



			
				OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I'm clearly not alone in this and in fact, it would be safe to assume that a majority of Canadians feel the same way as I do or we would have a different country built on a different set of values.



No, you're not alone, but unfortunately you've been surrounded by like-minded individuals at university and have the false impression that those classrooms are a good sample of the average Canadian.

If your ad populum was even close to correct, we wouldn't have a majority Conservative government. We wouldn't even have a majority Liberal government. We'd have a majority NDP government, and if there was a major party even more to the left of them, they'd have the majority.

Instead, Canadians have chosen to go in the exact opposite direction of you.

Now go away troll.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2012)

> ... we would have a different country built on a different set of values.




Those who hold these views are, generally, ignorant of both history and the USA, presuming, as is usually the case, the authors refers to that country.

The historical fact is, notwithstanding any and all m nonsense spouted in Canadian secondary schools and universities, the USA started down the road to an _advanced welfare state_ before Canada did and it got there first.

The other fact, equally undeniable, is that the American _welfare state_ is at least as advanced as Canada's and equally _caring and sharing_ - there are minor differences: Americans without health insurance go to hospital emergency rooms, from which that *cannot* be turned away, for _routine_ medical problems; Canadians, benefitting from universal health insurance, go to hospital emergency rooms for routine problems because our 'system' cannot afford to pay for enough family physicians; and it goes on and on ... But, at bottom, there is nothing much to choose between them. In terms of the social safety net and the underlying social principles Canada and the USA are about as different as Norway is from Denmark. We do not have a different vastly country from the USA, we never intended to have much of a different country - some people, including a lot of abysmally ignorant people with PhDs, want a different country, but most Canadians, the ones who vote Conservative and 2/3 of the ones who vote Liberal, like things the way they are like things the and the way they are headed, too, so the loony left does not get its way.

I, personally, am sick and tired of university professors propagandizing in their lecture halls for socio-economic and political systems that consistently fail, and I am even more tired of high schools that graduate people without the intellectual skills to recognize plain old BS when they hear it in a classroom.


----------



## MARS (17 Feb 2012)

This editorial by Rex Murphy touches on some of the recent posts in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hf94tXosjU&sns=fb


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2012)

Funny to read the comments accusing the CBC of toadying to the PM.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2012)

And, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, BC is aiming to get on with the business of electing senators:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/premier-backs-bid-to-elect-senators-from-bc/article2361025/


> Premier backs bid to elect senators from B.C.
> 
> IAN BAILEY AND JUSTINE HUNTER
> 
> ...




A slow, steady, incremental approach can work ~ we can have an elected and effective Senate without opening the Constitution.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Mar 2012)

To give some context...

Christy Clark changes her mind every week about what to do about the Senate.  At first, she wanted to abolish it, then she wanted to leave it alone, then she wants more seats for BC.  She made a series of incomprehensible statements about it last fall and she lost a lot of credibility with the Feds.  The only reason she is doing this now is because the BC Liberals are tanking in the polls.  In two strong BC Liberal ridings (Chilliwack-Hope, and Port Moody-Coquitlam) that should have by-elections soon, the BC Liberals are polling a distant third to the NDP and upstart BC Conservatives.  It is also telling that it is a private member's bill from an MLA from a very conservative riding (Chilliwack), instead of a government bill.

She is trying to change the channel.

Last week, it was learned that a convicted terrorist was invited by the government to watch the budget procedures in the Legislature in lock-down.  She claims to be shocked at this, yet Jaspal Atwal was one of her main organizers in the Indo-Canadian community.  She is desperately trying to distance herself from him.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/28/premier-clark-shocked-convicted-gunman-attended-budget-speech/

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/02/28/exclusive-breaking-news-judged-terrorist-and-convicted-gunman-invited-by-premier-clarks-people-to-attend-budget-speech-was-a-top-ranking-indo-lieutenant-of-the-christy-clark-leadership-team/

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/02/29/disgruntled-indo-canadian-christy-clark-leadership-captain-with-criminal-past-has-strong-ties-to-the-liberal-party-of-canada/


As well, there appears to be some shenanigans during the leadership race to indicate that her people hijacked to process to allow her to win, while she had no caucus support.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/03/05/christy-clark-must-resign-as-premier-of-british-columbia-part-i-the-case-of-the-stolen-pin-numbers-finally-revealed/

Not to mention, on Friday, she was a no-show for a big shindig by Telus announcing that they were going to be spending lots of money and hiring lots of people.  NDP leader Adrian Dix was there.  NDP MLA's were there.  Only one BC Liberal backbencher was in attendance.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Buzz+over+Premier+Photo+snub+Telus/6256318/story.html

So, this is Christy Clark's attempt to change the narrative and get back some "conservative" support.  But my guess is that they are gone for good and we are looking at an NDP government in 2013.

If caucus does not push her out the door, the voters will send the BC Liberals into electoral oblivion, just like they did to Social Credit in 1991.

EDIT TO ADD:  Christy Clark is also trying to distract from a nasty labour battle with the BC Teachers Federation.  IMHO, both sides are being dense.


----------



## Kalatzi (26 Jun 2012)

Kudos to the Right Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau for his charm and inciteful contribution to the Senate Reform Question. 

I wonder when we'll hear from him again op:


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2012)

I was going to write something about the very sad case of Senator Joyce Fairbairn and the _status_ of her membership in the Senate, but I couldn't quite wrap my mind around the whole issue.

Jonathan Kay as done so, properly, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of he Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/28/jonathan-kay-the-fairbairn-case-is-a-surreal-indictment-of-the-canadian-senate/


> The Fairbairn case is an indictment of the Canadian Senate
> 
> Jonathan Kay
> 
> ...




The headline writer is wrong, it isn't the Senate, _per se_, that is called into question, it is the _attitude_ of all those, Conservative, Liberal and others, who knew that Senator Fairbairn was casting votes *after* being declared legally incompetent. 

They all feel sorry for her; as do I; she is, by all accounts, and estimable woman and a faithful public servant, but she is, legally, incompetent; yet her colleagues allowed her to vote on legislation ... the Senate is not to blame, but several senators are.

See, also: from the _National Post_: _"Senator Fairbairn’s saga has been going on at least since 2009 ... we [Senators] have been quietly asked not to challenge Joyce in Committee or the Chamber, because she wasn’t well. This game of being ‘nice’ has been going on for too long ... the late Michael Pitfield, the ‘Independent’ Senator who was [Pierre] Trudeau’s Clerk of the PCO, was stricken by Parkinson’s and could not speak. He stayed on sick leave for years. They would wheel him in twice a year to meet the minimum requirement for attendance and then he’d go back to his home in Montreal. He collected millions, and no one complained..."_

It's time we complained ... not about the costs, they're trivial and we, as a country, can afford to be generous to those stricken with such ailments ... it's time we complained about the _nature_ of the Senate and demanded its reform. Maybe that will be Joyce Fairbairn's legacy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... it isn't the Senate, _per se_, that is called into question, it is the _attitude_ of all those, Conservative, Liberal and others, who knew that Senator Fairbairn was casting votes *after* being declared legally incompetent.
> 
> They all feel sorry for her; as do I; she is, by all accounts, and estimable woman and a faithful public servant, but she is, legally, incompetent; yet her colleagues allowed her to vote on legislation ... the Senate is not to blame, but several senators are ....


Still, the Senate, as an institution, takes a pretty public kick in the 'nads with things like this.  That said, one hopes it would be possible to question/call to accountability those who let this happen while preserving the dignity and privacy of Fairbairn.  It's cowardly for the Liberals to hide behind privacy concerns to, it would appear, duck scrutiny, and the Conservatives _should_ be able to question what happened without blaming/scapegoating an individual who's sick.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... It's time we complained ... not about the costs, they're trivial and we, as a country, can afford to be generous to those stricken with such ailments ... it's time we complained about the _nature_ of the Senate and demanded its reform. Maybe that will be Joyce Fairbairn's legacy.


Good point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2012)

Five new (Conservative) senators, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-appoints-five-new-senators/article4525951/


> Harper appoints five new senators
> 
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



*Diane Bellemare* is an economist. From 1972 to 1994, she was a Professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. In 1994, she was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre (SQDM) by the Parti Québécois government of Jacques Parizeau. Bellemare ran as one of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) star candidates in the 2003 election. She finished third with 21% of the vote in the district of Blainville. PQ incumbent Richard Legendre won the election with 43% of the vote. From September 2003 to April 2007, she held executive jobs with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, including Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist from April 2006 to April 2007. After April 2007, Bellemare acted as an adviser to ADQ leader Mario Dumont concerning issues dealing with the economy. She ran as the party’s candidate to fill the seat vacated by former PQ leader André Boisclair in the Montreal-based district of Pointe-aux-Trembles. She finished third with 14% of the vote and lost the by-election held on May 12, 2008 against former PQ MNA Nicole Léger. Bellemare also ran as the party's candidate in the district of Bertrand in the general election of 2008. She finished third with 11% of the vote.

*Tobias C. Enverga Jr* is a Philippines-Canadian businessman. He is a project manager at the Bank of Montreal, where he has worked for more than 30 years. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Letran College in the Philippines, a Masters Certificate in Project Management from the Schulich School of Business at York University, and a Computer Studies Certificate from Centennial College.and is (was?) a member of the Toronto catholic District School Board. He has been recognized for his philanthropy.

*Thanh Hai Ngo* as appointed Citizenship Judge for Ottawa in December 2007, he was Chairperson of the Employment Insurance Board of Referees in Ottawa. He has a distinguished career in education both as a teacher in Ottawa and as an educator in Malaysia and Vietnam. Judge Ngo has also been an active member of various Vietnamese communities across Canada and overseas, and is the Founder and former Chairperson of the Ottawa Vietnamese Non-Profit Residence Corporation. He served as the President of the Vietnamese Community Association of Ottawa and as a Board Member and Vice-President of the Canadian Assessment and Placement Centre, Canadian Employment Centre for New Immigrants. Judge Ngo was educated in France and Canada; he received from the University of Paris – la Sorbonne, a Bachelor of Arts (Honours), and from the University of Ottawa, a Bachelor and a Master of Education.

*Thomas Johnson McInnis* is a career lawyer in Nova Scotia. He holds a law degree from Dalhousie University. He has practiced property and commercial law and public-private partnering with a number of firms, including the Weldon McInnis Law Firm (1996-2005) the Boyne Clark Law Firm (1993-1996) and the McInnis Mont & Randall Law Firm (1976-1978).  He was also co-owner of Halifax Water Tours (1974-1986) and the Maritime Travel Agency (1975-1979). Mr. McInnis is currently President of the Sheet Harbour & Area Chamber of Commerce, President of the Association for the Preservation of the Eastern Shore and a ,Member of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. He was appointed to the Halifax Port Authority in 2008. Thomas Johnson McInnis was the federal Progressive Conservative candidate for Dartmouth in 2000. He was also elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly (1978-1993).

*Paul E. McIntyre* is a lawyer and member of the Canadian Bar Association and New Brunswick Barristers' Society. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the Université de Moncton, a Master of Arts (History) from the University of New Brunswick, and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from Dalhousie University. Mr. McIntyre was Chairperson of the New Brunswick Review Board from 1985 to 1998 and 2000 onward.  He was also the senior law partner at the McIntyre Law Firm in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, until 2008. He was appointed federal Queen's Counsel in 1993. He is the owner and creator of the Alfred Desrosiers Nature Park, a fundraiser to various charitable organizations, including the Salvation Army and a former Chairperson of the Charlo Fall Fair. He was also the Assistant Coordinator of the Children's Wish Foundation (Restigouche region).


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2012)

The Conservatives are pushing a private member's bill that would open the lid on how unions spend their member's dues on political activities. NAturally the unions are afraid and going to fight this tooth and nail. Both the Liberals (in Ontario) and the NDP have benefited from union contributions and more recently "third party" union front organizations like "Working Families", although from the voting patrterns it seems quite clear that union members are not on the same page as union leaders.  Membership might have a different opinion if they knew how much money was being spent on political activities and where it was going:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/john-ivison-union-threatens-members-with-fines-as-labour-movement-scrambles-to-find-a-way-to-sink-tory-transparency-bill/



> *John Ivison: Unions scrambling to sink Tory MP’s transparency bill*
> John Ivison | Sep 11, 2012 6:52 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 11, 2012 10:03 PM ET
> 
> A Conservative MP’s private members’ bill, currently before Parliament, has ushered in a new age of anxiety for Canada’s labour movement.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2012)

Now the Premier McGuinty is proroguing the Ontario Legislature the _Twitterverse_ is alive with "experts," some of whom, like Norman Spector, are highly qualified and should know better, spewing BS.

Most people are harking back to the 2008 Michaëlle Jean/Stephen Harper prorogation which unleashed a wholly uninformed firestorm of protest from people, like Spector and most Canadian journalists, who are abysmally ignorant of the Canadian Constitution.

The business of government is entirely *political*; the politicians are _corralled_ by the Constitution - especially by the unwritten parts* - and the Crown, *but* the Crown is, equally, constrained by the Constitution and the Constitution, itself, is constrained by legal and public opinion. That Prime Minister Harper, in 2008, and Premier McGuinty, yesterday, *used* the Constitution for wholly partisan, political purposes is *100% Constitutionally correct* in all respects. The fact that a lot of people don't like what he did is irrelevant - unless or until those people rise up and, using political means, effect change. Hand wringing, especially ignorant hand wringing, doesn't count. People in the _chattering classes_, people like Lawrence Martin, Jeffrey Simpson and Norman Spector, declaim about the demise of the system and abuses of democracy without understanding that the _system_ is what scoundrels like Elizabeth I, Robert Walpole and Mackenzie King made it - and they made it what it is by _turning_ it to their own advantages.

What Michaëlle Jean did in 2008 was correct in law and by Constitutional _convention_, which matters more than law. What The Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario did yesterday is equally legal and proper. Prorogation is a tool - premiers and prime ministers can and will use it as they see fit. The ill informed _commentariat_ doesn't get any say until or unless they win high political office or are sufficiently distinguished to become the Queen's rep.

----------
The Canadian Constitution - the 1867 and 1982 versions, alike - is an amateurish affair. It was a _first draft_: the first time the gnomes at Whitehall had turned their hands to writing a constitution - and, of course, a first time for a federal constitution in the _Westminster_ system with its requisite _division of powers_ sections. They did much better 40_ish_ years later when they wrote the Australian one and better still, 40_ish_ more years after that when they wrote the modern German Constitution. But ours remains defective in many respects. Prime Minister Trudeau's changes, especially the _Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, did little - actually nothing - to imrpove things beyond providing gainful employment for lawyers and judges.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2012)

Here is the contrary position, expressed in an editorial in the _Globe and Mail_. The _Globe_ feels very strongly about this; the editorial appears, in the print editions, on the front page, above the fold, headlined: *Prorogation an abuse of power*. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/mcguinty-should-reverse-prorogation-action/article4619905/


> GLOBE EDITORIAL
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




While I agree that some prorogations are, indeed, _tactical_, in fact I would suggest that ALL prorogations are _tactical_ (budgets and elections being _strategic_ events), that does not make them inherently *wrong* or, in any way undemocratic. The problem is not prorogation, it is that we, voters, accept less than sterling conduct as "normal" from our politicians.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... ALL prorogations are _tactical_ (budgets and elections being _strategic_ events), that does not make them inherently *wrong* or, in any way undemocratic.


Among the commentariat, it's "wrong" if they don't agree with/like it.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... The problem is not prorogation, it is that we, voters, accept less than sterling conduct as "normal" from our politicians.


 :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2012)

I thought members might be interested in how the HoC has changed since 1900.

Note how the political power of the regions has grown (West) and declined (ON, QC and Atlantic) over the century plus.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2012)

definitely a lesson in relevancy.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This isn't really a budget, it is the _Budget Implementation Bill_. The budget, proper, was passed in the spring; but the budget is a _plan_, not an _order_. It is, now, necessary to pass legislation to give effect to the budget's various provisions. This is, in fact, the 2nd Budget Implementation Bill, and the second _omnibus_ bill. The first C-38 was passed in the Spring after much, nasty debate; it did not deal with all the measures in the budget, proper. That, multiple budget implementation bills, is actually fairly normal and this bill C-45 aims to finish the business. What is abnormal is the use of two massive _omnibus_ bills.
> 
> Parliamentary _convention_ says that Parliament should consider every tax and every expenditure - that is, after all, Parliament's primary _raison d'être_. In practice Parliament has neither the expertize nor the time to deal with every aspect of a modern, 21st century budget so it has become common to _group_ provisions into several bills dealing with related provisions. This government is trying a different, unpopular method: the big, _omnibus_ bills. Many commentators see this as an affront to democracy and an attempt to reduce parliament to a ceremonial role. That's a bit much but there's no question that most provisions of the 2012 budget will pass without any parliamentary scrutiny and that is a problem, for me.




There has been too little discussion, in Canada at large, about *how* our parliament exercises its primary duty in the 21st century.

The omnibus Budget Implementation Bill and the Canada-China FIPA both attracted some media attention, but almost always for the wrong reasons, but Parliament said little - not of substance, anyway.

Part of the problem is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's* approach to governing. He is not, despite what many in the _commentariat_ suggest, a bully, but he is impatient with the slow, stately parliamentary processes. In my opinion he is mistaken.

Another part of the problem is that parliamentary committees, which can and have done some very good, useful work, have stagnated in power and utility. Governments, of all stripes, need to recognize that:

     1. Committees can be useful, they can see and recommend ways to rectify weaknesses in legislation drafted by civil servants;** and

     2. Committees can help the government to overcome public resistance by allowing expert witnesses, pro and con, to illuminate the rational for legislation.

A third part of the problem, also related to committees, is that, notwithstanding the time they waste on partisan showboating, not enough members have enough time to give their committee work the attention it deserves.  

Maybe, if Prime Minister Harper would show some patience with parliament and what it can do for him, and maybe if members had more time to work in committee, and maybe if, given more time, they then took their work more seriously then parliament would work better for the government and for the country.

But: I wonder if 338 MPs - what we will have after the next redistribution - are enough.

Some time ago I proposed a 451 seat HoC (which I also modified to a more politically palatable, but less democratic 399 seat HoC) which would, I still believe, address the _efficient and *effective*_ committee issue I described above by having more members with, consequentially, more time and, possibly, more expertize.

Parliament should have given much, much more attention to both the Budget Implementation Bills and to the Canada-China FIPA but I have sympathy with Prime Minister Harper: consideration, given how committees work, would take too long so he went the omnibus route and, in the case of the FIPA, just rammed it though. I think that more members would make committees more efficient and effective.

My  :2c:

_____
*   Please note that I am a card carrying Conservative who donates pretty much the maximum allowed by law to that party; I like Stephen Harper, I approve of most of his policies; I want his government to be re-elected in 2015, BUT I worry about
     his approach to governing.
** Odd though it may seem, private members bills are often better drafted than government bills. Private members use the staff at the
     Library of Parliament to help them draft bills; the government uses civil servants in line departments. The Library of Parliament is, very often,
     better staffed, _*qualitatively*_, than are departments.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2012)

Although the argument is somewhat tounge in cheek, it is interesting to contemplate what, exactly, would happen if a large portion of our elected government were to be removed. Think of the plane crash several years ago which destroyed the entire upper echelon of the Polish leadership. Similarly, a massive attack by (insert terror group here) durig the Speech from the Throne could kill or disable a large number of government officials and elected representatives. Of course if killer robots are rampaging through Ottawa, then all bets are off:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/matt-gurney-if-cylons-nuke-ottawa-cant-someone-elected-take-over/



> *Matt Gurney: If Cylons nuke Ottawa, can’t someone elected take over?*
> 
> Matt Gurney | Nov 2, 2012 10:49 AM ET | Last Updated: Nov 2, 2012 12:15 PM ET
> More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
> ...


----------



## Sythen (2 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Although the argument is somewhat tounge in cheek, it is interesting to contemplate what, exactly, would happen if a large portion of our elected government were to be removed. Think of the plane crash several years ago which destroyed the entire upper echelon of the Polish leadership. Similarly, a massive attack by (insert terror group here) durig the Speech from the Throne could kill or disable a large number of government officials and elected representatives. Of course if killer robots are rampaging through Ottawa, then all bets are off:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/matt-gurney-if-cylons-nuke-ottawa-cant-someone-elected-take-over/



Just wow.. I found it so unbelievable that I actually had to fact check it myself. This is totally unacceptable to me. Sending an email to my MP as well as the PM as soon as I get home. Under no circumstance should Canada be lead by an unelected person. We're not the EU here.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Under no circumstance should Canada be lead by an unelected person.


I don't remember anyone voting for this guy...


----------



## Sythen (2 Nov 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I don't remember anyone voting for this guy...



Though the Queen is *technically* in charge of Canada, you'd be hard pressed to argue that she is anything more than a figurehead. No decisions on the direction of the country or its policies come from London.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Though the Queen is *technically* in charge of Canada, you'd be hard pressed to argue that she is anything more than a figurehead. No decisions on the direction of the country or its policies come from London.


She isn't London.  She's the Queen of Canada.


----------



## Sythen (2 Nov 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> She isn't London.  She's the Queen of Canada.



Who makes absolutely no decisions that affect Canada's policy, either foreign or domestic.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Nov 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Who makes absolutely no decisions that affect Canada's policy, either foreign or domestic.


Whatever.  It's not London (as you alluded to).  She is our Head of State, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2012)

Robert Fife of CTV News is reporting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set up a non-partisan committee to recommend on vice-regal appointments. It will be headed by Kevin McLeod, the Usher of the Black Rod and the Queen's Canadian Secretary.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2012)

Wow. I never knew that this sort of riding even existed in Canada (much like the Gerrymandered ridings in the US also divided up along ethnic lines). The fact the NS government is moving to abolish them is a good thing in my opinion; creating or enforcing divides and special privilages simply perpetuates problems, not solves them in most cases:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/09/nova-scotia-decision-to-eliminate-minority-ridings-headed-for-legal-challenge/



> *Nova Scotia decision to eliminate ‘minority’ ridings headed for legal challenge*
> 
> Kathryn Blaze Carlson | Dec 9, 2012 9:10 PM ET
> More from Kathryn Blaze Carlson | @KBlazeCarlson
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Given the imminent arrival of Prince Charles and Camilla, several members of the Canadian _commentariat_ have weighed in on the issue of the monarchy most, like the _Globe and Mail_’s Jeffrey Simpson and the _Ottawa Citizen_’s Janice Kennedy  - who are pretty ‘normal’ examples of the mainstream opinion - demonstrating a high degree of contempt for the Constitution.
> 
> Simpson says:
> 
> ...




Time to revisit my favourite  :deadhorse:  and to do so I will use this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Guardian_ to argue, yet again, that we should be prepared for the death of our gracious sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth, by having in place - known to the _royals_ - a plan to put a _Governor General Regent_ on the throne of Canada rather than any of HM's "lawful heirs and successors:"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/07/prince-charles-worried-succession-laws?INTCMP=SRCH


> Prince Charles 'worried about changing laws of royal succession'
> *Prince of Wales reportedly met Whitehall officials to share his concerns about fast-tracked changes to the UK's constitution*
> 
> Caroline Davies and Juliette Jowit
> ...




The Brits are, of course, free and able to do as they please, but in my opinion, given his well documented propensity to meddle in UK political/bureaucratic affairs based upon his "birthright," Charles is *unfit* to be king of any of the dominions, especially, given these views, of Canada which has a very large Catholic population.

The Parliament of Canada should pass a _resolution_ (which is a non-binding but still uniquely and _Constitutionally_ powerful sort of thing, as I have explained a few times in this thread) saying that Canada does not believe that the Act of Succession of 1707 is compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, therefore, Canada cannot be bound by it. That will, politely but officially, tell HM and Charles that on the sad day when HM dies Charles cannot assume that we will proclaim him as our sovereign.

On that sad day, hopefully many years in the future, when we must mourn HM's passing, we will then be free to assign the powers of the monarch to a _regent_ who will, already be conveniently in place: the GG.

We need never bother to revisit the _constitutionality_ of the Act of Succession ~ and that means we ought not to pass a Canadian Act of Succession in 2013 that allows Prince William and Kate's first child, rather than first son, to succeed to the throne ~ but we might, in my opinion should, revisit how we select the GG.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2013)

Welcome to the 21st century, where Canada watches as a British aristocrat and a member of the UK's Cabinet are discussing the propriety of the potential of a Catholic as the Head of State of Canada (amongst other places).


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2013)

The hopeful note is that at least they are discussing the issue, rather than settling it with gunfire and rocket launchers (as we are seeing in some parts of the Middle East).

That said, Canada evolving into a "Regency" would be both unique and interesting; the sort of thing that would make people take further notice of Canada as a nation with unique attributes and institutions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2013)

This is reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Stephen+Harper+fills+five+Senate+vacancies/7873249/story.html


> Stephen Harper fills five Senate vacancies
> 
> By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2013)

Some political scientists 1 think the Government's "Royal Baby" bill - which will give Canada's consent to a UK change to the Act of Succession will open the door to further, more drastic changes to the succession - including my proposal for a _Regency_ when HM dies. 


_____
1. I have exchanged E-mails with with both Philippe Lagassé - Ottawa and Emmett Macfarlane - Waterloo about this over the past few weeks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

And Éric Grenier of _ThreeHundredEight.com_ (whose poll aggregations I often use when we discuss elections) talks about one of my favourite subjects, Senate Reform, which may not quite be a dead a  :deadhorse: as I thought, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wildrose-or-pq-senators-welcome-to-an-elected-red-chamber/article8127059/


> Wildrose or PQ Senators? Welcome to an elected red chamber
> 
> ÉRIC GRENIER
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Bill C-7 does not go nearly as far as I would wish but it is a step in the right direction. I am not worried about the potential _chaos_ ~ professional politicians have ways of working through and around chaos.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bill C-7 does not go nearly as far as I would wish but it is a step in the right direction. I am not worried about the potential _chaos_ ~ professional politicians have ways of working through and around chaos.



As I believe I have suggested before on this thread - I am not dismayed by the prospect of a little chaos in the Senate.   A period of lively debate unconstrained by the need to guarantee a particular outcome would be good for any bill.  As long as the Senate isn't allowed to counter or delay the wishes of the Commons then I can only see advantages in having a chaotic free-for-all where all parties spend as much time trying to embarrass each other as they do the Government and the Government-in-Waiting.

The value of such a Senate would be institutionalizing the role arrogated by the Press: the free, unfettered exchange of ideas.

The only weapon that the Senate would have in its arsenal would be the power to embarrass the government - but that is a nuclear bomb as far as politicians are concerned.

But there would be another dynamic at work there as well: Provincial politics.

Perhaps it would be no bad thing if Senators were provincial party hacks beholden to their separate provincial party institutions.  After their 7 to 9 years service in the Senate they have to go back home a make a living in their provinces.  That would mean that, for example, Wildrose and the PCs of Alberta, and the PQs and CAQ would bring their provincial fights into the Senate which in turn would mean that they would be spending as much time trying to score points against each other for the benefit of their provincial parties as they would trying to score points against the Government.

I think/believe that would result in more information, from a greater variety of sources being provided to the public so that the public can judge whether, after 4 years, they agree with the decisions their elected representatives were responsible for (or, for which they were responsible).


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2013)

My preferred model would be to have provincial parties produces candidate lists for the senate; following provincial elections, the provincial popular vote would be used to allocate seats to each party.  Have half the seats up for grabs at each election to provide for longer terms in the Senate, and prohibit re-appointment.

Saves on the cost of a distinct election, and ensures that turnover in government provincially means turnover in the Senate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

Back to regencies, or prospects, thereof. You should consider Philippe Lagassé's article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/03/the-queen-of-canada-is-dead-long-live-the-british-queen/


> The Queen of Canada is dead; long live the British Queen
> *Why the Conservatives need to rethink their approach to succession*
> 
> by Philippe Lagassé on Sunday, February 3, 2013
> ...




The very heart of Prof Lagassé's thesis is the idea of a _corporation sole_; he references a pretty good Wikipedia article, here, but I would also suggest reading this because you have to understand that Blackstone is _black letter law_ on this matter and our Queen is a *corporation sole* ~ indeed, she is 16 separate and unique corporations sole, each distinct from all the others. As such any matter relating to her succession to her realm is a Constitutional matter for each sovereign state. That's the crux of Lagassé's argument for requiring s.41(a).

You don't have to agree ~ and many don't, arguing that the succession does not, in any fundamental way, alter the *office* of the monarch ~ but I think it's important to understand the concept.

If this bill passes and survives a court challenge then the preamble to the Statutes of Westminster can be used to disavow the succession, too, leading the way to a Regency.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My preferred model would be to have provincial parties produces candidate lists for the senate; following provincial elections, the provincial popular vote would be used to allocate seats to each party.  Have half the seats up for grabs at each election to provide for longer terms in the Senate, and prohibit re-appointment.
> 
> Saves on the cost of a distinct election, and ensures that turnover in government provincially means turnover in the Senate.



In Alberta we didn't have a distinct election - when we had a provincial election, there was a senatorial card as well in which you ticked off, IIRC, who you wanted and in what priority.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Back to regencies, or prospects, thereof. You should consider Philippe Lagassé's article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:
> 
> http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/03/the-queen-of-canada-is-dead-long-live-the-british-queen/
> 
> ...



There is a great quote from MacBeth that seems appropriate after reading this article....


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2013)

In the "Caught red-handed" department, here's Greg MacGregor's follow-up on Senator Duffy and his alleged PEI residency.



> Conservative Senator Mike Duffy’s office contacted Prince Edward Island’s minister of health to discuss expediting an application for a provincial health card after being asked to produce documents proving he lives in the province.
> 
> Duffy’s office called the office of Health and Wellness Minister Doug Currie after an auditor’s letter was sent to all senators requesting they back up their residency claims by providing clear copies of their health cards, drivers licences and relevant pages of their tax returns.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2013)

Re reading the  upthread posts on how Provincial politics could change the Senate, I could only think back to the US Senate prior to the passage of the 17th amendment. Senators represented States to the US government, hence the initial system of Senators being appointed by their State legislatures.

Having Provincial legislatures or political parties appointing Senators or providing candidates for senate elections would do much the same thing (representing the Provincial legislatures to Ottawa). This would provide an entirely new lense to examine proposed legislation through, and probably quiet people who claim their votes are not being counted in a First past the post system


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2013)

Some ideas refuse to die (or perhaps more aptly, rise from the grave like Richard III to taunt and fascinate all over again). This could also be in the Election 2015 thread or Liberal Leadership thread, but I can assume that after the 2015 election there will STILL be people in the Progressive ranks trying to float this proposal:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/07/kelly-mcparland-liberal-electoral-plan-shows-an-ongoing-belief-in-their-right-to-rule/



> *Kelly McParland: Liberal electoral plan shows an ongoing belief in their right to rule*
> 
> Kelly McParland | Feb 7, 2013 9:47 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And Éric Grenier of _ThreeHundredEight.com_ (whose poll aggregations I often use when we discuss elections) talks about one of my favourite subjects, Senate Reform, which may not quite be a dead a  :deadhorse: as I thought, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wildrose-or-pq-senators-welcome-to-an-elected-red-chamber/article8127059/
> 
> Bill C-7 does not go nearly as far as I would wish but it is a step in the right direction. I am not worried about the potential _chaos_ ~ professional politicians have ways of working through and around chaos.


In all of the chaos would Canada get into lower house, upper house deathmatches like we see in the US? Granted, all of the senators would be more loyal to the provinces and not exactly loyal to their federal counterparts (Alberta PCs, Quebec Liberals) but what's to stop the senators from stopping legislation that all provinces dislike. Federal healthcare funding as a recent example.

Having the Senate function as more than a highly paid group of party hacks who rubber stamp everything would be nice, but if senators start to truly see themselves as equals to the HoC what's to stop them from causing gridlock like in the US?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2013)

Altair said:
			
		

> Having the Senate function as more than a highly paid group of party hacks who rubber stamp everything would be nice, but if senators start to truly see themselves as equals to the HoC what's to stop them from causing gridlock like in the US?



Gridlock can be a feature, not a bug.  Making it more difficult for government to interfere is a good thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2013)

By _custom_, which is very, very powerful in Constitutional terms, the Senate may neither initiate nor defeat "money" bills. They can delay and recommend changes but, in the Constitutional end, the will of the House of Commons must prevail on money bills. Other bills can be defeated but if the government of the day is careful in defining _confidence_ issues that need not be a great bother.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2013)

Are omnibus bills "money" bills? Or can they be I guess is a better question.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2013)

The recent omnibus bills have all been "budget implementation" bills so they are, indeed, money bills.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2013)

Jeffrey Simpson wrote a typically whiney piece in the _Globe and Mail_ telling us why we don't want, don't need and cannot have an elected Senate and now Andrew Coyne responds in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/13/andrew-coyne-rash-of-bad-behaviour-in-the-senate-does-not-make-the-case-for-reform-democracy-does/


> Rash of bad behaviour in the Senate does not make the case for reform. Democracy does
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




Now, Im not sure about Coyne's §44 argument but I continue to maintain that Prime Minister Harper can _persuade_ provinces to elect senators with a formal Constitutional amendment and he can, equally, _persuade_ senators to adhere to strict term limits, too. It would be an evolutionary process relying upon _Constitutional convention_ but it would be more powerful for that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a look at who _might_ benefit from a proportional representation scheme:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/even-with-proportional-representation-some-mps-just-wouldnt-fit-in/article10477908/


> Even with proportional representation, some MPs just wouldn’t fit in
> 
> John Ibbitson
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




While Ibbitson may be right in suggesting that the _coalitions_ that would result from a simple PR system would, very likely, be _centrist_ - as a Harper/CPC government is and a Trudeau/LPC government might be - there is one big difference: locals lose their own, local representative, elected by them from amongst local candidates selected by them, party riding association by party riding association.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2013)

And here is another on one specific type of PR by Éric Grenier, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _threeHundredEight.com_:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/03/preferential-ballot-poll.html


> Preferential ballot poll
> 
> THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013
> 
> ...




It is an interesting poll, BUT, I have some doubts.

In a proper preferential system one votes, locally, for each candidate, so many factors beyond just (current) party preference influence the outcome: obviously, the strength of the local and national campaigns, views about the capabilities of the national leaders, and views about the local candidates will all have major influences.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2013)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is *procedural* rather than electoral reform but, even though it is about accounting  :  it is important:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/12/pressure-mounts-to-reform-opaque-financial-system/


> Pressure mounts to reform opaque financial system
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




The core responsibility of Parliament, its very _raison d'être_ in fact, is to control the public purse: to decide on both taxes and spending. It is, in our _constitutional_ system, how we control our sovereign. It is what makes us different from our American neighbours: there the executive and the legislature and, indeed, even parts of the judiciary are _responsible_ to the people through periodic, scheduled, elections; here the _executive_, the Queen and her Privy Council, is always _responsible_ to the legislature (parliament) which is, in turn, periodically answerable to the people.

Pat Martin is right about needing "a Sherpa guide, four men of stout heart and the blessing of the Almighty" to understand the Estimates ~ even the process is overly complicated. We have, each of us, contributed to electing a Member of Parliament to enforce our will, to control Her Majesty's Government by managing both revenue and expenditures. Most MPs are, fortunately, not in the cabinet: they (most MPs) are charged with the core responsibility of Parliament and we need to insist that they have the basic tools to do the job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2013)

And, back to one of my favourite topics:a _*regency*_, thanks to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Postmedia's Canada.com_:

http://o.canada.com/2013/05/13/charles-as-prince-regent-would-send-canadian-crown-into-uncharted-waters-experts/


> Charles as ‘Prince Regent’ would send Canadian Crown into uncharted waters: experts
> 
> Randy Boswell
> 
> ...




I agree with Prof Philippe Lagassé: there is nothing wrong with a regency but if *our*, Canadian, monarchy is to be affected then we must have a "made-in-Canada" system - a law, if necessary.

I was troubled by the use of the Preamble to the Statutes of Westminster rather than §41.a of the Constitution  Act of 1982 for the "Royal Baby Bill," because I don't share the government's view that it doesn't affect the "office of the Crown as defined in the Constitution, but that's a quibble. The definition of a Canadian Regent, however, does affect the crown, I think it must be dealt with in Canada and §41.a says it must be approved by unanimous consent.

There is nothing to stop the Brits from making Charles *their* Prince Regent but, in my opinion he cannot hold that office in Canada without *our* explicit consent.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2013)

Senator Duffy repaid his housing allowance after receiving $90 000 from the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.  Flacks from the PMO assure us that this wasn't taxpayers money, and the Conservative Party has stated that it wasn't their either.

So who did the money come from?  Did a humble public servant, working for the PM, just fork out $90 000 out of the goodness of his heart to help out an overweight wannabe Prince Edward Islander?

Note to the Conservatives:  When even the National Post finds your story implausible, you're in trouble.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/15/ctv-mike-duffy/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-made-secret-deal-with-harper-s-chief-of-staff-during-audit-1.1282015


----------



## PuckChaser (15 May 2013)

He's the former Managing Director of Onex Corp, an equity firm. I find it entirely plausible he had $90,000 to loan out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_S._Wright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onex_Corporation


----------



## Scott (19 May 2013)

I honeymooned on the Magdalene Islands, can I be the Senator for them?


----------



## Old Sweat (19 May 2013)

Rex Murphy, writing with at least part of his tongue in cheek in The National Post, suggests that this is all part of Harper's hidden agenda to abolish the Senate by allowing it to self-destruct. His column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Rex Murphy: The hidden agenda, revealed

It was what Sherlock Holmes would have called a four-pipe problem. Whenever faced with a real puzzler, Sherlock would take the pipe from the mantelpiece, stuff it with shag tobacco, furrow that mighty brow, and smoke his way, all night if need be, to an answer. Some mysteries, I believe The Giant Rat of Sumatra is an example, took only two pipes. A real snorter took four.

Well, I’m Holmes this week, and I think I’ve decoded one of the great mysteries of Canadian politics. Most know of it under the stubborn and enduring heading of Stephen Harper’s Secret Agenda. What is it?

Now, I’ve got to be honest here. From the very beginning, I personally have never bought into the idea of some concealed and sinister plot hived in the great dome of Mr. Harper’s superbrain.

Even recently, reflecting that he was now near seven years in power, the idea of a “secret agenda” looked to me quite ridiculous. After seven years, I reasoned, if it’s still secret, maybe there’s not a agenda at all.

Mr. Duffy was chosen not as a “representative” but as a “weapon.” It is all so clear now
Like many a supersluth before me, I was deceived. Such is the labyrinthine guile of the unsmiling man in the Prime Minister’s Office. He had taken me off the track. Waiting was part of his cool genius.

In other words I was wrong, really wrong. Wronger than a pundit listening to a pollster on the B.C. election. Harper’s most fervid critics were right.

He indeed has a secret agenda. And he has misled all as to its substance. It is not about abortion. It is not about placing soldiers, with guns, on every street in every town. It is not about about forever displacing the Liberal party, or — as some of his more nervous foes have speculated, dissolving Parliament and declaring himself Grand Ruler and Sullen Master for Life.

It is instead  about the total destruction and unstoppable ruin of the Canadian Senate, once and for ever. This has been the idée fixe of the finest political thinking machine ever to stride the Canadian stage — destroy the Senate. Turn it into a shameless shambles, to stir up a tornado-force whirlwind of animosity against it, and put it forever underground and beyond recall by any power, be it God, John Baird or Pierre Poilievre.

My reasoning here (as usual) is impeccable, and follows the celebrated principle of the great consulting detective Holmes himself, as set out in his most famous axiom: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. What I propose as solution is improbable, but, like Sherlock, having eliminated all other scenarios as strictly impossible, it has to be the only truth.

The great secret agenda has been the elimination of the Canadian Senate, a plot finally put in play only in the PM’s sixth year, with the singular appointment of the one-time TV host and noted bon vivant Michael Duffy.

Mr. Duffy was chosen not as a “representative” but as a “weapon.” It is all so clear now.

It may be a blast furious enough to send the anachronistic and unaccountable body unwept into Eternity
The climax of the enigmatic manoeuvre was worthy of that monster arch-villian, Moriarity himself. The Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister made a gift of $90,000 so that Mr. Duffy could pay back expenses he should never have received, and also thereby amputating the inquiry into those expenses, by pre-emptive restitution. This was done in the name of protecting the taxpayers, of course. The final twist in the subtle charade was the claim that the Chief of Staff did not tell the Prime Minister about the gift — the great schemer should remain aloof and beyond the scene of his work.

All of these pieces of the puzzle, when brought together into their full and proper form, produced the tidal backlash against the Senate as a whole, which we have been witness to over these last few days and week.

It may just be the tempest at the end of the Senate’s parliamentary world, a blast furious enough to send the anachronistic and unaccountable body unwept into Eternity.

There then is the Harper secret agenda fully at last revealed. The pipe is resting again on the mantlepiece, the mystery anatomized and exposed.


----------



## observor 69 (19 May 2013)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/18/rex-murphy-the-hidden-agenda-revealed/

Rex Murphy: The hidden agenda, revealed


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

In his televised speech to his caucus the prime minister mentioned abolishing the Senate. It's not a good idea - for reasons I have explained before - and it looks to be a practical impossibility, too, according to several scholars quoted in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/21/despite-stephen-harpers-rhetoric-abolishing-the-senate-is-practically-impossible/


> Despite Stephen Harper’s rhetoric, abolishing the Senate is practically impossible
> 
> Joseph Brean
> 
> ...




Obviously, I agree with Sen Anne Cools on the need for a Senate in a federal state.

Prof Errol Mendes worries that an elected Senate will entrench misrepresentation, and i agree, but it is, I think, a necessary step in the right direction.

I have proposed that the Senate should be elected in conjunction with provincial general elections. If that system was in place today the Senate would look about like this (I had to do some rounding):

CAQ (Coalition Avenir Québec):   7
Conservative:                            35 (29 Conservatives, 4 Saskatchewan Party and 2 Wildrose Party)
Green:                                         0
Liberal:                                      31
NDP:                                          21
PQ:                                              8
Other:                                         3

The current (Conservative) government would have a plurality (minority government status) but it is not clear to me that the Liberals would unite with the NDP to defeat most government legislation - delay, yes, but not defeat.


----------



## dapaterson (22 May 2013)

We agree on the big picture solution (provincial elections allocating seats by popular vote); I would adopt a slight American flavour, though, and only have half the seats in a province elected in each election, to provide greater continuity in the Senate.


----------



## GAP (22 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We agree on the big picture solution (provincial elections allocating seats by popular vote); I would adopt a slight American flavour, though, and only have half the seats in a province elected in each election, to provide greater continuity in the Senate.



or alternate them. Adjust mandates to conform to that provinces' electoral terms


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some political scientists 1 think the Government's "Royal Baby" bill - which will give Canada's consent to a UK change to the Act of Succession will open the door to further, more drastic changes to the succession - including my proposal for a _Regency_ when HM dies.
> 
> 
> _____
> 1. I have exchanged E-mails with with both Philippe Lagassé - Ottawa and Emmett Macfarlane - Waterloo about this over the past few weeks.




I know this is arcane, not to mention terminally bloody boring, but the very _Constitutional *nature*_, of Canada is at issue here. We are ~ maybe ~ a constitutional monarchy, which, itself, is a _corporation sole_,* meaning that the *right* of succession is preordained. If the right of succession is in any doubt then, as Prof Marc Chevrier says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, "If the amending rules are to be applied should they not be used to simply abolish the monarchy rather than to modernize it?”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/changes-to-royal-succession-face-legal-fight-in-quebec/article12401224/#dashboard/follows/


> Changes to royal succession face legal fight in Quebec
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> QUEBEC CITY — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If ~ and I suspect it is highly doubtful ~ this suit succeeds then, in my opinion, for what it's worth, the whole succession ~ which is based on "British law that has no legal standing in Canada" is invalid and we can have whomever we like, including no one at all, as sovereign when our gracious sovereign lady Elizabeth dies.

_____
*  The corporation sole is an historical legal entity created to allow holders of religious or certain civic offices to pass title and lands from one office holder to another in perpetuity ... Examples include a few religious offices, several statutory offices and the Queen's Canadian representatives: the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2013)

As a rule one does not rise through the ranks of the civil service to become Clerk of the Privy Council if one is obtuse or politically tone deaf; Mel Cappe, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, may just have made himself the exception that proves the rule:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/in-defence-of-an-appointed-senate/article12595437/#dashboard/follows/


> In defence of an appointed Senate
> 
> MEL CAPPE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The "appointment process" is, indeed, fine - but not because the prime minister is accountable for the quality of the appointees, it is "fine" only if the appointees do not have legislative authority. Listing all the good things the Senate has done and can do is meaningless. The Boy Scouts and the Royal Canadian Legion have done and can do many, many good things but we do not invest them with legislative power. The people who are empowered to make laws *must* be, individually, "accountable" and the way we hold people accountable in a modern, liberal democracy is by making them answer to the electorate every few years.

There were few models for federal constitutions in 1867. The closest was the USA and it had an "upper house" to balance the interests of the constituent states - the partners in the federation - against the popular will of the House of Representatives; it (the US Senate) was appointed, albeit by the states. The UK also had an upper house and it, too, was partially appointed by the monarch, on the PM's recommendation, and the church (part of the House of Lords was hereditary).

But it's not 1867 any more and we no longer believe that the "people" cannot be trusted to elect responsible people to represent them - the idea of a chambre of "sober second thought" is an insult to every Canadian. It presumes that we are too stupid or venal to elect honest, responsible legislators.

There is no argument for an appointed legislature in a modern democracy.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2013)

Great open letter to the Senate by the elder statesman of Western Canada, Preston Manning.  He's quote from Oliver Cromwell is timely....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/18/preston-manning-an-open-letter-to-the-canadian-senate/#


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

I'm not his biggest fan but that was a good letter.  Good advice and words to consider.  Sadly, he'll be ignored by all sides.


----------



## Jed (18 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Great open letter to the Senate by the elder statesman of Western Canada, Preston Manning.  He's quote from Oliver Cromwell is timely....
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/18/preston-manning-an-open-letter-to-the-canadian-senate/#



Excellent. I hope the powers that be take note.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2013)

Although I suspect that a good part of the CPC base is foaming at the mouth, this - the Senate actions reported in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ - may be just about the best thing to have happened to the government this year:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/john-ivison-conservative-senators-prove-that-they-are-no-rubber-stamp/


> Conservative Senators prove that they are no rubber stamp
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




Two things:

     1. Any _"upper house"_ (elected, appointed ot even hereditary) can do productive work; and

     2. Not all legislation is well drafted ~ this is especially true of private members' bills. It points to a pressing need for a larger, better qualified - and more expensive - Parliamentary Librarian's staff to help
         members understand issues and draft bills. 

The PMO's first instinct will, I fear, be to punish Sen Segal and the others; that's wrong; the correct COA is to help Mr. Heibert improve his bill (and to improve Mr. Rathgeber's, too) and pass the amended version again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Back to regencies, or prospects, thereof. You should consider Philippe Lagassé's article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _MacLean's_:
> 
> http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/03/the-queen-of-canada-is-dead-long-live-the-british-queen/
> 
> ...




Justice Minister Rob Nicholson defends the government's approach in this article in the _Canadian parliamentary Review_.


Edit to add: Prof Philippe Lagassé is unimpressed; he counters that:

     1. The govt’s best defence of the succession act is the ‘principle of symmetry’ & the personal union. That’s all the act has going for it; and

     2. Don’t argue that Canada and UK are under a single Crown or that the Queen of Canada and UK are the same office. Contrary evidence abounds.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jun 2013)

Regarding the professor's second point, "don't argue that Canada and UK are under a single Crown or that the Queen of Canada and UK are the same office. Contrary evidence abounds," there apparently was considerable angst expressed in the UK over Canada's decision to have George VI declare war against Germany on 10 September, 1939, when he already had declared war on 3 September, 1939. This was an application of the Statures of Westminster eight years earlier, the implications of which had not really sunk in on both sides of the Atlanitc. It was argued in certain circles in the UK that he need not make the declaration, as he had already done so.

 And Australia and New Zealand had not adopted the Statutes, so when the King declared war on behalf of the UK and its various overseas bits, they were at war. I guess, on reflection, that would have been the case for Newfoundland.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2013)

An interesting essay in defense of the Monarchy. I suppose that a Regency, as proposed by Edward, would have many of the same features (and since most of these benefits of monarchy are more theoretical than real, this is probably good enough):

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=6c682bc7-76f9-4536-ae01-587ff02fb095



> *The Crown made Canadians equal*
> BY BRUCE A. STEWART
> 27 June 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2013)

The Canadian Taxpayer's Assn. put on a show yesterday in Ottawa.  Love it.  

Video at story link.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1142954-giant-duffy-shaped-balloon-kicks-off-senate-referendum-campaign



> Giant Duffy-shaped balloon kicks off Senate referendum campaignJuly 18, 2013 - 3:26pm By THE CANADIAN PRESS
> It’s part Goodyear Blimp and part Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, all rolled into one enormously inflatable symbol of Senate excess.
> 
> Meet Mike Duffy — in balloon form.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (20 Jul 2013)

Lord Black weighs in Senate reform...and comes up with an unprecedented number of 180 Senators drawn from around 3 categories/groups. 

National Post link



> *Conrad Black: Reimagining the Canadian Senate
> 
> The recent discussion over Canada’s Senate has tended to be a rather sterile exchange about whether it should be abolished or elected. Neither is the correct answer.
> *
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2013)

The return of pips and crowns (and, I guess, the birth of _what'shisname_ in London) has set the pundits to debating the future of the monarchy. John Ibbitson explains why it's here to stay, because of a rigid written Constitution, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/sorry-republicans-the-monarchy-is-here-to-stay/article13359833/#dashboard/follows/


> Sorry, republicans, the monarchy is here to stay
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




This gives me a chance to beat two of my favourite  :deadhorse:

     1. The silliness of written constitutions, in general, and the Constitution Act of 1982 in particular; and

     2. A regency.

The single most important bits in the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 are the two dates: 1867 and 1982. Both documents are accurate reflections of the political imperatives of their times ~ one is _high Victorian_ document that reflect's a still prevailing mistrust of _democracy_ in the hands of the great unwashed, the other reflects the political priorities of one man: Pierre Trudeau. Neither accomplishes very much of import. The 1867 Act is useful in apportioning responsibilities to the national and provincial governments (§91 _ff_), but that could have been done by a simpler act. There nothing, beyond minority language rights, in the 1982 Act that would not have been here anyway. Our _rights and freedoms_ are, pretty much, the same as in e.g. Britain ~ a country without a written constitution of any sort. The _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_ is, essentially, redundant rubbish.

Had we had a man with the brains the gods gave to green peppers in our highest political office _circa_ 1982 he would have asked the British Parliament (Margaret Thatcher was PM at the time) to do one simple thing: *repeal* the BNA Act. We do, indeed, need a law that defines the divisions of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments, but it should be a Canadian law passed by a Canadian parliament and by ten legislative assemblies ~messy, but _Canadian_. We do not need - no country needs - a written constitution. People like the Americans and the French venerate their, even as they amend them beyond all recognition or, simply, toss them aside when they are inconvenient. Would any country have challenged our right to exist, our right to out lands and waters, our right to act in the worls just because we didn't have a warmed over piece of 19th century British legislation as our constitution? Of course not!

I have prattled on, over and over again, about a _regency_ ~ it's the form of government a monarchy (which Ibbitson says we are bound to remain) has when the _anointed_ monarch is unfit or otherwise unable to serve. I suggest that, on the sad day when our most gracious sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth passes away, that's what we should have. We ought not to recognize the various and sundry acts of settlement and succession from about 300 years ago ~ and we ought to tell her Majesty and her heirs and successors that we don't recognize them ~ and we ought to appoint a _regent_ on that sad day: the serving governor general. The first act of that serving _governor general-regent_ should be to devise a way for parliament to 'elect' his (or her) successor, taking us all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon/Danish period of British constitutional history, 1300 years ago, when the _Witenagemot_ (usually just _Witan_) to choose the sovereign from amongst qualified candidates.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Jul 2013)

A monarchy can be a very adaptable thing, and it can mean whatever your country needs it to be. In the 1940's the army of George VI, King of India, fought a very nasty war with the army of George VI, King of Pakistan. For a period early in their independence, Rhodesia claimed loyalty to Elizabeth II, Queen of Rhodesia, despite her not using or accepting the title.

I don't know of another system of government that is that flexible and adaptable.


----------



## tomydoom (24 Jul 2013)

I see some pitfalls to having a democratically elected Senate and defacto head of state as the institutions are currently constituted. Both institutions have an effective and absolute veto under our current constitutional order, the constraining factor is convention. The reason this convention has evolved it because neither the Senate nor the Governor General are elected.  If either of these institutions are democratically legitimised, the office holders would likely feel free to block action by the government of the day. Our system of government would likely devolve into a level of gridlock beyond anything seen in the United States. Before we can begin to think of electing a Senate or a defacto head of state, we would need to create a override procedure to allow the House of Commons to retain ultimate authority.  This of course would require a constitutional amendment, which given the inflexibility of the current document, will not happen.  So to summarise I think that attempting a back door change to our current institutions would result in some unintended consequences and it is likely safer to leave well enough alone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I see some pitfalls to having a democratically elected Senate and defacto head of state as the institutions are currently constituted. Both institutions have an effective and absolute veto under our current constitutional order, the constraining factor is convention. The reason this convention has evolved it because neither the Senate nor the Governor General are elected.  If either of these institutions are democratically legitimised, the office holders would likely feel free to block action by the government of the day. Our system of government would likely devolve into a level of gridlock beyond anything seen in the United States. Before we can begin to think of electing a Senate or a defacto head of state, we would need to create a override procedure to allow the House of Commons to retain ultimate authority.  This of course would require a constitutional amendment, which given the inflexibility of the current document, will not happen.  So to summarise I think that attempting a back door change to our current institutions would result in some unintended consequences and it is likely safer to leave well enough alone.




You're right: there are risks.

But _constitutional convention_ is an extremely powerful force, ultimately more powerful than the written words because judges - the arbiters - recognize the "limits" of the written constitution, limits imposed by the time and the situation that faced the authors.

The most powerful of *all* _constitutional conventions_ in (Britain and) Canada is is the one that says all "money" bills must, not should, must, originate in and be passed by the Commons. The Senate can defeat them, once, but in matters of money the will of the Commons must prevail, _constitutionally_. We have more than 1,000 years of _convention_, much of it written in blood and in black letter law, to establish that as a fact. In fact money lies at the very heart of Anglo-Saxon democracy. Rights and liberties are very, very late comers - it was money that the Anglo-Saxon _Witan_ used to reign in the reigning monarch. Money was at the very heart of _Magna Carta_; and money eventually _deposed_ the Stuarts, won the civil war and enabled the _Glorious Revolution_.

Political gridlock, on matters not related to the budget, is a problem for the government but not, necessarily, for the people. There isn't all that much that legislatures do, beyond budget/taxing - and the power to deploy troops, subject only to budgetary constraints, belongs to the executive (cabinet) not the legislature - that cannot benefit from delay or from not being done at all. Even war is, in our system, a financial issue. It is money that parliament uses to constrain the cabinet: parliament can stop a war by, simply, refusing to vote "supply."

As to an "elected" head of state - and my desire to bring back a 1,300 year old _convention_ (a bit more traditional than _pips and crowns_, eh?) - the _convention_ that the sovereign _serves_ at the will and with the consent of the people, as expressed by parliament, is also well established - see the demise of those stupid, inbred Stuarts and the _selection_ of Queen Mary II and her Husband to rule jointly. The head of state can, as in most other Westminster style parliamentary democracies, remain, largely, a ceremonial post (with some constitutional duties) but _how_ we select (or elect) our head of state can  be and, in my opinion, should be _formalized_ to give parliament a more visible role, thus cementing the link between the people and the head of state. (I am not suggesting direct, American style, election of the head of state - rather I want the selection/election to be done within parliament, respecting our constitutional traditions.)


----------



## tomydoom (25 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're right: there are risks.
> 
> But _constitutional convention_ is an extremely powerful force, ultimately more powerful than the written words because judges - the arbiters - recognize the "limits" of the written constitution, limits imposed by the time and the situation that faced the authors.
> 
> ...



I'm still not convinced I would trust a democratically legitimised Senate and Governor General (Regent?) to not exercise the full scope of their considerable constitutional power.  

There are many examples of Westminister style governments which have elected, either directly or indirectly, heads of state. Ireland would probably be the most relevant example, the Irish Presidents dejure power aligns closely with our Monarchs defacto power. The Governor General on behalf of the Monarch, possesses far more dejure authority than the President of Ireland. For example, the Governor General may by law, refuse to give assent to acts of parliament, dissolve parliament, dismiss and appoint governments, disallow provincial legislation, declare war, the requirement to act on and with the advise of parliament is convention but not law.  The President of Ireland possess none of these powers.  According to wiki, acknowledging the reliability or lack there of, the only perogative powers enjoyed by the president, is to refuse to dissolve the Dáil on the advice of a Taoiseach who has lost the confidence of the Dáil and to refer legislation to the supreme court.  Otherwise all actions are on the BINDING advise of the Taoiseach, so the requirement to act on and with the advise of parliament is law rather then convention.  

Currently our head of state defacto or otherwise does not exercise the considerable reserve power the post possesses, because they have no democratic legitimacy and do NOT want to be seen thwarting the "will of the people".  However if you legitmise the dejure powers through election of the office holder, all bets are off. I would not want to depend on a court interpreting the reserve powers in an extremely restrictive way and I have no doubt, that an ambitious office holder would try to stretch those powers as far as they will go.  I think the history of the US presidency is actually fairly illustrative, in that the modern "imperial" president, of either party, wields far more power then any of their 19th century predecessors did.  

I definitely see the potential for governance degenerating into Stuart-esque chaos, with the head of state acting on his/her own authority and the House of Commons attempting to strangle executive government by witholding supply.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2013)

An interesting article on the Charter, and the very flimsy foundation it is actually built upon. This links a bit to the discussion upthread on the perogatives and powers of the various branches of government, since the Charter, by design, overturns the traditional diffusion of powers and puts the focus on the unelected Judiciary. As for overreaching powers and the Stuarts, we are seeing a repeat of history south of the border, as the Executive and Senate brazenly defy the money bill convention and refuse to debate the House budget or submit a budget to the House, which is indeed trying to strangle the overreaching of the Executive branch. History does have a sad way of repeating itself....

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=94ccc0d3-b8fb-4cf8-889b-f2494b14ecfa



> *What happens when we disagree about rights?*
> BY JACKSON DOUGHART
> 25 July 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2013)

This might not bode well for any of the Senators from before the CPC's rise to power.....they consider themselves "entitled to their entitlements", and scamming the system may have been an everyday thing.

RCMP want "all" of Liberal senator's expense records back to 2003
 Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 07/26/2013
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/liberal-senator-claimed-uninhabitable-home-as-primary-residence-say-rcmp--217119881.html

OTTAWA - The Mounties intend to widen their probe into inappropriate expense claims filed by Liberal Senator Mac Harb, who they say claimed an “uninhabitable’’ home as his primary residence.

In a sworn affidavit filed in an Ontario court, RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton said the force wants to see records dating back to the time Harb was appointed to the upper chamber a decade ago by former prime minister Jean Chretien.

"The period of time for which I am seeking documents and data is for the entire time that he has been in the Senate for which records are available," Horton wrote in a document known as a production order.

He said the Senate has indicated it routinely holds on to records for eight fiscal years, and those reports are readily available. However, the deputy law clerk in the Senate has indicated copies going back even further might be around.

"I believe that an analysis and audit of these records and expenses will provide evidence of the named offense by demonstrating that Harb's primary residence is in Ottawa," Horton wrote.

"They will also provide a record of all inappropriate housing expenses claimed by Harb, and assist in advancing the investigation."

A separate Senate committee investigation, looking at the immediately available records, estimated that Harb inappropriately claimed up to $231,649 between 2005 and 2012 — a figure the senator disputes.

The Mounties are investigating Harb for breach of trust, and probing back before 2005 could push that figure higher.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.
more on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

Yesterday Andrew Cohen wrote a pretty snarky piece which appeared in the _Ottawa Citizen_ and several other newspapers. Basically he called monarchists misguided and blamed complacency for the continued existence of the monarchy in Canada.

Today Prof Philippe Lagassé replied with this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his own website:

http://lagassep.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/researching-and-defending-the-crown/


> Researching and defending the Crown
> 
> Posted on July 31, 2013
> 
> ...




I agree with all three of his points, Like Prof Lagassé I like our _Westminster_ system of parliamentary government with its (mostly, but not entirely) _figurehead_ head of state. I think it is superior to other democratic forms including the one found in the great republic to the South. It is not the monarchy, itself, from which I want to separate Canada, it is the next monarch and the one after that and the one after that, each of whom will become more and more and more remote from the daily lives of Canadians.


----------



## tomydoom (31 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is not the monarchy, itself, from which I want to separate Canada, it is the next monarch and the one after that and the one after that, each of whom will become more and more and more remote from the daily lives of Canadians.



I, while a confirmed monarchist, would not be opposed to idea of having a different person as monarch, than the United Kingdon, Australia, New Zeeland et. al.. I have in the past given some thought to how this might be accomplished.  Given the recent noise around the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, I would suggest that a way forward will depend on the resolution of the suit currently before the courts.

Given that future constitutional amendments are unlikely, if the court decides that the succession requires an amendment under the "office of the crown" provisions, it is inevitable that Canada will end up with a unique monarch the first time a eldest daughter, with younger brothers, ascend the throne of the UK. In a situation much like the severance of the personal union between the UK and Hanover or the one between Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

If the courts decide that the succession may be revised legislatively, than parliament could conceivably nominate any descendant of Sophia of Hanover as King or Queen.  Or even leave the office vacant, and have the Governor General act as Regent (Shades of interwar Hungary?)


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I, while a confirmed monarchist, would not be opposed to idea of having a different person as monarch, than the United Kingdon, Australia, New Zeeland et. al.. I have in the past given some thought to how this might be accomplished.  Given the recent noise around the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, I would suggest that a way forward will depend on the resolution of the suit currently before the courts.
> 
> Given that future constitutional amendments are unlikely, if the court decides that the succession requires an amendment under the "office of the crown" provisions, it is inevitable that Canada will end up with a unique monarch the first time a eldest daughter, with younger brothers, ascend the throne of the UK. In a situation much like the severance of the personal union between the UK and Hanover or the one between Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
> 
> If the courts decide that the succession may be revised legislatively, than parliament could conceivably nominate any descendant of Sophia of Hanover as King or Queen.  Or even leave the office vacant, and have the Governor General act as Regent (Shades of interwar Hungary?)




I have prattled on about a Canadian Regency in several posts. I would prefer a long, long, long regency in which we just ignore the whole problem of picking a new sovereign until we are, simply, accustomed to the idea that the GG is the Head of State, _de facto_ and, by convention, _de jure_, too.

I think hereditary monarchs are passé and I doubt inviting some foreign princeling to start a new one, here in Canada, would go over very well at all.


----------



## tomydoom (31 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have prattled on about a Canadian Regency in several posts. *I would prefer a long, long, long regency in which we just ignore the whole problem of picking a new sovereign* until we are, simply, accustomed to the idea that the GG is the Head of State, _de facto_ and, by convention, _de jure_, too.
> 
> I think hereditary monarchs are passé and I doubt inviting some foreign princeling to start a new one, here in Canada, would go over very well at all.



Like this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> Like this guy?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy




I think we would aim for someone of this calibre. Regents _can_ be strong, resolute, wise and just.


----------



## tomydoom (31 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we would aim for someone of this calibre. Regents _can_ be strong, resolute, wise and just.



My example is slightly more recent and unfortunately, I fear, a more likely outcome.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> My example is slightly more recent and unfortunately, I fear, a more likely outcome.




Why would you say "more likely?" Which of our GGs since Vincent Massey would you have though likely to have dictatorial tendencies? Mme Jeanne Sauvé, she was a bit _imperious_, I guess, but hardly an autocrat waiting to seize the government. What about Mme Clarkson? Do you think she was a threat to democracy?

I think the long history of British (English and Scottish and British) regents is more instructive than one Hungarian. If we must look at Europe then, surely, Sveinn Björnsson of Iceland is a better example of a modern regent.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2013)

I think one of the more obvious differences between our GGs and Horthy (or any of the other 10-a-penny dictators) is that the GG's have two bosses: the PM and Her Majesty (or Her Grace for us pedants of Scots persuasion).

Horthy et al don't recognize any bosses.

By the way, for every William Marshall you can cite, I would offer a multitude of regents from north of the line,  a couple of Italian females of the Medici persuasion in France and a chap name of William Wallace.  I challenge you to find a day's peace amang the lot o' them.

Its always easier to decide when its someone else's head on the chopping block that you offer as surety.


----------



## tomydoom (31 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why would you say "more likely?"


I suppose it would depend on the method chosen to select the Governor General, i.e. election, direct of indirect or appointment? The strength of the current appointment process is the choice is intensely scrutinized by the opposition, the press and the monarch.  Given the quality (or lack) of many of our current elected politicians, I would fear for the worse in that situation. Especially given the broad reserve powers that the office holds. Also I may be a pessimist heart (realist?).



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the long history of British (English and Scottish and British) regents is more instructive than one Hungarian. If we must look at Europe then, surely, Sveinn Björnsson of Iceland is a better example of a modern regent.



I believe the last British regent was the future George IV, not necessarily something to aspire too. I agree that the Sveinn Bjornsson is a laudable example, however that was a very temporary regency, from 1940-1944, then he was elected the first president in 1945. Which I do not see as a realistic path in this country.  

The reason Hungary springs to mind, is because it it the most prominent example of a monarchy without a monarch, with a permanent regency. I interpreted your posts as suggesting something similar, with a better office holder of course. If I missread, I stand corrected.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2013)

The latest from the courts:


> The federal government will argue that it doesn’t need to open up the Constitution to reform the Senate, and that Parliament alone has the power to do so — without the need to consult with provinces, says Canada’s democratic reform minister.
> 
> The government was to file its arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada Wednesday, two days before a court-imposed deadline. The top court is being asked to determine how the Senate can be reformed or abolished.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2013)

Here is the Government of Canada's factum supporting the reference to the Supreme Court on Senate reform. The detailed discussion begins on p.29.


----------



## Ostrozac (31 Jul 2013)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I suppose it would depend on the method chosen to select the Governor General, i.e. election, direct of indirect or appointment? The strength of the current appointment process is the choice is intensely scrutinized by the opposition, the press and the monarch.  Given the quality (or lack) of many of our current elected politicians, I would fear for the worse in that situation. Especially given the broad reserve powers that the office holds. Also I may be a pessimist heart (realist?).



Someone once suggested, and I can't remember who, that if the Governor General should ever be elected, that they should be elected by the Companions of the Order of Canada, in the same style of election as a Papal Conclave. The theory being that this would give dignity and legitimacy to the office, but not a democratic mandate from the people in the sense that a Presidency would, therefore preventing the GG from undermining the PM's executive authority.

Would this lead to an increased politicization of the Order? Maybe. But it sounds to me like a neat idea. Maybe this is a better solution than letting the sitting PM select his own viceroy/regent.


----------



## tomydoom (31 Jul 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Someone once suggested, and I can't remember who, that if the Governor General should ever be elected, that they should be elected by the Companions of the Order of Canada, in the same style of election as a Papal Conclave. The theory being that this would give dignity and legitimacy to the office, but not a democratic mandate from the people in the sense that a Presidency would, therefore preventing the GG from undermining the PM's executive authority.
> 
> Would this lead to an increased politicization of the Order? Maybe. But it sounds to me like a neat idea. Maybe this is a better solution than letting the sitting PM select his own viceroy/regent.



Sounds like we might be inventing the Electoral College..


----------



## RangerRay (3 Aug 2013)

If we were to end personal union, my preference would be to invite one of the more bored members of the House of Windsor (e.g. Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne) to become King of Canada.


----------



## tomydoom (3 Aug 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> If we were to end personal union, my preference would be to invite one of the more bored members of the House of Windsor (e.g. Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne) to become King of Canada.


I've actually often had the same thought. My current preference is Prince Edward. A's he seems to mostly avoid the tabloids, I'd still married and has two children to act as heirs.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2013)

Thumbs up RR and TMD.

I prefer a cipher resulting from genetic lottery than someone that actually wants the job because they feel a desire to act.

Dear Lord preserve us from do-gooders.  I would sooner pay for bordello fees if that's what it took to keep the occupant of the throne from engaging in the business of the nation.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Aug 2013)

Given that 3 generations of males have been produced by the Windsors, succession isn't an issue for 80 - 100 years.  I am not a lawyer but I can't imagine that putting females in the line of succession would be over-ruled by the Supreme Court because public policy demands it.  Denying a woman the throne because of her sex is contrary to the Charter of Rights.  The Constitution Act 1867 makes no mention of succession because the rules thus far have been well defined.  However, changes in succession are mentioned in the Statute of Westminster and they are specifically what has been done, the Parliaments of the Dominions and the UK must pass the new law.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2013)

As a _form_ of government I like a constitutional monarchy using a Westminster style of government. I don't approve of a hereditary monarchy ~ I think we should turn the clock back over 1,000 years and _elect_ the sovereign, as Ælfric of Eynsham suggests1 was done when he said: "No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please." By "the people" he meant the notables who constituted the _Witenagemot_.

In my creaky old mind that _tradition_ ought to displace primogeniture as the _normal_ way to _select_ a sovereign.

I do not agree with direct, popular, elections. That would subvert the Westminster system. I do suggest that parliament - perhaps the Senate nominating a list and the HoC _electing_ the sovereign from that list  - is the body best suited, by tradition, to provide the electors. Perhaps we should constrain parliament by _defining_ a list of eligible candidates, as as done in medieval times: perhaps only Companions of the Order of Canada2 may be considered. I would think that the sovereign ought to be encouraged to abdicate should e.g. ill health limit her/his ability to serve. I would think there might be an age limit - it is 75 for senators and justices of the supreme court, why not the same for the sovereign?

We could have a _Canadian_ constitutional monarchy - we could, even, change the title from king/queen to something more appropriate.

_____
1.  Cited in Whitelock, _Review of The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor_, p. 642
2. These are the Companions of the Order of Canada who were born after 1940:

Yannick Nézet-Séguin, Chantal Petitclerc	, Celine Dion, Wayne Gretzky, Rick Hansen, Michaëlle Jean (has already been GG)
Robert Lepage, Evelyn Hart, Ben Heppner, Louise Charron, Karen Kain, Marc Garneau, Louise Arbour, Michel Bastarache
Kim Campbell, John Ralston Saul, L. Jacques Ménard, Veronica Tennant, Anne Murray, Jean-Daniel Lafond, Sharon Johnston
Joni Mitchell, Preston Manning, Denys Arcand, David Lloyd Johnston (is the current GG), Diana Fowler LeBlanc

Perhaps we might want to expand the list to include, e.g. Companions of the Order of Military Merit and the Royal Victorian Order.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2013)

The messy thing about elections is the need to build up a party of supporters.  Sooner or later everybody thinks they have a stake in the winner and expect returns on their investment while the winners and losers feel like winners and losers.    

If you don't like the genetic lottery how do you feel about the jury duty model or the draft model?

I'd rather have somebody who didn't want the job but was willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of the cause for a period of sybaritic idyll, world travel and signing the occasional document.

Edit:  PS - Rereading some Heinlein just now.   That may be influencing my outlook.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The messy thing about elections is the need to build up a party of supporters.  Sooner or later everybody thinks they have a stake in the winner and expect returns on their investment while the winners and losers feel like winners and losers.
> 
> If you don't like the genetic lottery how do you feel about the jury duty model or the draft model?
> 
> I'd rather have somebody who didn't want the job but was willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of the cause for a period of sybaritic idyll, world travel and signing the occasional document.




That is, roughly, how the _Whitan_ was constrained in searching for the best possible sovereign. They couldn't select "at large," only from a _qualified_ (by status) pool. That's, roughly, how we select for juries and compulsory military service: people have to be _qualified_, first - within a certain age range, physically fit, sane, and so on. I'm suggesting a slightly more stringent range (but not as strict as _circa_ 1,000 AD) ~ Companion of one of the "big three" _orders_, for example, and aged below, say, 72 (so that the sovereign could serve for three years before reaching CRA for the job).


----------



## GAP (4 Aug 2013)

Provinces insist consent required
 By Jordan Press, Postmedia News August 3, 2013
http://www.canada.com/news/Provinces+insist+consent+required/8745421/story.html

Provincial governments are taking a dim view of the federal government's latest argument that it can reform the Senate without provincial consent.

After the Harper government filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court of Canada this week, a spokeswoman for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said Ontario's position "is that provincial consent is required" to reform the upper chamber, a sentiment echoed by the government of British Columbia Premier Christy Clark. A spokesman for Clark said "British Columbians should have a say" in what happens to the upper chamber.

Several constitutional experts agree with them, suggesting that the Constitution was not designed to limit the provinces' input into Senate reform.

That view will likely form the basis of the provinces' arguments before Canada's top court, which is being asked to rule on how the Senate can be reformed or abolished.

The federal government, in its submission to the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, argued that the Constitution grants more control to Parliament than to the provinces when it comes to changing the Senate.

It also argued that the drafters of the Constitution and the amending formula for it saw provincial involvement in changing the Senate as limited to just "a few matters."

"The argument that the provinces were somehow a negligible partner in this seems a little dubious," said David E. Smith, a noted constitutional expert now at Ryerson University in Toronto. "Do the provinces have a role here in regards to amending? The answer is yes."

The federal government's legal factum also provided a history of Senate reform debates and decisions, and references a Pearsonera decision that set the mandatory retirement age for senators at 75 and a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that determined the federal government had power to make some changes to the Senate.

All were used in the factum to support the federal government's position.

Experts say the past decisions are helpful for context, but they predate the current amending formula for the Constitution, which is the subject of review.

"When the amending formula was created, it was a compromise and one of the big things it (ensured) is that the fundamental law of the land could not be amended without the consent of the provinces," said Ned Franks, a constitutional expert from Queen's University.

Even then, Franks said, the Chretien Liberals gave constitutional veto power to five regions - the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. That means unanimous consent for any change to the Constitution is almost required, which the government doesn't address in its submission, he said.

"Unless it's a very extraordinary circumstance, I see the amending formula as a straitjacket," Franks said.

The Constitution requires the unanimous consent of provinces for changes to the official languages of Canada and the composition of the Supreme Court, while requiring the consent of at least seven provinces representing half the country's population for other changes (the so-called "7/50" formula).

That wording in the Constitution may make it difficult for the federal government to successfully argue that eliminating or reforming the Senate can be done unilaterally by Parliament.
more on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Aug 2013)

"Threat" is such a harsh term ....


> If the RCMP investigation into Mike Duffy over alleged breach of trust reaches court, the senator’s lawyers will call Stephen Harper as a witness and grill the Prime Minister under oath, sources said.
> 
> Mr. Duffy’s lawyers have barred him from speaking to the press but he has told friends that he feels he has been thrown under the bus and that the Conservative PR machine is out to destroy him.
> 
> ...


_National Post_, 16 Aug 13


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Aug 2013)

He has friends or people who'd admit to it ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

Prof Michael Bliss, a noted Canadian historian, makes the case for _abolition_ of the Senate in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/remove-our-diseased-senate-from-the-body-politic/article13814949/#dashboard/alerts


> Remove our diseased Senate from the body politic
> 
> MICHAEL BLISS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree, fully, with Prof Bliss that: _"The Canadian Senate cannot continue as it is, an affront to principles of democratic, accountable government."_

I disagree that: _"An elected Senate is not in the cards because of the certainty of provincial deadlock about representation,"_ because, as Prof Bliss, himself, says just a few lines later, _"the government of Canada can formulate the necessary constitutional amendment and challenge provincial politicians to accept the will of the people. They would reject it at their peril."_ That applies, equally, to reform as it does to abolition.

The Senate can be reformed, but it will involve bullying some provinces. Abolishing the Senate will also involve bullying provinces, but maybe not the same ones. 


Edit: typo


----------



## RangerRay (28 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We could have a _Canadian_ constitutional monarchy - we could, even, change the title from king/queen to something more appropriate.



Like "High Muckamuck"?  ;D

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/high%20muckamuck

Edit to add:

Maybe "Hyas Tyee" would be more appropriate...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_ is some interesting speculation on Prime Minister Harper's _strategy_:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/09/02/harper-to-turn-senate-reforms-into-wedge-issue/35789?page_requested=1


> Harper to turn Senate reforms into wedge issue
> *‘The strategy from what I can see is to let the thing fester,’ says a Tory source.*
> 
> By LAURA RYCKEWAERT
> ...




I can see the wedge issue _tactic_: Thomas Mulcair is all out for abolition, he will have a hard time making a useful _reform_ proposal even after the _Supremes_ say, as I expect they will, that abolition is constitutionally too difficult ~ requires unanimous consent of parliament plus all legislatures following a wide open constitutional congress; Justin Trudeau will have a hard time coming up with _reform_ proposals that are any different, much less better, than what Prime Minister Harper will propose, which I _*guess*_ will be: you (provinces) elect 'em or I will not appoint 'em at all; I'll let it wither on the vine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The return of pips and crowns (and, I guess, the birth of _what'shisname_ in London) has set the pundits to debating the future of the monarchy. John Ibbitson explains why it's here to stay, because of a rigid written Constitution, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/sorry-republicans-the-monarchy-is-here-to-stay/article13359833/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




But some people cannot leave well enough alone and now some Brits want to _"crowd source"_ a written Constitution for Britain. In my opinion this is, no doubt, an interesting _educational_ experiment which, I confidently predict, will result in almost everyone agreeing that written constitutions are inferior and the existing (and it does exist!) British Constitution is not in any need of reform. It, the British Constitution, is not, in any way problematic, although I agree with Professor Conor Gearty that it is peculiar. It does what all good constitutions do, and it does it at least as well as ~ and I would argue better than ~ any of the written ones.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2013)

While we wait for Canada's Supremes to decide on what/how much Ottawa can do to reform the Senate, here's Quebec's Court of Appeal's take....


> The Conservatives’ plan to reform the Senate, if adopted, would be unconstitutional, Quebec’s Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.
> 
> An opinion delivered by five of the province’s top judges says that the federal government’s Senate Reform Act is an attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement that a change in how senators are selected must be approved by Parliament and seven provinces with a majority of the country’s population.
> 
> ...


QC Court of Appeal decision (31 pages) here, and more on the Senate Reform Act here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2013)

Former Foreign Minister Barbara McDougall offers some good advice in the last two paragraphs of this guest piece which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/why-the-senate-should-be-rebuilt-not-abolished/article15073583/#dashboard/follows/
_I have reformatted the penultimate paragraph to make the six points easier to see._


> Why the Senate should be rebuilt, not abolished
> 
> BARBARA MCDOUGALL
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with all six points, but I'm not sure the fourth point (ending hyper-partisanship) is possible.

I have, many times, said that a federal state _needs_ a bicameral legislature; I expect the _Supremes_ to agree and to tell Prime Minister Harper that he cannot abolish it but to allow him some leeway in how he goes about reforming it.


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2013)

These look like they could be positive improvements to the House of Commons.


> *Reform Act bill would change Canada’s parliament forever*
> Andrew Coyne
> National Post
> 29 Nov 2013
> ...


From: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/andrew-coyne-reform-act-bill-would-change-canadas-parliament-forever/
and more here: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Conservatives+bill+would+give+power+eject+their+leader/9228520/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> These look like they could be positive improvements to the House of Commons.From: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/andrew-coyne-reform-act-bill-would-change-canadas-parliament-forever/
> and more here: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Conservatives+bill+would+give+power+eject+their+leader/9228520/story.html




This would move us closer to the British system of party leadership - which I think is much, much better than ours, which has moved too close to being a version of the US system.

I have said before (can't remember where, now) that I would like to see the powers of party conventions curtailed - especially leadership conventions. I believe that party conventions are the right place to write _manifestos_/platforms, but I agree with Mr Chong that the parliamentary leaders should be creatures of their caucuses. I'm not so sure that 15% is a high enough _trigger_ level, but that's a quibble.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2013)

It will be interesting to see what develops with the bill. Mr Chong needs cross bench support to move this forwards. I wonder what Mr Trudeau and Mr Muclair think of the idea.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2013)

The NDP already seem prepared to oppose it ... they say Mr Chong is trying to solve an internal CPC problem. I expect the Liberals and many Conservatives will oppose it also.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2013)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senate-reformed-or-abolition-unlikely-experts-say-despite-scandal-1.1604407

It appears that there are enough (self-centred) competing interests across Canada that any sort of attempt to fix the Senate is doomed to failure.

What is the solution?  What would the Senate look like today if Prime Minister Harper had refused to appoint senators from 2006 on?  Is a feasible solution for the government to simply refuse to appoint any new senators, letting the body wither on the vine?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senate-reformed-or-abolition-unlikely-experts-say-despite-scandal-1.1604407
> 
> It appears that there are enough (self-centred) competing interests across Canada that any sort of attempt to fix the Senate is doomed to failure.
> 
> What is the solution?  What would the Senate look like today if Prime Minister Harper had refused to appoint senators from 2006 on?  Is a feasible solution for the government to simply refuse to appoint any new senators, letting the body wither on the vine?




That was discussed a few years ago ... the consensus opinion, as I recall, was the the _Supremes_ would likely side with the provinces that would, surely, sue the government on the issue.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2013)

As always, the solutions can be found by reviewing our history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMOHiQtuSuo


----------



## Jed (22 Dec 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As always, the solutions can be found by reviewing our history:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMOHiQtuSuo



Awesome video. wrong thread though  8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This would move us closer to the British system of party leadership - which I think is much, much better than ours, which has moved too close to being a version of the US system.
> 
> I have said before (can't remember where, now) that I would like to see the powers of party conventions curtailed - especially leadership conventions. I believe that party conventions are the right place to write _manifestos_/platforms, but I agree with Mr Chong that the parliamentary leaders should be creatures of their caucuses. I'm not so sure that 15% is a high enough _trigger_ level, but that's a quibble.




I yearn for what Prof Tom Flanagan calls the "Golden Age of Parliament" but he explains, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, why what I want is impractical:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/this-is-no-way-to-choose-a-leader/article16091195/#dashboard/follows/


> This is no way to choose a leader
> 
> Tom Flanagan
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




The fact - and it is a fact - that I accept that Prof Flanagan is correct and that _popularly_ elected leaders are an artifact of a mature, liberal democracy doesn't mean that it, the popular election of leaders, is good for democracy. I remain committed to the idea that there is and should be difference between the party and the parliamentary caucus. I believe the party, _per se_, should be the absolute master of _policy_ ~ the manifesto or platform ~ and party members should stand for election based on that platform; i.e. each and every candidate for the Conservatives or Greens or Liberals or NDP agrees to run on and fight for a specific set of policies, not for the whims of his (or her) constituents. But, once elected to parliament I believe that the MPs, the members of the parliamentary caucus, ought to have the right, the duty, to elect, from amongst their number, the person _they_ feel is most likely to lead a successful government.

But I of agree with Prof Flanagan on one aspect of Mr Chong's proposed legislation: 15% is far, Far, FAR too low a threshold for recall: 75% is a better number, perhaps even higher - maybe 85%, i.e. only 15% of the caucus supports the leader.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2013)

I see Prof.  Flanagan's point, one that had escaped me until now. (Easier to say that than to admit I was wrong  ;D )

I don't like the notion of Dictator Pro Tem.  I'd like to have some other mechanism to keep leadership in check during their 4-5 year reigns than just the threat of being turfed at the end of their time.  

Equally I don't want to see the government being turfed, holus bolus, every time some faction disagrees with the boss.

If we are to go the route of Michael Chong at all I would agree first with the assertion that 15% is far too low a number to spark a very public airing of dirty laundry that would not only damage the government of the day but also the credibility of the party.   85% is better.

Where I would suggest a further change that is in keeping with both the spirit of Prof. Flanagan's concerns and Michael Chong's desires, I believe, is that instead of the caucus vote immediately resulting in the expulsion of the government of the day it would trigger an immediate party review of the leadership.  That would take time.  It would enfeeble the government.  It might not give the caucus "rebels" the results they expected.   It would allow the wound to bleed longer. None of which are good things for the party and the rebels.  That would, hopefully, give them pause before they acted.

The problem that I see is that the Government is the result of a personal "contract" between Her Majesty and the Prime Minister.  She asks an individual if he or she can form a government.

The Prime Minister is limited in the pool of people he can choose to work with.  He must select his ministers from Parliament (not necessarily from his party - although party constitutions probably speak to that).  The first problem is to find sufficient members of the house (preferably from caucus) to fill all the ministerial billets necessary to run an effective government.

The second problem is to find sufficient votes in the house to pass legislation.

But that presents a lesser problem, I believe.

There is nothing that requires government to put forward any legislation other than the budget.  A government can run effectively with short parliamentary sessions and governance by regulation.  

But that might trigger the leadership review discussed at the top.

Is there enough to be gained in this exercise that we would risk destabilizing the government to the extent found in places like Israel, Italy or Greece?

Maybe, after all, I do prefer the Dictator Pro Tem to the alternatives  :-\


----------



## GR66 (30 Dec 2013)

Perhaps the solution is not to change the leadership of the caucus but to limit the control of the leadership of the caucus.  Right now the caucus is very tightly bound to the decisions of the leadership due to the fact that defeat of a (money) bill equates to non-confidence in the government.  The caucus can become dissatisfied if they feel they are forced to support policies that are against their/their constituents desires in order to maintain power.  

Perhaps if a Bill could be defeated and NOT automatically result in the government falling...but instead just be defeated by itself and trigger an immediate (separate) non-confidence vote in the government it would force the PM to be more responsive to the desires of his/her caucus.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the solution is not to change the leadership of the caucus but to limit the control of the leadership of the caucus.  Right now the caucus is very tightly bound to the decisions of the leadership due to the fact that defeat of a (money) bill equates to non-confidence in the government.  The caucus can become dissatisfied if they feel they are forced to support policies that are against their/their constituents desires in order to maintain power.
> 
> Perhaps if a Bill could be defeated and NOT automatically result in the government falling...but instead just be defeated by itself and trigger an immediate (separate) non-confidence vote in the government it would force the PM to be more responsive to the desires of his/her caucus.




Certain bills, especially those involving the budget,* *must* be matters of confidence.

The party's policy base, its _manifesto_ and election platform, should spell out the matters for which the party, any party, will demand the confidence of the House. All candidates for that party must know what those _principles_ are before seeking nomination and election and must, without fail, no matter what they or their constituents think, vote for those items. All other times should be matters for free votes although the PM may demand that the _ministry_, proper, vote with him, as the government, on certain issues ~ or members may resign from the cabinet to vote their conscience.

_____
* This has deep historical rots, resting in, at least, _Magna Carta_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is a thoughtful piece from the [io]Citizen's[/i] editor, Andrew Potter:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/democracy+doesn+need+white+knight/9347373/story.html


> Why democracy doesn’t need a white knight
> 
> BY ANDREW POTTER, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




I have a few quibbles with Mr Potter's analysis. I do not think the _divide_ is between the naïfs and the cynics; I think we are (very nearly) all a mix of both and in most of us the two aspects are rather finely balanced. I believe the _divide_ is between _Old Canada_ and _New Canada_. (Now that distinction was made, many years ago, by a Canadian historian ~ i think it was Michael Bliss but I have been unable to find the original again ~ and he described it as a geographic and attitudinal divide.) _Old Canada_, he (whoever he was) suggested was socialistic, _statist_, timid and, generally, voted Liberal and lived East of the Ottawa River in QC, NB, PEI, NS and NL. _New Canada_, on the other hand, was capitalist, _individualistic_, entrepreneurial and suspicious of governments, in general, and, increasingly, voted Conservative and lived West of the Ottawa River in ON, MB, SK, AB and BC.

But I do think Mr Chong is aiming, however poorly, at a real problem: "governing from the centre" as Prof Donald Savoie put it in book which light to be required reading. British parliamentary democracy, upon which ours was modelled in 1867, has continued to _evolve_ over the past 150 years while our has stagnated in many respects. The need to _balance_ the "two Canadas" in the 19th century (Old and New Canada, even then) had a stultifying effect. For generations every decision, including how to prosecute a global war, had to be carefully sliced and diced to keep a firm political base in QC. Even in his Grey Lecture, in 1947, in which Louis St Laurent enunciated the best, maybe only decent foreign policy Canada has ever had, he made "do not harm _national unity_" his first priority. But someone else (Arthur Kemp, an Anglo-South African writer) said, "demographics is destiny" (he should have "are,' shouldn't he?) and the demographic tide is running in New Canada's direction. That's why I say, over and over again, that the New Canada based Conservatives have to learn to "govern without Québec" ~ not against Québec, just not making Québec's every whim and desire the centrepiece of Canadian policies.

I know I am repeating myself, but ... for generations we have, metaphorically, turned our backs on America, looked North and stretched our strong, right arm out to Europe. We need to turn about: to face the fact that we and America are more alike than any other two countries. We are joined at the hip, we are "kith and kin" we are each other's best, truest friends. The North is ours but it is not our defining characteristic ~ the every diminishing Canada/US border is what defines us. We need to extend our strong, right arm towards Asia: in friendship and in the hope of increased trade and prosperity for all. That is the _New Canada_ approach ~ old Canada doesn't like it, and that's just too bad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2014)

And Lawrence Martin, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, reminds us of a bit of the history of the “elected dictatorship” that is the defining characteristic of a majority government in a Westminster based system:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/decades-ago-we-should-have-listened-to-joe/article16314768/#dashboard/follows/


> Decades ago, we should have listened to Joe Clark
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




There was a time, in my lifetime ~ think about the _Pipeline Debate_ of 1956 ~ when what Prime Minister Harper does, what Prime Ministers Chrétien, Mulroney and Trudeau did, would have destroyed their political fortunes. No longer, we have _evolved_, our politics have _evolved_ in parallel with a highly Americanized, TV based, celebrity obsessed popular culture that aims to pacify us with social, economic and political "snacks," junk food, rather than nourish us with the roast beef and green vegetables of good, sound public policy.


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2014)

This proposal is still generating discussion.


> * Conservative Deepak Obhrai expands assault on Tory MP’s Reform Act to opposition inboxes*
> Laura Stone
> Global News
> 12 February 2014
> ...


 http://globalnews.ca/news/1145708/conservative-deepak-obhrai-expands-assault-on-tory-mps-reform-act-to-opposition-inboxes/


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And Lawrence Martin, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, reminds us of a bit of the history of the “elected dictatorship” that is the defining characteristic of a majority government in a Westminster based system:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/decades-ago-we-should-have-listened-to-joe/article16314768/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> There was a time, in my lifetime ~ think about the _Pipeline Debate_ of 1956 ~ when what Prime Minister Harper does, what Prime Ministers Chrétien, Mulroney and Trudeau did, would have destroyed their political fortunes. No longer, we have _evolved_, our politics have _evolved_ in parallel with a highly Americanized, TV based, celebrity obsessed popular culture that aims to pacify us with social, economic and political "snacks," junk food, rather than nourish us with the roast beef and green vegetables of good, sound public policy.



 :goodpost:

My feeling exactly. This is coupled with the frequent resort to characterizing anybody who questions the GoC as being somehow "un-Canadian" or "un-patriotic", or of somehow supporting the evil that the measure of the day is supposedly meant to deal with.  The end result of this sort of thing is to demonize debate, which IMHO is at the heart of our entire Parliamentary process. 

The last thing I want to see in this country is that sort of "You Hate  America!!"  rubbish that gets thrown around by some loudmouths in the US political arena.

That said, I think it is past time that our system was overhauled to bring in much greater levels of accountability and visibility which seem to characterize the letter of the US Federal political system, if not always the spirit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2014)

Two elements from the Justice Nadon fiasco may point to problems for Senate reform:

"Quebec’s distinctive character must be reflected in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and nothing short of unanimous agreement of the provinces can change that principle, the country’s highest court has ruled."

And

"But the court’s credibility has not suffered, legal observers say. Far from it, they say. It was enhanced by a historic ruling that will take its place alongside the 1998 secession ruling on what it would take to break up Canada. It was a history lesson on the compromise between French and English that is Canada: “The eligibility requirements for appointments from Quebec are the result of the historic bargain that gave birth to the Court in 1875.”"

Source: _The Globe and Mail_

The _Supremes_ have, loudly and clearly, affirmed that they, not the prime minister, will rule on what is or is not _Constitutional_.

The ruling that says that the appointment process cannot be changed without the unanimous agreement of the provinces _might_ signal how the _Supremes_ will rule on Senate Reform. If they do then I expect that:

     1. Any honest, well intentioned _reform_ proposal will be doomed to failure because there will always be at least one province that will hold it hostage ~ wanting to "trade rights for fish" as Pierre Trudeau so aptly put it; and

     2. Abolition will also be impossible, for the same reason.

Question: How, then, to move Canadian democracy out of the 19th and into the 21st century, where appointed legislatures are relics of our colonial past?

Answer:    Only a full scale _Constitutional Congress_, essentially a repeat of Charlottetown and Quebec City in 1864, will suffice. < shudder >


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2014)

Perhaps you mean Charlottetown and Meech Lake?

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/the-charlottetown-accord/

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/meech-lake-accord/


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2014)

Nope. I really meant 1864. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were, in fact, fairly tightly focused. If the _Supremes_ say that Senate reform must have unanimous approval then I suspect that the necessary Constitutional conference or convention or congress will have to be nearly open ended. I doubt that most provinces will want to rearrange the national legislature without addressing several, maybe many, other issues, too.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Question: How, then, to move Canadian democracy out of the 19th and into the 21st century, where appointed legislatures are relics of our colonial past?
> 
> Answer:    Only a full scale _Constitutional Congress_, essentially a repeat of Charlottetown and Quebec City in 1864, will suffice. < shudder >



History tells us there is another answer, but no one will like it (and many of us saw it first hand in places like former Yugoslavia....)

Sadly, when there is no room or appetite for change among the elites, or those who profit from the current arrangement, forces for change will continue to build underground like the movement of the continental plates that create earthquakes. The shift from the _Laurentian consensus_ to the Western, suburban model of the "New Canada" is providing the moving force for change; how that pressure will be harnessed or released will be one of the stories that future historians will tell about Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nope. I really meant 1864. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were, in fact, fairly tightly focused. If the _Supremes_ say that Senate reform must have unanimous approval then I suspect that the necessary Constitutional conference or convention or congress will have to be nearly open ended. I doubt that most provinces will want to rearrange the national legislature without addressing several, maybe many, other issues, too.



If Bytown and its offspring couldn't get it together on Meech or Charlottetown 2, or even Trudeau's 1982 debacle,  I still stand by my earlier comment.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2014)

The writers of the 1982 Constitution Act and the Supremes were operating under the assumption that changes to the act should be next to impossible; and the Trudopean vision of Canada preserved in amber. This sort of attitude overlooks or ignores the fact that society changes, either internally (i.e. demographics) or externally (the introduction of new technologies, for example).

What is missing is a means to make incremental changes to allow for these shifts to be accommodated. Even provisions like the appointment of judges is essentially predicated on the ratio of Quebecois to the rest of the Canadian population, yet in just a generation from the partition of the constitution, demographics have upended the rational.  And of course who in 1982 could have predicted the changes things like the Internet would make, or the price of oil wold rise to the extent that the Western provinces would be holding the upper hand in the economy? (Walter Russel Mead's book God and Gold makes a similar argument about the inherent flexibility of the British and US political systems to make incremental changes over 300 years as conditions changed).

My guess is that as time passes, we will see more and more "informal" changes being cobbled together to accommodate the changing political landscape, and hopefully the Supremes will see fit to allow some "give" so external forces don't torque the system entirely out of shape.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2014)

Perhaps if they open the Constitution for this, while it's open they can re-instate property rights.


Sorry, just had a little dizzy spell there for a moment and wasn't thinking clearly. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2014)

Greg Weston, in an article that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_ looks at the fallout from the (likely, in my opinion) situation if the _Supremes_ tell Prime Minister Harper that _Senate Reform_ is all but impossible without a full blown Constitutional convention:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/if-supreme-court-nixes-senate-reform-is-referendum-next-1.2620016


> If Supreme Court nixes Senate reform, is referendum next?
> *High noon for Senate reform as top court to decide Friday if Ottawa can go it alone*
> 
> By Greg Weston, CBC News
> ...




I agree with Greg Weston's ultimate point: I think that, in the face of a rejection, by the top court, of Prime Minister Harper's preferred option, he can go to the relatively small number of Canadians who actually care about _Senate Reform_ and say, "I tried my best, but my hands are tied."

Which takes me back to my _stealth_ option:

     1. Appoint only those who submit a signed, undated letter of resignation; and

     2. Delay appointing any unelected senator ~ I'm absolutely, 100% certain that several provinces would run to the courts if he did that but I'm not so sure that the courts would rule against him.*

Eventually he and his successors, get either:

     1. An elected senate; or

     2. _De facto_, no senate at all.

_____
* The Constitution says:

§17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. _(So, a Senate must exist, I guess.)_
§21 The Senate shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, consist of One Hundred and five Members, who shall be styled Senators. _(So, the senate must have senators, too.)_
§24 The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator. _(So, "from time to time" senators must be "summoned (appointed). But it's not clear what "from time to time actually means.)_

There's a whole big section (§23) on qualification and several sections (§30 and 31) on how senators may resign or be fired., but, generally, the prime minister (actually "the Governor General, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada," to be precise, which simply means the prime minister) is, pretty much, the master of _how_ he decides to choose senators.


----------



## Privateer (24 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * The Constitution says:
> 
> §17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. _(So, a Senate must exist, I guess.)_
> §21 The Senate shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, consist of One Hundred and five Members, who shall be styled Senators. _(So, the senate must have senators, too.)_
> ...




It gets more complicated than that, because the constitution consists of more than just the _Constitution Act, 1867_ and the _Constitution Act, 1982_.  For example, the_ Newfoundland Act_, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22, an act of the United Kingdom, contains the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, which provide that Newfoundland is entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members.  Presumably, if the Governor General failed to make the necessary appointments to fill this constitutional requirement, Newfoundland could take legal action to compel the GG to do so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2014)

Essentially, and as expected, the SCC has ruled against the Government on almost every single point. The decision is here.

So: Prime Minister Harper cannot reform the Senate without reopening the Constitution and Mr Mulcair cannot, in good conscience, promise to abolish it.

What next?

In my opinion: nothing.

Prime Minister Harper will say, to people like me,, "I tried, but the _Supremes_ say that I cannot do it, not, at least without a Constitutional imbroglio that none of us wants."


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Apr 2014)

The Supremes have essentially bolstered Harper's western flank.  Triple E was always a western thing, part of the "west wants in agenda" - and it resonated across party lines west of the Lakehead.  Further resonance will be felt in the North amongst the territories.

The East (Quebec and the Maritimes especially) need/want the Senate status quo because otherwise they would become as insignificant as the Yukon and Nunavut politically but without the wealth.

Add in the Pipelines discussion - where headway is being made in BC and Irving is being bribed in the Maritimes  (refining and ships on both coasts) and the battlefield in the next election in Ontario.  And we're back to 905 vs 416 - Ethnic Conservatives vs Champagne Socialists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2014)

Gordon Gibson, long time _Blue Liberal_ and _Fraser Institute_ fellow (and that's about as _blue_ as one can get), opines that there are ways - *but not Justin Trudeau's way* - to _reform_ the Senate in ways that the _Supremes_ have not closed off in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-senate-lives-on-with-all-of-its-powers-so-now-what/article18459108/#dashboard/follows/


> The Senate lives on with all of its powers. So now what?
> 
> GORDON GIBSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I like the general thrust and tenor of Mr Gibson's ideas, but not all the details.

First: the very best way, the only democratic way to select senators is through elections. Right now one province, Alberta, elects senators and the prime minister - any and all prime ministers  - should encourage other provinces to follow suit. Prime Minister Harper should promise that he will appoint fairly elected senators, as vacancies occur, regardless of political affiliation.

Absent election, which should be run by provinces in conjunction with their own provincial general elections, it is a good idea to encourage provinces to submit, in confidence, lists of nominees to the prime minister. He should not agree to be bound by those lists - you can imagine that no PM would want to accept a list from, say, a PQ government in Quebec, but he should promise to consider it. The prime minister _might_, also, invite nominations from _provincial_ organizations - the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, or the Council of Ontario Universities if he's considering appointing a distinguished, albeit _Conservative leaning_ aboriginal leader from Saskatchewan or an educator from Ontario.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2014)

This, from the Ontario Liberal Party's platform, released today, is, _potentially_, HUGE:


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2014)

Restoring trust in government that the Liberal party destroyed? Red herring platform piece to distract voters from real issues.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

And looking at the toxic stew of civic politics in my home town of London, I can only imagine the petty bickering and back door dealing that will come with ranked ballots or any other variation of PR. I can certainly imagine the same happening in Toronto. YMMV depending on where you live and vote.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2014)

The Courts?

Or Parliament?

This Cavalier cheerfully stands with Parliament against the Courts.  

I offer no apologies for conflating British and Canadian arguments.


----------



## McG (23 Jul 2014)

I see the Greens are proposing a one time coalition with the Luberals and NDP to win the next election and then introduce a change to preferential ballots.  I suspect the coalition would then promptly fall apart.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jul 2014)

Both Trudeau and Mulcair want the throne for themselves too badly to share.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Aug 2014)

May just wants to be appointed as the next Liberal senator for BC...it's been obvious since she became leader of the Greens.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2015)

Several years ago I did a quick and dirty analysis of our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system and concluded that it does, indeed, "reward the winners" and "punish the losers." I wondered if that was, really, a bad thing. 

My conclusion was, and remains, that FPTP is not the best system for a liberal democracy, but it is far, far from being the worst either. I also suggested that of all the things wrong with democracy in Canada FPTP should be pretty low on anyone's priority list. But it isn't. There is an _idiot fringe_ in Canada, and the _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson is its spokesman, that doesn't understand democracy or the idea of _representation_. They are stuck on the (wholly stupid) notion that _proportion_ is more important than _representation_ and they believe, again wholly wrongly, that a majority of Canadians voted against Stephen Harper's CPC. That's simply not true and it betrays an abysmally low level of basic intelligence. It is true that a solid majority of Canadians voted *for* candidates who were not representing the CPC but no one (except the individuals concerned) knows *why* Canadians cast their votes the way they did and, in some (many? most?) cases we can (must?) assume that they did, indeed, vote *for* the NDP or Liberal or Green or independent candidates and *not against* the CPC. 

(dapaterson and I have both expressed a preference for the 'single transferable vote' system which, _I believe_, can be implemented, well, with a good degree of automation of vote counting and considerable voter education. But it's still a variation of our familiar, tried and true, FPTP system that preserves local _representation_ while improving the notion of _proportion_.)'

But, Jeffrey Simpson, representing the  persists in trying to lead us to the (I repeat: wholly stupid) notion that we, somehow, _need_ PR; here is his nonesense, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/everyone-loves-pr-except-canada/article23511155/


> Everyone loves PR (except Canada)
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The fact, and I contend it is a fact, the the Liberals and NDP are _afraid_ to face the people of Canada, before an election, to say that they would be willing to support one another in a loose ~ or even formal ~ coalition, says more about the Liberal and NDP 'leadership' than it does about electoral politics. Coalitions, formal or not, are legal and proper and valid in our system of government ... I, for example, would welcome a Conservative-Liberal coalition that promised, before the election, to cooperate to give us a stable, socially liberal and fiscally prudent government for the foreseeable future. Some Canadians, maybe even many Canadians (the not so bright ones), would favour a stable Liberal-NDP coalition that promised to be socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible.

PR is unnecessary; it would, _in my opinion_, actually be a regressive step because it would sacrifice _representation_ of us, Canadians, in our communities, in order to improve _proportion_ ~ the former is infinitely more important than the latter.

There are problems with democracy in Canada ~ we do have a serious problem with _equality_ of representation (and I have banged on about how to fix that, too) and we have a problem with an unelected Senate. Both need attention more than does _proportion_ ... but PR, a problem that doesn't need solving, gives Mr Simpson and the _Laurentian Elites_ a tool to bash Stephen Harper so it is on the agenda, again.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2015)

And while I have fortunatly never lived under a PR system, I have spoken to enough people from places like Italy and Israel who do live under the system, and they uniformly hate it.

Not only do they not really know _who_ is supposedly representing them in thier Parliament, but they are also keenly aware of the (often petty) backroom wheeling and dealing needed to form coalition governments when there is no clear majority (i.e. always). This lack of transparency provides all sorts of opportunities for corruption (think of the back room dealing needed to pass Obamacare among the representatives of _one_ party, then multiply by however many parties have representation in Parliament), and a disconnect between the governors and the governed (voters don't see the connection between their votes and the actions of the parliamentarians who putatively "represent" them, so many effectively "opt out", much like we have low voter turnout for similar reasons, but different causes [tight central control of parliamentarians by party discipline and party whips often has voters at odds with thier MP's, with little recourse for 4 years...]).

So people like Simpson and the rest of the lunatic fringe might want to consider actually speaking to the _voters_ who live under that system, not the enablers, rent seekers and cronies who thrive under it.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2015)

- PR brought us Hitler. He could never have been elected without it.


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2015)

PR gives more power to the parties at the expense of the voter constituents.  Transferable vote would at least keep the balance of power where it is now between voters and parties.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2015)

The Black Spider letters of Prince Charles and the role of the new-fangled Supreme Court in Britain has prompted some interesting debate on the powers of the court vice the powers of parliament.

It used to be clear cut in the days of the Law Lords.  Parliament was supreme.  Its laws were the laws of the land until such time as a future parliament changed the laws.  The convention was that no parliament could bind a future parliament.  That served the UK and the Commonwealth for the best part of 300 years.



> ...This is what happened.
> 
> The Blair Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Parliament wanted a presumption in favour of releasing government information – that it should be released unless proved that it should not be, rather than the other way round. It gave this power of release to an Information Commissioner, and empowered an Upper Tribunal (a form of court) to adjudicate.
> But Parliament also wanted a backstop. There would be some cases where the government of the day would need, in the public interest, to prevent publication. So it granted the power of what is called “executive override”. The relevant Minister could, on clear grounds, say No. This is what the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) says – Section 53(2), to be precise.
> ...



Link

This discussion ties into the wider British debate on withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights and from the EU as well.  The UK Government's intent is to promulgate a separate British Bill of Human Rights and to make the British Courts (and British Parliament) free from the EU judiciary.

But it also ties into Canada's situation.  Pierre Trudeau was adamant that he would bind future parliaments to his law by means of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

For the corporatist the British tradition of Parliamentary Supremacy has always smacked too much of the mob, as I am sure Hans Joerg Schelling would agree.


----------



## McG (29 May 2015)

Preferential voting will hit Ontario in 2018.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ontario-to-introduce-ranked-ballots-starting-in-2018-1.2395387

If it is well received in municipal elections, one can hope it is only a matter of time before it gets into provincial and federal levels.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Preferential voting will hit Ontario in 2018.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ontario-to-introduce-ranked-ballots-starting-in-2018-1.2395387
> 
> *If it is well received in municipal elections*, one can hope it is only a matter of time before it gets into provincial and federal levels.


Cynic that I am (and I'd be GLAD to be wrong), I'm doubtful that a lot of municipalities will take this up (although Toronto looks like it might) only because of the "if it's a system that makes it less likely for me to get back in, it's crap" factor.  

I forsee a similar effort to the Ontario 2007 proportional rep referendum question - offer it up JUST enough to look like you're open to the idea, but don't push it all the way.


----------



## McG (29 May 2015)

But proportional representation is not good.  It empowers parties over the voters.  I would not expect preferential voting to be received the same way.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> But proportional representation is not good.  It empowers parties over the voters.  I would not expect preferential voting to be received the same way.



I agree with you on the Proportional Representation stitch up that the Dictatorship of the Proles keeps trying to foist of on us.  But I have to admit to a certain fondness for the Irish Alternative Vote (Preferential Vote) system.  It has three advantages: a clear winner; random selection; and it confounds pollsters.  Just the thing you would expect from the nation that gave us the Irish Sweepstakes.


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2015)

Looking at the last several election at different levels, it seems we _already_ know how to confound pollsters....


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Looking at the last several election at different levels, it seems we _already_ know how to confound pollsters....



Confusion to the Enemy.  :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Essentially, and as expected, the SCC has ruled against the Government on almost every single point. The decision is here.
> 
> So: Prime Minister Harper cannot reform the Senate without reopening the Constitution and Mr Mulcair cannot, in good conscience, promise to abolish it.
> 
> ...



                    _And_



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gordon Gibson, long time _Blue Liberal_ and _Fraser Institute_ fellow (and that's about as _blue_ as one can get), opines that there are ways - *but not Justin Trudeau's way* - to _reform_ the Senate in ways that the _Supremes_ have not closed off in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-senate-lives-on-with-all-of-its-powers-so-now-what/article18459108/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




Now, David Akin weighs in in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/06/senate-must-change-and-fast


> Senate must change and fast
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




I know, I know ... this is  :deadhorse: and I am  :bla-bla: and you are  :waiting: but ...

I repeat:

     1. Canada, as a federal state needs a bicameral legislature ~ one chamber represents and is accountable to the people, at large, on a (roughly) equal basis, the other represents and must be accountable to the constituent parts of the country,
         the people, still, but in their (still _sovereign_) "partners" in Confederation, the provinces and territories;

     2. A modern legislature in a 21st century liberal democracy must be accountable to the people ~ "sober second though" by elders and _betters_ is not required; and

     3. There is only one way to have an _"accountable'_ chamber ~ elections.

The _supremes_ have said:

     "Introducing a process of consultative elections for the nomination of Senators would change our Constitution’s architecture, by endowing Senators with a popular mandate which is inconsistent with the Senate’s fundamental nature and role as
       a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought.  The view that the consultative election proposals would amend the Constitution of Canada is supported by the language of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 .  The words
      employed in Part V are guides to identifying the aspects of our system of government that form part of the protected content of the Constitution. Section 42(1) (b) provides that the general amending procedure (s. 38(1) ) applies to
      constitutional amendments in relation to “the method of selecting Senators”.  This broad wording includes more than the formal appointment of Senators by the Governor General and covers the implementation of consultative
      elections.  By employing this language, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982  extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which Senators are “selected”.
      Consequently, the implementation of consultative elections falls within the scope of s. 42(1) (b) and is subject to the general amending procedure, without the provincial right to “opt out”.  It cannot be achieved under the unilateral
      federal amending procedure.  Section 44  is expressly made “subject to” s. 42  — the categories of amendment captured by s. 42  are removed from the scope of s. 44 ."

That's pretty definitive.

We can be 100% sure that Prime Minister Harper does will not reopen the Constitution prior to the 2015 election. We can be _pretty sure_ that he doesn't want to open it at all.

So, he's here ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... right?

No, not quite ... remember this admonition:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




A (near) future prime minister, maybe Harper, maybe his successor, will have to "do something," and, given the constraints imposed by the _supremes_ it involves either:

     1. Reopening the whole Constitution ~ something to which I look forward but something that makes sane people quake in their boots; or

     2. Using (misusing? abusing?) §33 (the infamnous _Notwithstanding_ provisions); or

     3. Defying the _supremes_ and following my two letters route ~

         a. One letter to each senator asking for his/her resignation effective the next provincial general election, and

         b. One letter to each premier saying that the prime minister will appoint only elected senators (who agree to resign at the next provincial election) and _inviting_ (challenging) the premiers to hold senatorial elections in
             conjunction with their provincial elections.

COA 3 is sort of like a mini-Constitutional conference, dealing with one issue only.

 ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Harper will say, to people like me,, "I tried, but the _Supremes_ say that I cannot do it, not, at least without a Constitutional imbroglio that none of us wants."


And to the rest of us, via the media, here's what he said this weekend ....


> .... *“Look, obviously we find any abuse of taxpayers’ dollars by Parliamentarians … to be unacceptable,”* the prime minister told reporters during a visit to Kiev where he demonstrated solidarity with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko as the conflict with Russian-backed fighters intensifies.
> 
> Asked to comment on leaked revelations from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report, Mr. Harper said the Senate is a separate entity from the Commons, where he sits, and senators are the ones that called for the watchdog to comb through their expenses.
> 
> *“As you know, the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses. The Senate itself commissioned the Auditor-Generals’ report and the Senate itself is responsible for responding to that report,” *the Conservative Leader said ....


More here and here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2015)

So, it's been 800 years since a group of English (actually mostly French speaking _imports_) magnates decided that their (equally French) king, John by name, needed a bit of adult leadership. They wrote a _contract_, of sorts, a _Charter_, called a _Carta_ in Latin, which was pretty big (_Great_ or _Magna_) and which managed, after a pope or two tried to strike it down, to lay the foundations for our modern, Western, liberal world order. It was struck down, by King John and a compliant pope in Rome, but William Marshal ~ almost certainly an illiterate but one of the greatest men of England, ever ~ reissued it, in the name of the child King Henry III, in order to unite the country (the barons _were_ the bloody country, for all intents and purposes) under the boy king and to persuade the recalcitrant barons to pay their taxes to his _exchequer_.*

_Magna Carta_ has been under much attack in the media because it is not a grand statement of 21st century _liberal_ values. But it did, in a few phrases, lay the foundation for real _liberalism_: for a small handful of fundamental rights and for the supremacy of the common law. It is, far, Far, FAR more important to life, liberty and happiness and to peace, order and good government than anything until the _Glorious Revolution_ of 1688/89 and more important than anything after, including the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

_Magna Carta_ established the _principle_ that the sovereign must take counsel ~ it took a while to solidify the power of the officials who gave such counsel, and you can thanks two Cecils: William (Lord Burghley) and his son Robert (Earl of Salisbury) for doing that, and then Robert Walpole (Earl of Orford) for formalizing it.

The really vital bits of our, Canadian, Constitution are nowhere to be found in the Constitution Act of 1982, it is, to quote Shakespeare, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Like the US Constitution it lays out "wish lists" and then relies upon courts and, more important, political good manners, to give them effect. But the real state of civil government ~ the _constraining *power*_ of the "people" over the sovereign is established in _Magna Carta_.

_____
* And history records that William Marshal paid, from his own pocket, for a new chequered cloth which was used to calculate the king's share of the baron's profits for the year


----------



## McG (16 Jun 2015)

The Trudeau has come out with his support for preferential voting.  If such a system were a result of the coming tight election, that would be a good thing.  Unfortunately, he waffles by opening the possibility of proportional representation as an alternative to the preferential vote.  This would be a bad thing, giving greater power to the political parties at the expense of the voters themselves.



> *Trudeau wants alternative to first past the post*
> A sneak peek at the Liberals’ plan to ‘restore democracy in Canada’
> Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
> MacLean's
> ...


http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-wants-alternative-to-first-past-the-post-by-next-election/

It was a year ago tomorrow that a Trudeau advisor's support for this idea was first reported:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-adviser-backs-mandatory-voting-preferential-ballots-1.2678610


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2015)

There are some good ideas in there, also some suspect ones ~ but so it is with all political platforms.

I commend M Trudeau for both: having some good ideas; and enunciating some policies.

_I suspect_ this foray into policy is driven by _*fear*_ of M Mulcair's standings in the polls.


----------



## Underway (16 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are some good ideas in there, also some suspect ones ~ but so it is with all political platforms.
> 
> I commend M Trudeau for both: having some good ideas; and enunciating some policies.
> 
> _I suspect_ this foray into policy is driven by _*fear*_ of M Mulcair's standings in the polls.



Agreed to all your points.  I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting.  It's point three in my draft charter of responsibilities.  Figured since rights come with responsibilities we should write them down in legislation.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (16 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Agreed to all your points.  I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting.  It's point three in my draft charter of responsibilities.  Figured since rights come with responsibilities we should write them down in legislation.



My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress". 

_"Vote, or you will be punished!"_

The fundamental item of democratic society is that citizens have a choice. If that choice is not to cast a ballot, fine, they have that freedom. However, I am on the fence as I would like to see mandatory voting and those that would normally not cast a ballot due to complacency to involve themselves in politics (or the uninformed) can simply spoil their ballot. The vote isn't counted except to voter turn out. I feel that making voting mandatory would cause one of two things to occur:

*1) More citizens will become politically involved to the benefit of the collective society. Less voting for "lesser of 3 evils", more chances for smaller parties and independents to win seats*

*2) Widespread fear. The less politically involved citizens will end up casting ballots influenced by poor information given by their peers, media. Thus creating a system of "impulse voting."*


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jun 2015)

You can always make provisions to permit people to decline their ballot once they show up.

If your position is "I hate the system and can't even be bothered to show up" then you're not apolitical, you're apathetic.


----------



## dimsum (17 Jun 2015)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress".
> 
> _"Vote, or you will be punished!"_
> 
> ...



This is how Australia does it, and both situations have occurred in the 2013 election (which I obviously was not a part of, but since everyone has to vote, EVERYONE talks about it).  I'm not sure what the rules are in Australia for organizing political parties, but one of the MPs elected was from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party - I'm sure he was a "donkey vote" (vote out of duress/hatred/whatever) that managed to sneak in.

The other thing about Preferential voting is that it takes a while (weeks, even) to see who actually won.  In the Queensland state election last year, it took almost 2 weeks to figure it out.  

The big point I noticed after the election, and even now, is that despite the 100% voter turnout, people still have a visceral hatred of either the Liberal (read:  Conservative) government currently in power, or the Labour (read:  Liberal left-wing) government that was kicked out of power in 2013.  I don't think it'd solve any long-standing issues if we were to follow the Australian system.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Trudeau has come out with his support for preferential voting.  If such a system were a result of the coming tight election, that would be a good thing.  Unfortunately, he waffles by opening the possibility of proportional representation as an alternative to the preferential vote.  This would be a bad thing, giving greater power to the political parties at the expense of the voters themselves.
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-wants-alternative-to-first-past-the-post-by-next-election/
> 
> It was a year ago tomorrow that a Trudeau advisor's support for this idea was first reported:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-adviser-backs-mandatory-voting-preferential-ballots-1.2678610



For many in the political class, this is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Underway (17 Jun 2015)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress".
> 
> _"Vote, or you will be punished!"_
> 
> ...



Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your responsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your reaponsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.



I'm a proponent of earning your rights.  Want to vote? Then create a test or make national service something that's required to earn the right to vote.  or whatever.

People will be much more motivated to exercise a right they have earned and have had to work for than something they take for granted or are forced to do.


----------



## quadrapiper (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your responsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.


I wonder if a passive scheme, operated through income tax returns, might make sense: non-voter surcharge or something. A few percent extra on your tax bill should you not vote. Revenue-positive, uses an existing system, should more than self fund, and hurts only the shiftless.

Curious what you see as the constitutional issue?

I'm actually rather pleased about Trudeau's approach to the government reform file: a broad-based, "let's look at everything," notion, rather than Mulcair's "scrap the Senate" focus. No doubt the Liberals have a particular reason for wanting a reshuffling, but at least they're, as you say, starting a conversation.

Would actually like to see a _less_ democratically-involved Senate: perhaps arrange things to link Senate membership (or at least eligibility for the next seat) to certain positions, periods of service in elected office, and perhaps awards. Dilute, somewhat, the regional link to seats. Consider a Senate filled with e.g. former federal and provincial ADMs, long service MPs, highest-level Order of Canada recipients, former CDS and RCMP, CCG, etc. commissioners, retired Supreme Court judges, and so on. Might perhaps provide the _technical_ counterbalance to the Commons' much more ephemeral drivers. Still open to gaming, of course, but much less so than the current approach.


----------



## Brasidas (17 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm a proponent of earning your rights.  Want to vote? Then create a test or make national service something that's required to earn the right to vote.  or whatever.
> 
> People will be much more motivated to exercise a right they have earned and have had to work for than something they take for granted or are forced to do.



I'm a Heinlein fan myself, but I have serious doubts about structuring a military around it being a test of citizenship. Service being two years or the duration of an emergency would default to a huge fraction of the junior leadership playing nursemaid to troops at a battleschool or at holding units, with minimal actual utility taken from them. Stretch it out any longer, and you've either got streaming of troops into a "career" stream and a "short" stream (the Heinlein model) or you've got to get through a full basic engagement before you get treated like an adult.

Its better than conscription (where you get the joy of folks who don't want to be there at all, even as a means to an end), but when the military's purpose gets diluted for non-military ends, it doesn't lead to a more effective military.

What's the test alternative that you reference? A one-time essay on the nature of civic responsibility? A multiple choice test to prove knowledge of current policy issues every ballot? I'm not sure disenfranchising the ignorant is going to be an easy sell.


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I'm a Heinlein fan myself, but I have serious doubts about structuring a military around it being a test of citizenship. Service being two years or the duration of an emergency would default to a huge fraction of the junior leadership playing nursemaid to troops at a battleschool or at holding units, with minimal actual utility taken from them. Stretch it out any longer, and you've either got streaming of troops into a "career" stream and a "short" stream (the Heinlein model) or you've got to get through a full basic engagement before you get treated like an adult.
> 
> Its better than conscription (where you get the joy of folks who don't want to be there at all, even as a means to an end), but when the military's purpose gets diluted for non-military ends, it doesn't lead to a more effective military.
> 
> What's the test alternative that you reference? A one-time essay on the nature of civic responsibility? A multiple choice test to prove knowledge of current policy issues every ballot? I'm not sure disenfranchising the ignorant is going to be an easy sell.



National service does not have to be military in nature.

Immigrants that come to Canada have to write an exam.  It isn't perfect but if we hold them to that standard then why not hold everyone to that standard.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> National service does not have to be military in nature.



Exactly.  Germany used to have National Service, and yes the majority landed up in the military, which could accommodate large numbers annually and train them for eighteen month stints.  Joining the Polizei was another option and probably offered a long term career.  For those 'conscientious objectors', there was the option to join the Emergency Services or work in hospitals.  This put the majority of the graduates of 'high school' directly into a structured environment in the workforce.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Jun 2015)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Would actually like to see a _less_ democratically-involved Senate: perhaps arrange things to link Senate membership (or at least eligibility for the next seat) to certain positions, periods of service in elected office, and perhaps awards. Dilute, somewhat, the regional link to seats. Consider a Senate filled with e.g. former federal and provincial ADMs, long service MPs, highest-level Order of Canada recipients, former CDS and RCMP, CCG, etc. commissioners, retired Supreme Court judges, and so on. Might perhaps provide the _technical_ counterbalance to the Commons' much more ephemeral drivers. Still open to gaming, of course, but much less so than the current approach.



How could gaining membership in the Red Chamber be "less democratically-involved" than the current method of appointing senators (save perhaps for the odd appointee from Alberta)?  While it would be better if "politics"  (and old party hacks) were less involved, realistically that is unlikely to happen.  Though the Senate was not a direct clone of the House of Lords, there was probably some sense, besides "sober second thought", that having a check on the whims of the unwashed population was necessary to avoid upsetting the "establishment" in addition to providing a "regional voice".

Perhaps one way to strengthen the "regional" aspect of senate make-up is to devolve the selection of senators to the provinces.  If they are there to represent their region then that entity should be the one selecting them.

Ideally, senators (as befitting those who provide that deeper thinking and second thought) should come with the experience necessary and dedication required for the task.  Having those who have already been recognized for their contribution to the country is indeed the way to go, but I would suggest that taking a page from the House of Lords in the UK (I know, not the greatest example to follow) may be one way to make it less a sinecure for old party hacks and more a venue for those who have already been successful in a career and wish to continue to contribute to the country.  Peers who sit in the House of Lords do not get paid - for the days that they sit (or otherwise conduct legitimate House business) they are eligible to receive a daily allowance.  It isn't a well paid and pensionable second career.


----------



## Ostrozac (17 Jun 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Perhaps one way to strengthen the "regional" aspect of senate make-up is to devolve the selection of senators to the provinces.  If they are there to represent their region then that entity should be the one selecting them.



That is an elegant and effective way of defusing Senate reform for the foreseeable future. Every province would be able to set its own criteria, including elections, or recall votes, or sheer old-school cronyism (cough, PEI, cough, does Mr Duffy actually live there?) and would get Senate reform off the national stage.

A perfect example of assymetrical federalism. I love it.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2015)

Another of Heinlein's suggestions (from Grumblings from the grave) was that each voter should be individually tested prior to voting. His idea was that you entered the voting booth, closed the curtain and then a quadratic equation would flash on the screen for you to solve. If you solved it, the booth would unlock for voting; if you did not, the red light would go on over the booth and you would exit, shamed in front of everyone that you were too stupid or uneducated to vote...

The ancient idea of Timocracy, where property owners were the only ones eligible to serve as Jurors in the _ekklēsía_, or to vote in early democracies, was indeed based on the idea that property owners were engaged enough to take interest in politics, and to participate, make laws and vote to protect their property. The _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ also had a complicated system of representatives which was based on property and wealth, once again, to ensure that the people involved had a stake in the outcome. Or current system lets apathetic people not participate (much like a volunteer army has no place for conscripts), but the downside is the people who do participate are generally partisans who are in it for their personal gain and power. Their stake in the outcome is far different from that of property owners, artisans and skilled craftsmen.

A senate elected or appointed by the Provinces, interestingly, would be the same system the United States used up until the passage of the 17th amendment. The Senate of the United States was also used as a form of Timocracy; James Madison stating:

_In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability.
_


----------



## Privateer (18 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The ancient idea of Timocracy, where property owners were the only ones eligible to serve as Jurors...



As opposed to the current idea of Timocracy, where political parties vie for the vote of the Tim Hortons crowd.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Jun 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> As opposed to the current idea of Timocracy, where political parties vie for the vote of the Tim Hortons crowd.



You beat me to it!!


----------



## Underway (18 Jun 2015)

If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.

With the right amount of senate powers, term limits, a decent paycheque, and perhaps a limited number of parliamentary vetos to keep out the mentally ill, incompetent etc... people you would have your representative senate with a unique form of proportional representation.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.



I can not see this working in a population base of not more that a couple thousand.  I don't see Canada's population of near 35 million knowing all the candidates, so that would restrict the candidates being representatives of only a couple of thousand that may be familiar with them enough to have elected them (let's average it at 4K).  This would now leave us with a Senate having somewhere in the number of 8,750 seats (35,000,000 / 4000) if we were to average each electoral district to a population of approx 4K.  We would then have to construct a much larger building to house so many seats.  

Even in current municipal politics, you can't find a candidate that is that well know by the electorate.  

I don't see this being a workable reform.


----------



## Brasidas (18 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.
> 
> With the right amount of senate powers, term limits, a decent paycheque, and perhaps a limited number of parliamentary vetos to keep out the mentally ill, incompetent etc... people you would have your representative senate with a unique form of proportional representation.



Rolling with the science fiction, this is making me think Harrison Bergeron. Everyone "normal". Forget representative politics, just have the average joe make national policy decisions.

Society gets the government we deserve.

EDIT: For clarity, I used sarcasm. I think that if our current system of representatives is less than ideal, it has a lot to do with the people voting on who to represent them, rather than the selection process.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2015)

If the idea is randomizations, then let Senators be chosen by a lottery. Better yet, you buy your "Senate Lottery ticket" and the proceeds go to fund the senate. People with a real wish to join the Red Chamber will buy lots of tickets, paying for an opulent Duffy sized expense account to the winners.

Lottery winners are in the Red Chamber for a 5 year term, and only 1/5 of the seats are up for grabs any year. The odds of winning a senate seat are based on ticket sales, as is the size of the Senate's operating budget (including salaries). To ensure the Physical Red Chamber is not overrun with cockroaches or has the roof cave in, a separate O&M fund will be allocated from tax dollars for upkeep.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

[Tinfoil hat ON]

Well.  With Anonymous hacking Federal Government sites and leaving a message with a slight French accent, but mentioning that "the Magna Carta is now in our country", what is to say that this 'Canadian' would not also hack any of Justin Trudeau's suggested electronic voting in the future?  Also, Justin, what are you going to do if to ensure that everyone votes; fine them?  Electronic votes would in essence do away with the "secret ballot"; that would be emphasized when people who did not vote get fines/notices, as their IP addresses would not have shown any activity in the voting process.  Those who did vote electronically would have their voting habits/choices recorded according to their IP addresses.  

[/Tinfoil hat OFF]


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2015)

Electronic voting just creates more opportunities for fraud.  At this particular point in time, no-one should be living under the illusion that e-anything is secure.  Stick to traditional paper ballots.

Mandatory voting creates more uninformed and under-informed votes - even with an "out" (spoiled ballot or none-of-above option) a compelled voter might suddenly be tempted to check off some name for no admirable reason.  I would rather people disinclined to vote continue to exercise that freedom instead of polluting the results.

Alternatives to FPTP look attractive to Teams Red and Orange right now because of the disarray on the left/centre-left and relative unity on the right/centre-right.  Abolishing the Senate looks good when you have no likelihood of appointing senators to block the other teams' governments and a very real likelihood of being faced with senatorial pushback on the rare occasion you do form government.  In brief, no high principle needs to be attached to these positions - sheer political opportunism will do, and political opportunism is a poor reason to change.


----------



## Underway (18 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can not see this working in a population base of not more that a couple thousand.  I don't see Canada's population of near 35 million knowing all the candidates, so that would restrict the candidates being representatives of only a couple of thousand that may be familiar with them enough to have elected them (let's average it at 4K).  This would now leave us with a Senate having somewhere in the number of 8,750 seats (35,000,000 / 4000) if we were to average each electoral district to a population of approx 4K.  We would then have to construct a much larger building to house so many seats.
> 
> Even in current municipal politics, you can't find a candidate that is that well know by the electorate.
> 
> I don't see this being a workable reform.


The senators are chosen like jury duty.  It's essentially a random lottery.  This wouldn't require anyone at all to know your senators or to vote for them.  Leaving regional seat numbers as they are and then have the seats filled by random appointment.


----------



## Underway (18 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Electronic voting just creates more opportunities for fraud.  At this particular point in time, no-one should be living under the illusion that e-anything is secure.  Stick to traditional paper ballots.
> 
> Mandatory voting creates more uninformed and under-informed votes - even with an "out" (spoiled ballot or none-of-above option) a compelled voter might suddenly be tempted to check off some name for no admirable reason.  I would rather people disinclined to vote continue to exercise that freedom instead of polluting the results.
> 
> Alternatives to FPTP look attractive to Teams Red and Orange right now because of the disarray on the left/centre-left and relative unity on the right/centre-right.  Abolishing the Senate looks good when you have no likelihood of appointing senators to block the other teams' governments and a very real likelihood of being faced with senatorial pushback on the rare occasion you do form government.  In brief, no high principle needs to be attached to these positions - sheer political opportunism will do, and political opportunism is a poor reason to change.


In someways fraud is reduced.  You can now go to three different polling stations and vote.  Now you would be recorded as having voted.  If using current banking or protected b level security should be pretty solid.  Denial of service attack like what happened today would still be possible though I think.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Denial of service attack like what happened today would still be possible though I think.



You mean like this? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hackers-attack-ndp-delaying-electronic-leadership-vote/article535684/

Anonymous yesterday took down numerous government servers. Anyone with enough time on their hands will get through your security, especially when you have to allow so many untrusted connections into your server to cast the ballots. DOS/DDOSing a vote is one small step away from pumping in hundreds of illegitimate ballots.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> The senators are chosen like jury duty.  It's essentially a random lottery.  This wouldn't require anyone at all to know your senators or to vote for them.  Leaving regional seat numbers as they are and then have the seats filled by random appointment.



Not quite what you alluded to in your original post about planet Mars protocols.   >


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

Besides electronic voting being an easy target for hackers of all ilks, there are so many flaws in the proposals being put forward by the Liberals.   The idea of having voters make three choices, their first choice, whom they would like next if that person doesn't make it, and a third in case neither of their first two choices garnered enough votes; just makes a mockery of Democracy.  In fact it isn't even democratic.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Jun 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> (cough, PEI, cough, does Mr Duffy actually live there?)



Absolutely.

33. If any Question arises respecting the Qualification of a Senator or a Vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and determined by the Senate.

You notice it doesn't say the courts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2015)

>Now you would be recorded as having voted.

It may record that someone voted in your name - not the same thing.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

Time to have Elections Canada purchase large quantities of indelible ink.  Everyone who voted gets to stick their thumb into the bottle.  Those without a black thumb can be fined by Mr Trudeau.   >


----------



## Underway (18 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Now you would be recorded as having voted.
> 
> It may record that someone voted in your name - not the same thing.



Its no different than dead people voting, voting in place of your brother, voting in multiple ridings (very very easy to do), or someone using a fake ID.  I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems from sitting on you chesterfield.  Its not any easier to hack a computer system with decent security than it is to fake a bunch of ID's, miscount or drive to multiple voting booths and vote multiple times.  The current paper system has many flaws as well.  I suppose its better than hanging chads though.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Its no different than dead people voting, voting in place of your brother, voting in multiple ridings (very very easy to do), or someone using a fake ID.  I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems from sitting on you chesterfield.  Its not any easier to hack a computer system with decent security than it is to fake a bunch of ID's, miscount or drive to multiple voting booths and vote multiple times.  The current paper system has many flaws as well.  I suppose its better than hanging chads though.



Just another reason to tell the Civil Rights activists to cease and desist, and enforce security measures by introducing Bio-metric IDs. 

Someone coming to vote with a thumb in a plastic bag on ice, or an eyeball on ice, would raise an eyebrow or two.


----------



## Underway (19 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just another reason to tell the Civil Rights activists to cease and desist, and enforce security measures by introducing Bio-metric IDs.
> 
> Someone coming to vote with a thumb in a plastic bag on ice, or an eyeball on ice, would raise an eyebrow or two.



I disagree (with the non-eyeball comment...ew... ;D).  The more laws the less freedom in many respects.  I expect and accept a certain amount of chaos, friction and noise with my freedom.  Price of doing business.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Time to have Elections Canada purchase large quantities of indelible ink.  Everyone who voted gets to stick their thumb into the bottle.



The same thought went through my head too.  If it works in the sandbox it would work here too.   :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2015)

My daughter wanted to know "why should I vote?" when she turned 18

I taught my daughter the importance of voting through the simple lesson:

"These candidates want to raise our taxes to pay for things that only benefit a very small number of people, while neglecting issues which affect large numbers of people. We could lose our house as a result since the tax increase will push payments outside of our budget."

Sadly, not enough people know this lesson, so we are looking to sell our house in the near future. At least we tried.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2015)

>I think the real risk is that you can do more efficient ballot box stuffing with electronic systems

Exactly so.  Any practical system of collecting votes from large populations presents opportunities for fraud, but ultimately all countermeasures amount to increasing (or not decreasing) one thing: the difficulty of casting a vote.

When you have twelve hours on one day, to show up in person, with photo identification, which you are required to present while showing your face, to make a non-stylized mark on a paper ballot, which is physically retained, the opportunities to cast multiple votes are limited.

None of those requirements is onerous*.  Attempts to make voting easier also make voting fraud easier.

*Except for people for whom voting on election day would be markedly inconvenient or impossible, in which case there should be limited advance voting for people who can demonstrate need (mere convenience should not be entertained).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Jun 2015)

Chong's Reform Act

Apparently this is supposed to be a great democratic step forward but it looks to me that professional politicians are seizing power from party membership that selects or deselects the leader.  I think this could take a while to cross the Governor General's desk - like never.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/contentious-reform-act-lives-senate-votes-reject-proposed-220139260.html


----------



## Underway (23 Jun 2015)

Takes a lot of the power away from the party whip.  Anything that does that is good for democracy in Canada.  UK MPs break party ranks all the time to represent their constituants.  Canadian MPs should be allowed to do the same.  Remember parliament chooses the government.  Canadians choose parliament.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Jun 2015)

The Governor General chooses the government normally based on election results, Parliament can only fire it.  What about party constitutions?  A party that doesn't stick together and make their compromises in caucus will soon be toast.  Whatever the law says will be totally ignored, of necessity.

The part I didn't notice - "He also agreed to subject all elements of the bill to a vote by each party's caucus after each election. They could choose to adopt the rules, modify them, or go with the status quo."

So it's bulltweet.  If I was a leader I might be tempted to force the point.  All parties are coalitions, with disparate interests.  Who wants to waste efforts fighting within your party?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2015)

When it comes to policy lockstep and holding members to the party line, the LPC and CPC have nothing on the NDP.  Don't expect meaningful reform from Team Orange.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2015)

This (from the _Ottawa Citizen)__ ~ PM Harper slaps moratorium on Senate appointments ahead of election ~ is an interesting development. It, a "death by a thousand cuts," is one of the strategies the Supremes specifically ruled out, as a non-starter.

Once again, in my opinion, good politics and poor policy.

It's good politics because it will, most likely appease about half, maybe more, of Canadians, and it takes an arrow out of Thomas Mulcair's quiver and it may make M Trudeau into the one and only "defender" of the Senate of Canada, as currently configured.

It's poor policy because we are a federal state and we need a bicameral legislature: one chambre representing Canadians, in their communities, on a (roughly) equal basis and the other representing the "partners" in Confederation, the provinces which have, Constitutionally their own sovereign status.

There is a right answer: but it requires a Constitutional Conference and it may need unanimous (not 7/50) approval ~ disband the current Senate and replace it with a "Council of the Federation" with some form of democratically elected, by and within provinces, provincial representation and powers very like those of the current Senate. _


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2015)

Two problems I can see with the approach.

1) I believe the senate has a quorum rule.  Not sure what the threshold is but if the senate cannot achieve quorum then I am guessing no legislation can be passed. At all. 

2) The PM, should he lose the election is giving up 20+ seats in the senate to the incoming government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2015)

Exactly ~ the _Supremes_ told him he couldn't sentence the Senate to a slow death. But: he only "gives away" 20 senators IF Justin Trudeau is elected. Doing this would put Thomas Mulcair, should he become PM, in a bind. He has promised abolition, the last thing he wants to do is to appoint senators: this move would force the next CPC or NDP PM to take some action quickly. (It would take quite a few minutes for me to _guesstimate_ when, through age related resignations, the quorum disappears, but my _WAG (wild assed guess)_ is that it's within less than 10 years.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2015)

>2) The PM, should he lose the election is giving up 20+ seats in the senate to the incoming government.

Calculated risk.  It moves the spotlight onto the other parties before the election.  Now - assuming anyone cares to interrogate them - they will have to answer for what they will really do with Senate appointments, instead of waving their hands and making empty promises.


----------



## Privateer (25 Jul 2015)

Here is a point that I made in this thread last year:

"...the constitution consists of more than just the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982.  For example, the Newfoundland Act, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22, an act of the United Kingdom, contains the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, which provide that Newfoundland is entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members.  Presumably, if the Governor General failed to make the necessary appointments to fill this constitutional requirement, Newfoundland could take legal action to compel the GG to do so."

And there is now a proceeding in Federal Court, brought by a citizen, not a province, seeking a declaration that the Governor General cannot refuse to appoint Senators as this would violate the constitution.  Of course, this is actually aimed at the Prime Minister, who instructs the GG to make the appointments.  A recent article on the legal proceedings:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harpers-game-of-senate-appointment-make-believe-will-end/article24559164/

Excerpt:



> Stephen Harper is playing at pre-election make-believe with Senate appointments. We have a Vancouver lawyer to thank for calling us back to reality.
> 
> The Prime Minister’s game of pretend is in declaring he won’t appoint senators. The unloved, disrespected Red Chamber has caused him a spot of bother, notably because of ill-advised appointees such as Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau. So Mr. Harper stopped appointing new senators back in 2013. There are now 20 vacant seats.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2015)

Undoubtedly the people opposed to Harper would like to be able to attack Harper for some Senate appointments before the election, but he isn't required to oblige them.  Either there is a time within which a vacant position must be filled, or there is not.  Right now the latter looks to be true.

[Add: another possibility is that Harper is practicing briar patch politics.  "I don't want to recommend 20 Senate appointments.  Please don't make me recommend 20 Senate appointments."]


----------



## Harrigan (26 Jul 2015)

The PM was never going to appoint any senators right before an election, so this "announcement" is nothing new at all.  As Mr.Campbell has correctly pointed out, there is a "right answer", and attriting the Senate in this manner is not it.  Yet another case where he is announcing something which he knows is unconstitutional - in other words, against the law - and yet so many want to overlook that.  Why is abiding by the laws of the land so difficult?  

I support the reform and/or abolition of the Senate, but it has to be done legally otherwise it is illegitimate.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Jul 2015)

We can blame Mr Harper all we want, but the truth of the matter is that reform starts with the Provinces. The Senate is the representative body of the provinces, and with the exception of Alberta, none have stepped forward to assist in any reform. Until the public, and the federal parties put pressure on the provinces, no meaningful reform will be possible.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We can blame Mr Harper all we want, but the truth of the matter is that reform starts with the Provinces. The Senate is the representative body of the provinces, and with the exception of Alberta, none have stepped forward to assist in any reform. Until the public, and the federal parties put pressure on the provinces, no meaningful reform will be possible.



I am not sure it is written anywhere that the provinces have to initiate the discussion - that's just a deflection from a federal government that wants this particular issue to go away.  However, no matter who initiates the process, it doesn't remove that requirement for it to be done legally - and therefore legitimately.  And that path is not a mystery (well, to most).


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2015)

Harrigan, you are being deliberately obtuse.

The formula for changing the Senate, and anything else constitutional is spelled out in the Constitution Act of 1982, and Edward has commented extensively, so there is no "mystery" as to how to go about changing or abolishing the Senate. The Government may propose, but the Provinces dispose, and the Prime Minister's earlier efforts to allow for an evolutionary change (by not appointing Senators unless the Provinces elected them) obviously was not supported by the Provinces: how many Senatorial elections were held since 2006?

Attritting the Senate isn't at all strange or unusual, the PM is clearing the decks the way he did last time to provide room for Senators to be appointed with a changed or evolved "custom". Maybe Senate reform will become an issue in the election, and he can point to having room to bring in Senators elected/selected under some new convention or custom (since the BNA and Constitution Acts are rather inflexible this way).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jul 2015)

It is simply bull to say that the senate represents the provinces. It would be just as wrong a statement to claim that federally appointed judges represent their province of origin. Both are the full and sole purview of the GG-in-council and therefore purely national (in the sense of  Federal) animals.

First of all, not all provinces have a set number of senators that must originate from their midst set by the constitution. Quebec and Ontario do, PEI has a "minimum" number set, but within the senators that come from the "maritimes", so they could have more, if Ottawa wanted. Newfoundland has a set number, as do some of the territories. In the West, there has been a tradition that has developed on which province should have so many senators out of the "western" overall number allocated. However, as we know in Quebec, constitutional traditions are non-binding on the government, which can discard them as it wishes - hence no western province could complain if, for instance, all the "western" senators were selected from, say, Manitoba.

Unlike the US, where the senators are elected from given states, and therefore are required to do that state's biding (I remind you that when a US senator dies in office, it is the State Governor who appoints a replacement until the next election), the idea in Canada was to have an upper chamber that would be free of the influence of  any political party or specific geographically located power base.

The main reason for appointing senators coming from specific provinces or regions, as the case may be, was to ensure that, in their "sober second thought", the upper chamber would be able to have people in a position to speak to how any piece of legislation would affect a given province or region, and thus ensure that they could return to the commons for "re-work" any bill that would have an unwarranted disproportionate impact on a specific province or region.

So its not up to the province to start the process and in my view, the PM is using a very bad tactic here in pressuring the provinces. In fact, I would say he is shooting himself in the foot.

Let's face it, other than some provinces in the west, where the "elect" your senator movement started (and I remind you that Harper was one of the leaders of that movement before he even entered federal politics), most provinces don't even have senate reform on their scope even today. So what does not appointing senators do to these provinces? Nothing. The provincial governments don't need federal senators to carry out their business. Those provincial governments are not even consulted on appointment of senators, who are normally appointed because of their participation in federal politics, not provincial politics. If for any reason this policy of the PM leads to the senate not being able to function and thus the federal parliament not functioning, do you think that the people will blame their provincial governments and pressure them to act? No, they will blame the proper party: the PM and the federal politicians.

On top of that, I believe that you won't have to wait until quorum is lost to see problems. First, the committee work will slow down because a lack of senators means that the current ones will have to become members of more committees , and agenda coordination will delay things. If the senate slows down, legislation in general will slow down. Second, as you approach ever closer to not achieving quorum, there will be more and more times where a committee or the full senate will not be able to transact business because of illnesses, or other valid reasons for senators to be absent, thus leading to a temporary lack of quorum,etc. You could also see a revolt of the senators, by the way: They could slow any senate business to a crawl by studying legislation one article at a time, ordering full unrestricted public consultations in committee of all legislation, etc. bringing business to a crawl (imagine such scenario with Mr. Harper's favourite five hundred pages omnibus bills adopted under closure in the lower chamber. He has no power to bring closure in the senate. Such bills could be there for years).

Also, imagine the following scenario: Harper is reelected. He fails to appoint senators. He tries to pass legislation that is really offensive to the Libs. The liberal senators quit "en masse" leading to no quorum. The business of the nation is at a standstill. If he appoints just enough senators to have quorum, he breaks his own policy and look crass at the same time. And then, you can be sure that the province from which he did not appoint the few extra senators will cry foul.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

_I think_ most of you are at least partially wrong:

The Senate was created, in 1867, to _prevent_ unbridled popular democracy, which was still highly suspect in Britain. Our Senate was, indeed, intended to provide "sober second thought," because the officials in London _believed_ that the people, left to their own devices, would choose "beer and popcorn"* over good public policy. Thus, it was agreed, the _elites_ should have a voice. Our constitution was, in its way, the second draft of federalism: the US Constitution being the first, and we copied and adapted some ideas/models from Westminster and some others from America. 

In a federal state one needs a bicameral legislature because a federation is a bargain, and the _partners_ in the bargain, the provinces, still retain some (considerable) degree of sovereignty and they need a properly constituted legislative forum in which to guard their interests.

Prime Minister Harper is, _in my opinion_, doing the wrong thing, and _I suspect_ he's doing that wrong thing wrong, too. The _Supremes_ have given him very narrow arcs of fire: there are only a few proper course of action available ~ they all involve (re)opening the Constitution, with all that implies. That is the most political of all things, and the SSC recognized that. It would be political (and policy) madness to do anything before the election, even to appoint senators. I do not believe there is a crisis of any sort until about 2025 ~ plenty of time for someone to think of something legal and proper. Plus, I think that the prospect of a full scale Constitutional Congrees should bring Dr Johnson's quip about hanging to mind: _"When a man knows he is to be hanged...it concentrates his mind wonderfully."_

_____
* Remember Scott Reid's unfortunate quip on television about 10 years ago? Some people still don't trust the "people."


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2015)

>Yet another case where he is announcing something which he knows is unconstitutional - in other words, against the law 

Harper's position right now is that he will recommend no appointments up to a specific point in time.  Have we a ruling on that yet?

For those that want Harper to move on Senate reform, this is a move.


----------



## Harrigan (27 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ most of you are at least partially wrong:
> 
> The Senate was created, in 1867, to _prevent_ unbridled popular democracy, which was still highly suspect in Britain. Our Senate was, indeed, intended to provide "sober second thought," because the officials in London _believed_ that the people, left to their own devices, would choose "beer and popcorn"* over good public policy. Thus, it was agreed, the _elites_ should have a voice. Our constitution was, in its way, the second draft of federalism: the US Constitution being the first, and we copied and adapted some ideas/models from Westminster and some others from America.
> 
> ...



Agree 100% with Oldgateboatdriver and Mr.Campbell.  

Here's another article that presents a similar case:  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harper-needs-to-get-serious-about-senate-policy/article25676114/

Harrigan


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I am not sure it is written anywhere that the provinces have to initiate the discussion - that's just a deflection from a federal government that wants this particular issue to go away.  However, no matter who initiates the process, it doesn't remove that requirement for it to be done legally - and therefore legitimately.  And that path is not a mystery (well, to most).



I didn't say, nor imply that the provinces have to initiate the discussion. True senate reform flows through the provinces. Without their agreement nothing substantive can happen. If they won't agree to elections, perhaps the prospective senators can be recommended to the PM by the premiers for onward consideration by the GG. As I think about it, that might also remove some, if not most of the partisanship of the current upper house.

I will agree that a moratorium on appointments is the wrong way to go, but it's pretty obvious that those who would denounce Mr Harper for making appointments, are the first to condemn him for not making them. Lose-lose in my opinion.


----------



## Harrigan (27 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I didn't say, nor imply that the provinces have to initiate the discussion. True senate reform flows through the provinces. Without their agreement nothing substantive can happen. If they won't agree to elections, perhaps the prospective senators can be recommended to the PM by the premiers for onward consideration by the GG. As I think about it, that might also remove some, if not most of the partisanship of the current upper house.
> 
> I will agree that a moratorium on appointments is the wrong way to go, but it's pretty obvious that those who would denounce Mr Harper for making appointments, are the first to condemn him for not making them. Lose-lose in my opinion.



Apologies if I misinterpreted.  When I read......



> We can blame Mr Harper all we want, but the truth of the matter is that reform starts with the Provinces



....I assumed you meant that the reform process must be initiated by the Provinces.  

I agree that there probably are ways to make it less partisan, but only if the PM wants it to be less partisan.  This PM doesn't show any inclination to make it less partisan, and nor have any of the Liberal or Conservatives before him.  
*historical note - PM's Martin (5), Mulroney (1), Trudeau (8), St.Laurent (1), Borden (3), Thompson (1), Macdonald (9) are the only PM's that appointed opposition members to the Senate.  In Martin's case, almost 30% of the appointees on his watch.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jul 2015)

First of all, just out of curiosity, I went to the official Senate site to see how many compulsory retirements are coming up in the next five years. The number is 33. That would draw the Senate down to 50 Senators, which is well below half of the number of seats.

Second, ModlrMike, the PM has not been denounced for making appointments. Like ALL PM's, he has been denounced for the bad appointments he may have made. Considering he has made fifty such appointments to date, some of which have already had at the time to serve and retire, the fact that a few of those turned out to be bad apples, means that by and large, his appointees have been reasonable choices. He has not been blamed for those and his record to date would suggest that he makes good choices in general, something which should not make him fearful of making further appointments.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I believe_ that our, Westminster, _system_ of responsible, parliamentary government is superior to e.g. the US model of representative government, but our, Canadian, implementation needs some work.
> 
> First: we need to _reform_ our legislative structure so that the House of Commons is much, much more _equitable_ in its levels of representation and so that our Senate (which _I believe_ is necessary) more adequately
> reflects a 21st century liberal-democratic country.
> ...



(1)  Agreed.  I am not adverse to having an appointed Senate, as quite frankly appointing people to secure tenure can provide a stronger batch of officials if the appointment process is rigorous.  Thus, I think it should be a separate appointing body (a "Canada Council?") perhaps headed by the Chief Clerk or the Chief Justice or someone that isn't trying to get a few votes out of every decision.  Perhaps there is a process for nominating oneself or another Canadian for review by such a body.  I'm just winging it here; any better ideas?

(2)  Yes.  And strengthening the appointment process for this office would be useful as well (although I think we've done quite well to date).

(3)  Yes.  It can still be a crown, but one that resides in Canada and is "held" (vice worn) by the GG.

(4)  Yes.

(5)  Good luck.  You may have a better case if you keep Parts 1 (Charter) and 2 (Aboriginal Rights) enshrined as "constitutional" with the same amendment criteria while allowing the other sections pertaining to the structure of government to be amended through a far less ornery (and rigorous) formula.  We'd probably have a functional Senate by now if we weren't locked down to 1867 rules with 1982 amendment criteria.  Things change, and governments should too.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2015)

My preference for the Senate would see senators appointed for two terms of the provincial legislature, based on popular vote in the province.

So, if Manitoba were to have six senators, then every time there's a provincial election in Manitoba three senators would be elected at large for the province.  They would stay in office for two terms of the provincial legislature (however long those terms may be).  That turns the Senate into an elected house of the provinces, but provides some degree of continuity with the extended terms of office (up to ten years).

Devil is in the details of course: how do you divvy up the senate seats?


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2015)

Harper caught plenty of stick for his batch appointments in 2008.  Undoubtedly some of the people who screamed then are screaming now because of the moratorium.  If he appointed another batch, they'd scream opportunism - especially in the context of recent polls.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2015)

Determining the number of senators per province and the means of electing/selecting/appointing them is such a can of worms because each choice reflects a fundamentally different conception of the role and nature of the Senate, its place in government and the balance of power(s) between the provinces.

If we think back to the historical US Senate, its membership was selected by State legislators to represent the State's interests to the Federal government in Washington. A "Triple E" Senate would resemble that model, and equalize the powers of the provinces in the upper house (the same reason every US State only has two Senators, so a small State like Delaware has the same "voice" as Texas). 

Now the lay down of senators in the current Canadian system isn't bound by common sense considerations like that. The relative number of Senators may have been set by a series of historical accidents, but the Upper Chamber reflects a sort of power structure that the Laurentian Elites are fighting to retain (the essential dominance of central Canada as the political and economic hub of Canada), while the greater world outside has long since bypassed that notion. People are not going to give up acquired perques and power easily (and generally won't unless forced to), so until you find the solution to that conundrum, or build sufficient force or incentives to _make_ the other parties deliver up their piece of the pie, we will never get anywhere.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2015)

Senate reform isn't going anywhere until the provinces decide it needs to.  Meanwhile, all we need is enough senators to maintain quorum, preferably appointed from the subset of people who are sharp on policy and common sense - diversity be damned, if necessary.


----------



## Harrigan (29 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Senate reform isn't going anywhere until the provinces decide it needs to.  Meanwhile, all we need is enough senators to maintain quorum, preferably appointed from the subset of people who are sharp on policy and common sense - diversity be damned, if necessary.



So if Trudeau wins the election, reduces the Senate to a quorum filled with his appointees, you'd be fine with it?

Harrigan


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> So if Trudeau wins the election, reduces the Senate to a quorum filled with his appointees, you'd be fine with it?
> 
> Harrigan



That is actually 2 different questions:

I would rather a more modern means of appointing senators were created, rather than whatever people the leader (any leader) picks, so I am not fine with this, but alternatives are blocked or severely constrained.
As Brad says, we need people who are sharp on policy and common sense, diversity be damned

2a: would the Young Dauphin be able to pick people who are sharp on policy and common sense (the evidence isn't very comforting so far)

2b: Would the Young Dauphin go against "convention" and choose people for their abilities regardless of their geographical location (i.e. he picks you to become senator for the North West Territories despite your current residency becasue you are the best person for the job. Start packing and keep all your receipts this time....)

Like I said upthread, Governance is the _art of the possible_, while Politics is _a means of allocating scarce resources_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jul 2015)

>So if Trudeau wins the election, reduces the Senate to a quorum filled with his appointees, you'd be fine with it?

Yes.  First, the country has survived a Senate dominated by Liberals before.  Second, if his appointees aren't all Liberals, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not appoint cretins.  Third, his approach and selections might generate some movement on Senate reform if people are dissatisfied.


----------



## Harrigan (30 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So if Trudeau wins the election, reduces the Senate to a quorum filled with his appointees, you'd be fine with it?
> 
> Yes.  First, the country has survived a Senate dominated by Liberals before.  Second, if his appointees aren't all Liberals, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not appoint cretins.  Third, his approach and selections might generate some movement on Senate reform if people are dissatisfied.



Fair enough, if you would support Trudeau for doing the same as Harper, I don't see how anyone can fault that.

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2015)

For want of a better place to put this, I'll use this _constitutional_ thread. The linked report says that we have all shared in a major milestone ...   , Ma'am, and   :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For want of a better place to put this, I'll use this _constitutional_ thread. The linked report says that we have all shared in a major milestone ...   , Ma'am, and   :cheers:



The Queen!

 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

It is, now, after midnight in London, so Queen Elizabeth II is, now, the longest reigning monarch in British history ~ 63 years and several months. Her Majesty is 89 years old.







History ...


----------



## cavalryman (8 Sep 2015)

God save the Queen


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

Daniel Westlake makes a case for PR.



> Why are our elections so small minded
> Daniel Westlake
> The National Post
> 08 Sep 2015
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Sep 2015)

Shifting the focus from a small number of swing voters in decisive ridings to the small number of swing voters in a larger context isn't much of a case.   And, it still doesn't address the elephant in representative democracy: why should a riding which heavily favours party A be allowed to have some of its votes influence results in other ridings?  Voters in a riding get one representative, not one plus part of another riding's representative.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

You are right.  Better would be a mechanism that encourages candidates (and parties) to maximize the breadth of their support (as opposed to targeting the fringe) within the ridings.  Instead of PR, we should be looking at preferential ballots.


----------



## McG (12 Sep 2015)

One Edmonton area independent candidate (former CPC) is campaigning for preferential ballots and a "decline all" option.  I like this.  It is much better than potential PR systems that seems to get more attention in the press.



> *Voters want a 'declined' ballot option*
> David Lazzarino
> Edmonton Sun
> 11 Sep 15
> ...


http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/09/11/voters-want-a-declined-ballot-option


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2015)

I agree with a declined ballot, but not with preferential ranking. That's no more than the other side of the PR coin in my mind. There should also be scope for a write in candidate, so that someone without access to a big political machine might be considered.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2015)

Our system is basically: each voter gets one choice (vote) in one riding; the candidate with the most votes in each riding sits as an MP; the MPs decide for themselves who will form government and who will be PM.  Parties are a convenient way of expediting the processes but neither need nor deserve any further advantages.

All systems of PR proceed from the false assumption that the national vote share of parties is relevant.  It isn't.

Ranking is just a roundabout way of rearranging the system to favour "AB?" agitators - people who would gain political power by being able to exercise more than one choice (vote).  It's a solution with a specific political aim.  The "?" is inevitably a right-leaning party.

FPTP is criticized because a party can win a majority of seats with less than a majority of the total vote share (which, again, is irrelevant).  The criticism is "X% of people didn't support the governing party in the last election", where "X" > 50.  So what?  Turn it around.  Why shouldn't a party with 40% support form government 40% of the time instead of never?  Or, stated slightly differently, why shouldn't 40% of the people who favour a particular flavour of government see their preferences dominate 40% of the time?

For 60% or 65% of the people to control government all the time and thumb their noses (essentially, that is how political discourse is conducted now) at the remaining 40% or 35% would be socially unhealthy.


----------



## McG (12 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> [Preferential ranking is] no more than the other side of the PR coin in my mind.


How so?  Preferential ballot selects candidates with the greatest support of voters within the constituency.  PR lets parties select individuals to fill seats in Parliament.  If you want the thinking from the other side of the PR coin, there is this:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... why shouldn't 40% of the people who favour a particular flavour of government see their preferences dominate 40% of the time?


Ignoring for the moment that we elect representatives (MPs) and not governments ...
How is that nonsense any different than the idea of a party with 40% of the vote should be entitled to 40% of the seats?  How far do you push it?  The PR crowd will tell me that the party with 10% support should have 10% of the seats, but you will tell me that they should have majority sway over the country one year out of every 10 years.  That is foolish and (to steal your words) "socially unhealthy".

Fortunately FPTP does not, as you suggest, distribute governing authority proportionally over time.  It can, however, ensure that only one voice holds power for decades at a time; it can ensure a voice with only 35% support holds power over such a duration.  I can't imagine how you rationalize that as "socially health" while describing 65% rule as "socially unhealthy."

As noted earlier, we do not elect governments but, with a preferential ballot, the constituency gets the voice it wants most.  Under preferential ballot, we would not have seen conservative ridings represented by Liberals in the 90's because Reform and Conservative split the vote.

Yes, preferential ballots will reduce the number of majorities (so our Parliamentarians must learn to work cooperatively as opposed to antagonistically), but with single member ridings the fringe parties are still filtered out (and so to we avoid the fractured-parliament instability that comes with PR).


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2015)

>How is that nonsense any different than the idea of a party with 40% of the vote should be entitled to 40% of the seats?

The difference is between the possibility of forming government and eternally sitting in opposition.

>The PR crowd will tell me that the party with 10% support should have 10% of the seats, but you will tell me that they should have majority sway over the country one year out of every 10 years.  That is foolish and (to steal your words) "socially unhealthy".

Theoretically, they might "deserve" to form a government for one term every 40 years.  But there is a practical cutoff.  Where does it lie?  Probably in the 35-40% zone.  I am satisfied with the practical outcome that factions which can muster support at or above that level can generally spread that share effectively enough to capture a meaningful number of seats.   There is always room for exceptions.   The BQ had very low national vote share, nevertheless captured a large number of seats where it ran candidates, and was never going to command widespread enough support to form government.

Ranking is the only PR variant I have seen which I do not dismiss out of hand, but its practical effects render it less desirable than FPTP.  And, it still has an undisputed imbalance: some voters get more choices counted than others.  If a scheme were proposed in which all first choice votes counted as 3, all second choice votes as 2, and all third choice votes as 1, I might reconsider.


----------



## McG (13 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ranking is the only PR variant I have seen which I do not dismiss out of hand, but ...


Not to insult your intelligence but rather to confirm we are not talking past each other, you do understand that "PR" is not a synonym for everything other than FPTP, right?  Ranking may be used in a PR system (the form of PR to do this is single transferable vote), but it can also be used in single member constituency systems.  Preferential voting usually implies instant-runoff voting (AKA: alternative vote, transferable vote, ranked choice voting), but can also cover the Tideman method, the Schulze method or the contingency vote; it produces a single winner for a single constituency.

Mr Rathgeber (through the quoted article) indicated support for a preferential ballot system, and I endorsed.  You countered with some generalized statements against PR systems and that nonsense about power being distributed proportionally over time.  I went down your rabbit hole, but I should have called you on it because preferential voting is not PR.  Now I wonder if we've spent two posts not talking about the same thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2015)

I use "PR" as a weak catch-all for reforms which attach importance to either parties or ranking, so I am too sloppy with my use of terms.

Sticking purely to preferential methods and disregarding practical effects in any Canadian context, the shortcoming - which is not addressed by any of the systems of which I am aware, and exists in all them - is the mathematical advantage the "not-X" ("anybody but this person") voters have over the "X" ("this person, and only this person") voters.  In effect, the former get to cast multiple votes in their attempt to achieve their aim.  The latter do not.  Forcing or even merely allowing a voter with a strong single preference to participate in a preferential scheme does not eliminate the mathematical disparity.

I have never, and doubt that I would ever, support a voting system which encourages or rewards "anybody but" voting.  Similarly, I do not support any voting system which yields systematic advantages to parties over independents* or dilutes the relationship between voters and candidates (eg. party list versus riding).

*I acknowledge that simply by virtue of the existence of parties, independents are at a disadvantage, and that there are privileges accessible to parties (eg. parliamentary standing) that are not available to independents.


----------



## McG (14 Sep 2015)

Perhaps you should look at some pairwise comparison methods (the Tideman or the Schulze) that concurrently consider every voters approvals as well as disapproval.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If a scheme were proposed in which all first choice votes counted as 3, all second choice votes as 2, and all third choice votes as 1, I might reconsider.


That would be a  variation of the Borda Count or Nanson method.  It might surprise you, but this method improves the chances of similar parties competing for the same spectrum and it gives more weight to those who would cast an "anti-vote."  It is like an inverse of vote splitting.  Both instant-runoff voting and various pairwise comparison methods are unaffected by the presence of "clones" on the ballot.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

All ranking methods, though, ultimately suffer from the defect I described previously.

I also value integrity and simplicity rather more highly than achieving some arbitrary condition of concensus or fairness.  People have to trust the system, and results must be easily verified manually.  Computer-based systems provide greater opportunities for fraud, and a manual recount must be something that can be completed in not much more than a couple of days.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson considers the possibilities of electoral system reform change if either the LPC or NDP form a government in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/jeffrey-simpson-majority-governments-may-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past/article26635466/


> Majority governments may soon be a thing of the past
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Despite being unnecessarily provocative in his opening sentence, Mr Simpson does understand that "The general public seems not much interested in electoral change ... [and] ... Canadians, when asked, have preferred the first-past-the-post devil they know to the PR devil they don’t."

I agree with Mr Simpson that "the opposition parties ... are gung ho for change."

The question is: _*what sort of change*_?

_I think_ any government will have a hard time selling any kind of PR that does not respect local or, at the very least, regional constituencies. Simple, national _list_ systems are out; our parliament will not look like Israel's.

Some sort of preferential ballot system might be easier to sell, but it doesn't satisfy those who, like Mr Simpson, want a guarantee of a permanent, soft left of centre to centre-left regime in Ottawa.

How high a priority is this, for anyone?

If the CPC forms a government then the notion is dead. If the Liberals form a government that is anything "better" (in their view) than a weak minority, then _I suspect_ this goes to the bottom of the priority list. Even the NDP, if they get a good share of the popular vote, may lose enthusiasm because, here in Canada, with a system of three _national_ parties and one fairly strong regional party a majority government can be had with 38+% of the popular voter. (Jean Chrétien won with 38.4% in 1997, _efficient_ vote "harvesting" might make a slim majority possible with an even smaller percentage of the popular vote.)


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2015)

One LPC candidate's proposal for electoral reform is here:  http://ranked-pairs.ron-mckinnon.ca/ranked-pairs-voting-system/voting-reform/



> In Canada we elect representatives to each provincial legislature, as well as to the House of Commons federally, by first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections in each respective constituency.
> 
> *The Problem*
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2015)

As flawed as FPTP may be, anything else runs the risk of denying people their franchise. When a minority party candidate receives votes, then that's the will of the electorate. Are those choices to be overlooked when there are no others you care to rank, or will voters be required to compromise their principles to cast a vote for someone they might not have otherwise chosen?

IMHO, preferential and/or ranked ballots will only bring us to the two party state faster than the current system, because the left will vote left, and the right right. After a few rounds, the big boys are all that will be left.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2015)

Unless every other country with some sort of variation on non-FPTP voting is collapsing into a two-party state, I don't think it's a threat.

FPTP has the virtues of being easy to understand and explain, easy to execute, easy to verify, clear, having a straightforward result, not being predicated on any special assumptions about the meaning of parties, and not favouring particular voting patterns or habits.


----------



## McG (12 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> When a minority party candidate receives votes, then that's the will of the electorate. Are those choices to be overlooked when there are no others you care to rank, or will voters be required to compromise their principles to cast a vote for someone they might not have otherwise chosen?


We already expect that don't we?  If there are no candidates acceptable to a voter, we still expect him to cast a ballot for somebody.  Spoiling a ballot can be done in error by any idiot, and so it is counted as an idiot's mistake and not as a recognized protest.  What you want is a "None of the above" option.  Such an option could be introduced on FPTP or any form of preferential ballot.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2015)

Let the changes begin!!!!!!!!!!


> In order to bring real change to the Senate, the Honourable Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions, with the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, announced today the establishment of a new, non-partisan, merit-based process to advise on Senate appointments.
> 
> Under the new process, an Independent Advisory Board on Senate Appointments will be established to provide advice to the Prime Minister on candidates for the Senate. The Independent Advisory Board will be guided by public, merit-based criteria, in order to identify Canadians who would make a significant contribution to the work of the Senate. The criteria will help ensure a high standard of integrity, collaboration, and non-partisanship in the Senate.
> 
> ...


And the list ....


> Age
> 
> A nominee must be a minimum of 30 years of age and be less than 75 years of age.
> Citizenship
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2015)

Lets start sending nominees. I'm sure we can think of a great many meritorious people who would make excellent senators (Edward, I'm saving your nomination for Regent of Canada....)


----------



## Bearpaw (3 Dec 2015)

I have a simple hybrid voting scheme in mind which I call the Triple Ballot.

Triple Ballot Scheme

3 columns of voting choices against each nominee

At most 1 "X" in each column else ballot spoiled.

Most "X" wins.

Very strong support----> 3 X for nominee of choice

Two Choices------------> 2 X for first choice, 1 X for second choice

"Exclusionary Vote" ---> 1 X for at most 3 of less objectionable nominees

Weak support votes-----> 1 or 2 X for nominee of choice, no other X

To me this scheme offers much of the advantage of a ranked ballot but is simpler to implement and recount,....
This scheme also moves partially toward a proportional scheme in the sense that third or fourth parties will have greater
chances of capturing seats.

Bearpaw


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Dec 2015)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I have a simple hybrid voting scheme in mind which I call the Triple Ballot.
> 
> Triple Ballot Scheme
> 
> ...



What's wrong with everyone getting 1 vote?


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> What's wrong with everyone getting 1 vote?



Because it means the Liberals don't win every election and tell us how we should think.


----------



## Bearpaw (3 Dec 2015)

everyone getting 1 vote is the FPTP system.

The triple ballot I have proposed is a mix of FPTP and ranked balloting.  Casting 3 X for your nominee of choice is FPTP.

What I would like to avoid is a proportional system----just look at the Israeli Knesset for an example of a proportional system run amok.  Proportional system in Canada would eventually destroy the Canadian 3+ party system.

FPTP eventually reduces to essentially 2-party system as in the US.

Bearpaw


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Dec 2015)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> everyone getting 1 vote is the FPTP system.
> 
> The triple ballot I have proposed is a mix of FPTP and ranked balloting.  Casting 3 X for your nominee of choice is FPTP.
> 
> ...



1 person 1 vote is literally the fairest system we can have. Proportional just means you don't have to make a decision...


----------



## McG (8 Feb 2016)

A counter to an opinion stated somewhere earlier on this site (either in this thread or the 2015 election thread) that electoral reform would require constitutional change.  It seems that idea is probably not true.


> *You can’t hide behind the Constitution to spare us electoral reform*
> Dennis Pilon, National Post
> 01 Feb 2016
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/dennis-pilon-you-cant-hide-behind-the-constitution


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2016)

An example of what can happen with a PR system in  Australia (reading on how the various houses are elected is somewhat like prading an advanced physics text):

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/28/turnbulls-political-gamble/



> *Turnbull’s Political Gamble*
> 
> Last week, Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull surprised his political opponents by suggesting he might call for snap elections. The WSJ:
> 
> ...


----------



## RDBZ (30 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An example of what can happen with a PR system in  Australia (reading on how the various houses are elected is somewhat like prading an advanced physics text):
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/28/turnbulls-political-gamble/



Is actually pretty simple.  Members of the House of Representatives are elected to single member electorates using preferential/instant run-off ballots.  Senators are elected to represent the interests of their _state_, and so are elected using proportional representation at the state level.  The term for Senators is twice that of members of the House, with half the Senate going to the ballot at each general election.

The constitution provides for three mechanisms to deal with legislative gridlock.  The first is a joint sitting of the House and Senate.  The second is for the PM to call a double dissolution election, in which _all _Senate and House seats are contested.   The third is the nuclear option; the Governor General dismissing the House and the Senate and installing a caretaker government until the results of elections are known.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2016)

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

Canada's Constitution (1867) was written, mainly, in London by British (mostly English) bureaucrats, to suit agreements crafted, in haste, in Canada. It was, in many respect, the very first draft of a federal constitutions for a Westminster Style parliamentary democracy. When the Canadian Constitution was drafted the only really useful model of democratic federalism was in the USA and it, too, displayed a real, common in the 19th century suspicion of "unrestrained" democracy and, therefore, it (the US Constitution) also had an unelected senate intended to protect the states and bring "sober second thought" to the actions of overly democratic legislators and executives.

The Australian Constitution was the "second draft" if you will ... and it featured an elected upper house, which was just being imagined in the USA at the same time, because London was a bit more liberal-progressive in its views on democracy than was the USA.

The "third drafts" were written, also mainly in London, in the mid to late 1940s for Germany and India ... they are "better" in the details of how to make a federal state work well than either Canada's first draft or Australia's second draft.

It's probably time that we revised our Constitution and updated it to a "fourth draft" status.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's probably time that we revised our Constitution and updated it to a "fourth draft" status.




Well, good luck with that !  ... Can you say Lake Meech ...   ullhair:


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, good luck with that !  ... Can you say Lake Meech ...   ullhair:


And I'm not even as optimistic as you are  ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (31 Mar 2016)

It would be a waste of time. Our government system has worked at least as well as most others, even if it was a first draft.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It would be a waste of time. Our government system has worked at least as well as most others, even if it was a first draft.


So we leave the Senate as is? We also leave FPTP in?


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we leave the Senate as is? We also leave FPTP in?


The constitution does not mandTe FPTP.  That can change without tinkering in the constitution.


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we leave the Senate as is? We also leave FPTP in?



 ;D plus 1


----------



## jmt18325 (31 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we leave the Senate as is? We also leave FPTP in?



I'm actually somewhat hesitant about changing the electoral system. BI think the Senate could use some tweaking, but I think the requirements for the change needed would be more damaging than anything we'd gain.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2016)

Changing anything will just expose the long simmering powderkeg of regional divides. Even changing how we elect MPs will open that up, without ever touching the Constitution.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Changing anything will just expose the long simmering powderkeg of regional divides. Even changing how we elect MPs will open that up, without ever touching the Constitution.


I suppose you can substantiate this opinion with a reasonable argument?


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2016)

The stated opinion of many provinces are polar opposites between elect, abolish, or status quo. Would Quebec ever vote for a system where they lose the disproportionate amount of seats based on population? Nope. Someone already mentioned Meech Lake, and that's an apt comparison. We can't even come together to build a pipeline.


----------



## RDBZ (31 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Australian Constitution was the "second draft" if you will ... and it featured an elected upper house, which was just being imagined in the USA at the same time, because London was a bit more liberal-progressive in its views on democracy than was the USA.


The Australian Constitution was drafted over a number of years by a series of constitutional conventions, where selected delegates represented each of the states-to-be.  It was at those conventions that all details were crafted and agreed, often following an assessment of options provided by other constitutional models then in place.  Interestingly, the delegates explicitly rejected a UK style model.   That home grown development model was needed as the voters of each of the states-to-be needed to ratify the constitution at referendum prior to federation.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The stated opinion of many provinces are polar opposites between elect, abolish, or status quo. Would Quebec ever vote for a system where they lose the disproportionate amount of seats based on population? Nope. Someone already mentioned Meech Lake, and that's an apt comparison. We can't even come together to build a pipeline.


You are skating.  There is no substance to back your claim that one would disturb a "powderkeg of regional divides" by re-examining how MPs are elected.


----------



## Castus (22 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The stated opinion of many provinces are polar opposites between elect, abolish, or status quo. Would Quebec ever vote for a system where they lose the disproportionate amount of seats based on population? Nope. Someone already mentioned Meech Lake, and that's an apt comparison. We can't even come together to build a pipeline.



Surely in some ways, it may be better that we open up and expose these divides, should they exist in reality, as opposed to allowing them to fester in the shadows?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 May 2016)

Actually, right now and from a mathematical point of view, Quebec is the only province that has basically the right number of MP's and the right number of Senators in term of proportionality.

The Western provinces, as a group (because that is how the constitution frames it), has about a proper proportional number of Senators give or take a few, but they may not be divided properly amongst Western provinces.

In the Commons, the West and Ontario are under-represented, while in both he Commons and Senate, the Atlantic provinces are way, way over represented.

In fact, if you had to do a new distribution on a proper geographical basis, you would have to use Quebec as your baseline for both Commons and Senate and the West and Ontario would make ground, while the Atlantic provinces would have a heart attack when seeing the results, especially PEI, which may not even rate having its own member of Parliament without being paired with part of the mainland (Honourable member for P.E.I.-Pictou, please?)


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, right now and from a mathematical point of view, Quebec is the only province that has basically the right number of MP's and the right number of Senators in term of proportionality.
> 
> The Western provinces, as a group (because that is how the constitution frames it), has about a proper proportional number of Senators give or take a few, but they may not be divided properly amongst Western provinces.
> 
> ...



En effet, c'est vrai la.  Le Quebec, c'est parfait.  Il faut que tous les autres changent, n'est ce pas?   [

Or we could make PEI the standard and adjust the house to 964 MPs.  Or we could adjust to an Alberta standard and have 288 MPs.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of 964 MPs,  with the same total budget.  Part time MPs.  And a whole lot of people that are never going to get a seat in Cabinet.

They might start taking their parliamentary duties seriously and guard their privileges as guardians of the public purse.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 May 2016)

All I am saying is that, at this point in time, Quebec, with 23.5 % of the country's population, 23% of the seats in the commons and 24% of the seats in the Senate is currently the only place that doesn't have a potential beef where it comes to fair representation at the Federal level  :nod:.

Now, I have no problem with your idea of using PEI as the base and go for a 964 MP's commons. In fact, throw in the power, as in the old days and as still exists in the UK and Australia, for the party caucus to throw out their leader and put anew one in any time they feel it is necessary and I'll be on side.

In such system, the backbenchers chances of ever making it into cabinet is so small that they guard their chances for re-election like hawks, and as result, the government has to work a lot harder at getting them onside. It disposes of many a stupid government idea before it even makes it out of caucus and give the backbenchers real power to hold over the head of their leaders.


----------



## Altair (9 Jun 2016)

It appears that senators are starting to think that they actually matter and are starting to act like it. I guess we shall see if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-unconstrained-senate-has-the-power-to-gut-legislation-starting-with-assisted-dying-bill



> It may be that Peter Hogg, the eminent legal scholar, is correct in saying the Trudeau government’s law on assisted dying, Bill C-14, won’t survive a challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada. Or it may turn out Hogg and the many experts who agree with him are wrong. We won’t know for sure unless and until this legislation gets before the high court.
> 
> Either way, the government now has a different and potentially bigger problem on its hands: that of an unfettered, unelected Upper Chamber, feeling its oats in a way that is politically new, because of the freeing of senators from party control. This is a direct consequence of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ejection of Liberal senators from the party and caucus in January of 2014, as the Senate spending scandal raged.
> 
> ...


The interesting part here is that this can bounce back between the Commons and the Senate indefinitely which each rewriting it and sending it back to the other. Or it can go from the Senate to the Supreme Court if my understanding is correct (like when the conservatives tried to pass legislation to reform the Senate the senators sent it to the Supreme court)

I wonder if we are going to be seeing some American style impasse between the two chambers going forward.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2016)

Political checkers or policy chess?  I get a sense that Butts plays a mean game of checkers.

There is a real opportunity here to revisit the Parliamentary Supremacy issue here.

In a showdown between Senate and Commons the Commons should prevail.  In a showdown between Parliament and Court Parliament should prevail.  Notwithstanding any other documents.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2016)

They do matter. Liberals C-14 was universally decried by assisted dying advocates as not coming close to the Supreme Court decision. So they're acting as the sober second thought, and providing amendments that should have been done in the House, but the Liberals were too busy ramming it through. Acting exactly like senators should.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2016)

Finally they are doing what they were suppose to and people are upset? The Senate should really be about what is good for Canada in the long run, not for a political party. 10 year stints and no party affiliations.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Finally they are doing what they were suppose to and people are upset? The Senate should really be about what is good for Canada in the long run, not for a political party. 10 year stints and no party affiliations.



Good post.  The Senate can do its job and still have the Commons supreme.  The Commons always have the last word with 2 out of 3 votes on any bill.


----------



## Altair (12 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Good post.  The Senate can do its job and still have the Commons supreme.  The Commons always have the last word with 2 out of 3 votes on any bill.


Not always.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/assisted-dying-senate-rejected-1.3629559



> The potential Ping-Pong bill
> 
> Joyal says the many legal experts that have weighed in on the assisted-dying debate have said limiting eligibility to those with a reasonably foreseeable death makes the bill unconstitutional.
> 
> ...



The Senate is the equal of the house of Commons. It has just rarely acted like it. To change that would mean constitutional reform.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2016)

By convention the Commons rules.  

The danger of an "equal" Senate is the need for a Tie-Breaker to resolve the disputes.

The options for the Tie-Breaker are:  The Governor-General, The Governor-in-Council (essentially the PM) or the Supreme Court - Monarchy, Monarchy or Oligarchy.  None of those are to my liking.

I never got round to shaving my head - but I am a Parliamentarian.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Jun 2016)

There is no such tradition, I am afraid, nor is there any need for "tie-breaker". Parliament is not a Board of Directors or an Electoral group of some sort. It is important to remember that we are not a Republic, where the Executive must get its powers from the legislative branch to be able to act (a la USA). Here, the Government (the Crown) has all the powers until limited by acts of Parliament - to which the Crown even has to assent before subjecting herself to. That is why, for example, when the budget is not adopted in the US, Government grinds to a halt, while in Canada (under Trudeau Sr. and Clark governments) we went for more than three years without a budget while not a single government function went unfilled and not a single dollar went unspent. 

Here, the Parliament only embodies the legislative power. If they cannot adopt a bill, there simply is no new law adopted. Big deal: Think; Review; Re-phrase; Edit; Change - and re-introduce the bill as so modified.

The one rule between the two chambers is that appropriation bills and new tax bill must originate in the HoC. As a tradition, this means that the Senate has elected to stay out of blocking such bills.

On all other subjects, the Senate is free to "block" (which it very seldom does, as it generally sends back legislation with amendments to the HoC, instead, leaving the HoC the final say on adoption of such amendments or not) any legislation, and if it does and the HoC wishes to insist on passing the legislation, then the proper way is for the PM to meet with the GG and ask for the House to be dissolved, go into a general election on that specific legislation, and when the governing party is re-elected on such specific mandate, then the Senate usually steps out of the way - considering it has done its job.

A good example of this is the Free Trade Accord. You may recall that when the accord was reached and legislation was being drafted to implement it, the Liberals came out in complete opposition and threatened to use their Senate majority to block any enabling legislation. PM Mulroney went into an election specifically on the Accord and won a clear majority. The Senate passed the legislation.

Another example of proper use here would be the upcoming (if any) changes to voting method. If the Senate felt that Canadians were not properly consulted and behind such an important change*, they could block it so it is sent to a specific election - or until a proper referendum is held that satisfies the Senate in both form and results. 



* And in my estimation, by their own interpretation of voting, the Liberal cannot claim that Canadians want such change - as 60% voted against - and in the 40% that voted Liberal, you cannot tell what exactly they voted for, it being almost a self-evident statement that voters almost never vote in favour of all of a party's electoral promises, so support for any of them - unless made THE promise subject of the election [like Free Trade] - must necessarily be lower than the portion of popular vote.


----------



## Altair (12 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There is no such tradition, I am afraid, nor is there any need for "tie-breaker". Parliament is not a Board of Directors or an Electoral group of some sort. It is important to remember that we are not a Republic, where the Executive must get its powers from the legislative branch to be able to act (a la USA). Here, the Government (the Crown) has all the powers until limited by acts of Parliament - to which the Crown even has to assent before subjecting herself to. That is why, for example, when the budget is not adopted in the US, Government grinds to a halt, while in Canada (under Trudeau Sr. and Clark governments) we went for more than three years without a budget while not a single government function went unfilled and not a single dollar went unspent.
> 
> Here, the Parliament only embodies the legislative power. If they cannot adopt a bill, there simply is no new law adopted. Big deal: Think; Review; Re-phrase; Edit; Change - and re-introduce the bill as so modified.
> 
> ...


There is the Salisbury rule in the house of Lords where the house of Lords does not vote against anything that was in the governing party’s election promises.

That would apply to electoral reform here. It wouldn't apply to assisted dying as the liberals were mum on that during the campaign


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> There is the Salisbury rule in the house of Lords where the house of Lords does not vote against anything that was in the governing party’s election promises.
> 
> That would apply to electoral reform here. It wouldn't apply to assisted dying as the liberals were mum on that during the campaign



They didn't campaign on a specific election system (aka "we will bring in the ranked ballot system"), they campaigned to get rid of FPTP. Don't think the Salisbury rule works for campaign promises like that. You're essentially saying they should have a blank cheque to bring in whatever election system they want just because they campaigned to do away with the current one.


----------



## Altair (12 Jun 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> They didn't campaign on a specific election system (aka "we will bring in the ranked ballot system"), they campaigned to get rid of FPTP. Don't think the Salisbury rule works for campaign promises like that. You're essentially saying they should have a blank cheque to bring in whatever election system they want just because they campaigned to do away with the current one.


do Canadian senators even adhere to the Salisbury rule?

Interesting note. From 1999 the house of Lords has sent 500 bills back to the Commons for amendments. During that time Canada's Senate has sent back 24.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2016)

> That is why, for example, when the budget is not adopted in the US, Government grinds to a halt, while in Canada (under Trudeau Sr. and Clark governments) we went for more than three years without a budget while not a single government function went unfilled and not a single dollar went unspent.



A chap name of Charlie Stewart had a really bad day because he did exactly that:  decided that he could govern without calling parliament.  As a result we have a convention that parliament must be called for the government to spend money.

With respect to tie-breaking:  the houses represent tribes in dispute.  When the tribes cannot resolve their differences someone will volunteer to do it for them.

British practice has been that the Commons arrogate to themselves the power to decide.   The fact that Walpole and every PM since has usurped the power of the Commons (and the Throne) is immaterial.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Aug 2016)

And he's back at the trough like a shot.   

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-returns-to-charging-taxpayers-for-ottawa-living-expenses-1.3713011


----------



## jmt18325 (9 Aug 2016)

Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.


----------



## Coffee_psych (9 Aug 2016)

I am really happy to hear the other perspectives on this! (I'm new to the website, so bare with me in my n00bness). The reason I like the proposed voting reform is because I am an environmental conservative, so the Green Party has a platform (most of the time) that I can get behind, Elizabeth May has been a voice of reason and has worked tirelessly across party lines to try and end political gridlock.  Any system that gives the Greens, even a couple more seats, is something I have to support.  

However I acknowledge the concerns that I read in the first couple pages.  It will undermine certain MLA powers, maybe also because a Green Party constituent will now have more of a voice in parliament.  

If anyone can describe in more detail about how powers will change for better or for worse, I'm all ears! (I haven't had a discussion with anyone about this yet!!)


----------



## Lightguns (9 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.



Exactly, well I dislike the disloyal SOB he is within the rules and continues to be within the rules.  The liberal government of PEI considers him a permanent resident.  All of which escapes of the commenters in CBC land.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Aug 2016)

What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.


----------



## Lightguns (9 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.



The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline.  Political parties are the most un-democratic power hungry institutions.  No political party should be allowed to usurp the will of the MP's local electorate.  There should be no such thing as a Free Vote as it should not be necessary and parties should not be allowed to discipline MPs for voting their voters wishes.  Parties should be earning the votes of their MPs not the other way around.  Fix that and democracy works.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2016)

Well said Lightguns.

The other major "innovation" I currently have problems with is the tendency to remove the Leader of the Party from the control of the Parliamentary Party and create a new constituency for the Leader outside of the House.

The net effect is that a Leader can campaign in a narrow geographic/demographic zone, sign up a useful number (200,000 for the British Labour Party) and then use their cadre of "Bolsheviks"* to keep the House and the rest of the party as his poodles.

* A reminder:  Bolsheviks means members of the majority.  Mensheviks are members of the minority.  In 1917 the Mensheviks were elected, ie they had the majority.  The Bolsheviks, the minority, claimed to represent a majority outside of the Duma and overthrew the majority claiming that the majority was the minority and the minority was the majority.  For a clearer understanding read George Orwell or Alice in Wonderland.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline.  Political parties are the most un-democratic power hungry institutions.  No political party should be allowed to usurp the will of the MP's local electorate.  There should be no such thing as a Free Vote as it should not be necessary and parties should not be allowed to discipline MPs for voting their voters wishes.  Parties should be earning the votes of their MPs not the other way around.  Fix that and democracy works.



Agreed.

Some of the other proposals may sound good and give the public an impression that some of the smaller parties will benefit, but I am of the opinion that the opposite would be true; some may actually totally annihilate the smaller parties and fringe groups.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.



The concept behind the preferential ballot is that it better represents the wishes of voters in any riding since it allows for the discernment of a majority within each riding (Over 50%). For example, if the conservative candidate gets 40%, the Liberal Candidate gets 39%, and the NDP candidate gets 21% than no one has gained a true plurality of the vote. The NDP candidate, being the last place choice, then loses his ballots and his go to the second choice of the voter. So if 70% of the NDP candidates ballots go Liberal than the Liberal candidate is the winner with a total of 54% of the vote (39 +14.7). In theory this is a fairer system as the NDP voter got their wish represented through their second choice. 

That said, I think that if we do go to a preferential voting system, there should only be 2 choices as a max. The assumption is that NDP voters would have the Liberal candidate as their second choice and vice versa. With the Liberals moving left, the NDP will be forced to move more left, so their voters may see the Green party as a better second choice, so the plurality may not come on the second ballot. Once the choices start getting down into the 3rd and 4th I don't think the preferential has credibility anymore as the voter likely doesn't have the knowledge of the other parties to make an educated decision.

Further, I would argue that if you think that, say, the Liberals are the third best party to govern than that doesn't represent a strong basis for election. Does a Green voter, who says NDP second and puts Liberals third since they just don't like conservatives, really want Liberals? Is that a satisfying end to the vote for them? And if not, than what did the vote stand for?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2016)

What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:


----------



## Lumber (9 Aug 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> I am really happy to hear the other perspectives on this! (I'm new to the website, so bare with me in my n00bness). The reason I like the proposed voting reform is because I am an environmental conservative, so the Green Party has a platform (most of the time) that I can get behind, Elizabeth May has been a voice of reason and has worked tirelessly across party lines to try and end political gridlock.  Any system that gives the Greens, even a couple more seats, is something I have to support.



A little off topic:

*Elizabeth May ponders future after Green Party's support for Israeli boycott policy* 
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/elizabeth-may-ponders-future-green-party-support-bds-1.3713262

Back on topic:

Personally, I don't have any issues with our electoral system, and I think it would be fine to leave it the way it is. Yes, party discipline sucks, and if there was one thing I would change, it would be that. However, while party discipline has turned Prime Ministers into near Autocratic Dictators when they have a majority, I think there's enough benevolence in Canadians and enough back room strings that our Dictators aren't as autocratic as they could be. 

I prefer seeing leaders get stuff done over constant squabbling, even if the things they are getting done aren't exactly what I was hoping for.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.


Until the rules are changed and/or clarified - and if they have, I'm guessing they'll be followed this time.


			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline.


And as long as all parties want control, that'll continue to be the reason we're not likely to see much change, promises or not.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:


My understanding (and I stand to be corrected/educated) is that under preferential voting, you'd get 3 slots if there are three parties running.  You should be able to only pick one position for each candidate - one check per box, no?


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes.


I believe there is a deliberate effort by parties on both sides to paint electoral reform as a false dichotomy between the status quo or proportional representation.  For the NDP, Greens, and any other smaller party the desire to frame this debate in a false dichotomy is because only through proportional representation or large multi-representative constituencies will these parties see an increase in their share of Parliament's seats - these small parties would prefer we not look at other electoral reform options that retain our current single representative constituencies.  Conversely, those opposed to electoral reform are happy to employ the same false dichotomy because it is easier to use PR as a boogeyman around which to inspire fear and mistrust of any change - they would rather you not consider the existence of an option between single representative FPTP and Parliamentary anarchy.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The concept behind the preferential ballot is that it better represents the wishes of voters in any riding since it allows for the discernment of a majority within each riding (Over 50%). For example, if the conservative candidate gets 40%, the Liberal Candidate gets 39%, and the NDP candidate gets 21% than no one has gained a true plurality of the vote. The NDP candidate, being the last place choice, then loses his ballots and his go to the second choice of the voter. So if 70% of the NDP candidates ballots go Liberal than the Liberal candidate is the winner with a total of 54% of the vote (39 +14.7). In theory this is a fairer system as the NDP voter got their wish represented through their second choice.


That is one means of doing it, but there are others ways.  I would prefer a method that first gives victory to the condorcet winner.  The Condorcet winner is the candidate who would have beat every other candidate if the election were conducted as a 1 vs 1 round-robin. 

Unfortunately, there is not always a Condorcet winner.  If you imagine a vote between rock, paper & scissors (or rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock if you prefer) then there is no Condorcet winner.

In cases without a Condorcet winner, pure Condorcet methods start doing weird things to assign a winner from the Smith set.  But with a two method system, we could then apply instant run-off voting to those candidates remaining in the Smith set (the smallest set of candidates who beat every candidate outside of the set). 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My understanding (and I stand to be corrected/educated) is that under preferential voting, you'd get 3 slots if there are three parties running.  You should be able to only pick one position for each candidate - one check per box, no?


It really depends on how the rules are written.  Ranked ballots may limit ranking to some number of candidates, it may allow ranking of all candidates, or it may require ranking of all candidates.  Likewise, it is possible to design a system where a voter has a number of points that can be collectively assigned to one candidate or shared across some member of candidates.  There are a vast number of options, and because of the vast number of options there is a requirement to get into details when presenting merits of any potential alternate system over our current FPTP system.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It really depends on how the rules are written.  Ranked ballots may limit ranking to some number of candidates, it may allow ranking of all candidates, or it may require ranking of all candidates.  Likewise, it is possible to design a system where a voter has a number of points that can be collectively assigned to one candidate or shared across some member of candidates.  There are a vast number of options, and because of the vast number of options there is a requirement to get into details when presenting merits of any potential alternate system over our current FPTP system.


Thanks for that - that makes it clearer that options have to be made a _lot_ clearer.


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> For the NDP, Greens, and any other smaller party the desire to frame this debate in a false dichotomy is because only through proportional representation or large multi-representative constituencies will these parties see an increase in their share of Parliament's seats ...


 :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Aug 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is one means of doing it, but there are others ways.  I would prefer a method that first gives victory to the condorcet winner.  The Condorcet winner is the candidate who would have beat every other candidate if the election were conducted as a 1 vs 1 round-robin.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is not always a Condorcet winner.  If you imagine a vote between rock, paper & scissors (or rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock if you prefer) then there is no Condorcet winner.
> 
> ...



I agree that there are a number of ways of implementing a preferential balloting system. I would suggest that the system needs to be kept as simple as possible or else there will be constant squabbling over results.

I think that a preferential system will force most parties into the "mushy middle" to try and take over traditional centrist areas with a SLIGHT appearance of Right/Left dynamic to appeal to some voters over others. As noted earlier, it will be interesting to see the dynamic of people who just put one person down. Do their votes then not count if their candidate doesn't win in the first round? People who vote for fringe parties such as the Marxist/Leninist, Libertarian, or Christian Heritage party are unlikely to have second choices, at least in terms of acceptable choices and not "least bad" ones. 

Finally, if we go to a preferential ballot I would like to see an elected senate based on the FPTP to provide oversight to the new parliament. It's understood that that requires a referendum and charter ammendment, but it feels weird that we can overhaul the way we vote without any oversight but need oversight to change the way the senate is. An elected senate would at least give some say to provinces who may be left out in the political wilderness based on preferential and the location of the majority of Canada's population (ie- The west).


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2016)

Whatever system is used must meet the following criteria: be executable with a paper ballot, countable within hours, and verifiable (re-count) within hours.

If it's too complicated, it's unsuitable.


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Whatever system is used must meet the following criteria: be ... countable within hours, and verifiable (re-count) within hours.


Why?

There are weeks after a general election before power is handed to a new government.

Aside from upsetting our collective want for instant gratification, what does it matter of CBC has to wait 24 hours as opposed to broadcasting counting live on election night?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2016)

The longer the process then the greater the opportunity for speculation on how the final answer was determined: credibility.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2016)

Not to mention that these systems are subject to gaming and potential deadlocking. There have now been several governments in Europe where no one was able to assemble a clear majority or majority coalition, leaving the nation in the hands of a caretaker for periods of up to a year.


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The longer the process then the greater the opportunity for speculation on how the final answer was determined: credibility.


An extra day to determine results puts credibility at risk because the tin foil hat brigade has time to comment after polls close?  Nonsense.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not to mention that these systems are subject to gaming and potential deadlocking. There have now been several governments in Europe where no one was able to assemble a clear majority or majority coalition, leaving the nation in the hands of a caretaker for periods of up to a year.


Of course, FPTP is subject to gaming too.  Also, you are presenting the false dichotomy that I referred to earlier.  Your blanket label of "these systems" and reference to paralyzed legislatures under PR systems is an intellectually dishonest attempt to present everything that is not FPTP as PR.  That is not the case.


----------



## Coffee_psych (10 Aug 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> For the NDP, Greens, and any other smaller party the desire to frame this debate in a false dichotomy is because only through proportional representation or large multi-representative constituencies will these parties see an increase in their share of Parliament's seats - these small parties would prefer we not look at other electoral reform options that retain our current single representative constituencies.



What a great point! Now just cause I'm still super new to this topic.  The main reason I know the Greens want equal voting is because 12%(ish) of voters go for them, translating to parliament, they could have 3000% the amount of seats.  So is there another way of making voting more fair but retain the legitimacy of single representative constituencies?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> What a great point! Now just cause I'm still super new to this topic.  The main reason I know the Greens want equal voting is because 12%(ish) of voters go for them, translating to parliament, they could have 3000% the amount of seats.  So is there another way of making voting more fair but retain the legitimacy of single representative constituencies?



There may be.  If it was desired.

Retain the First Past The Post for the House of Commons with the existing single representative communities.

And then reform - or re-form - the Senate to become a House of Communities - comprised of social groupings.  Then let your imagination run riot over how the social groupings would be defined, organized, selected and whether or not the Communitarian Senate or the Commons, representing geographic communities, has greater legitimacy.

That should keep the lawyers busy for a day or two.  I wait to hear the response from Quebec.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Aug 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> What a great point! Now just cause I'm still super new to this topic.  The main reason I know the Greens want equal voting is because 12%(ish) of voters go for them, translating to parliament, they could have 3000% the amount of seats.  So is there another way of making voting more fair but retain the legitimacy of single representative constituencies?



How do you define fair is the question. In some regards, 12% of the vote (3.4% in the last election actually) should = 12% of the seats. However, does that simple assessment equal actual fair representation? For example, the Bloc Quebecois received 19.4% of the vote in Quebec and obviously 0% outside of Quebec for a total of 4.7% of the total votes cast. Does fairness in this case equate to the BQ receiving 4.7 (5) seats in the house of commons of 19.4 (19)% of the total seats in Quebec? One results in 5 representatives while the other results in 15 seats. Arguably, the people of Quebec, in a PR system, voted for the 15 seats vice the 5, so wouldn't watering down the vote by employing it nationally be unjust? Why should people from outside Quebec (or any other region), who have no real interests in Quebec politics influence the results there to that extent?
A PR or preferential system don't necessarily make the election "more fair" on a philosophical basis as you always come back to the same point- There is no real way to make a system completely fair as at some point you have a loser. The loser, inevitably, feels that the system isn't fair since their beliefs aren't being represented. When in opposition, Liberals constantly called the Conservatives undemocratic because they didn't "listen to parliament", ie- do what the Liberals wanted. now that the Conservatives are in power it's the same thing.

Finally, in a minority parliament, is it fair that the balance of power might be held by parties who received minor amounts of overall votes? In our system, if we assume that Conservatives and Liberals go 1-2, than the power broker becomes the NDP by default. So, in effect, in the 2016 election, the 19% who voted NDP have more say in the government than the 31% who voted conservative. Is that "fair"?


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> How do you define fair is the question. In some regards, 12% of the vote (3.4% in the last election actually) should = 12% of the seats. However, does that simple assessment equal actual fair representation? For example, the Bloc Quebecois received 19.4% of the vote in Quebec and obviously 0% outside of Quebec for a total of 4.7% of the total votes cast. Does fairness in this case equate to the BQ receiving 4.7 (5) seats in the house of commons of 19.4 (19)% of the total seats in Quebec?



I think you'd better check your numbers again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2016)

>Why?

Output legitimacy.  The appearance of impropriety is intolerable.  The longer it takes to determine a result, the greater the window for shenanigans.


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2016)

Political science academics disagree with statements that voting results of the last election prove only the Liberals stand to benefit from ranked ballots.  The arguments come across a bit waffle-y in the article, but the underlying premise is logical. With FPTP, many or most voters make their choice on the lesser of two evils (Liberal or Conservative) as opposed to a choice on the best of six or seven candidates.  With ranked ballots, I would expect the 1st ranked of the vote would be more dispersed with the "lesser of two evils" not being placed until the second or third ranked of the vote.  Instead of a duopoly there would be an oligopoly of political parties with more votes for Greens, independents and Libertarians.  But, because single member constituencies would remain, the fringe issues would continue to be filtered out of the commons.



> *Liberals not necessarily advantaged by switch to ranked ballot system: experts*
> Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
> Globe and Mail
> 15 Aug 16
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-not-necessarily-advantaged-by-switch-to-ranked-ballot-system-experts/article31404531/


----------



## McG (2 Sep 2016)

I still don't like the idea of a PR system, but I think Andrew Coyne does a fairly good job here of countering most of the typical anecdote based arguments against that we see on this site.



> *No, proportional representation would not turn Canada into a dystopian hellhole*
> Andrew Coyne
> National Post
> August 18, 2016 1:26
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-no-proportional-representation-would-not-turn-canada-into-a-dystopian-hellhole

At the end, this article alludes to an idea that I saw somewhere else recently (I thought it was somewhere in reporting on academic submissions to the electoral reform comittee but I can't seem to find it).  It was argued that real world observations and election modeling show that, while parties with extreme views are more likely to get a few seats in a PR elected system, FPTP systems were more likely than any other system to elect an extremist party as the government.

While I cannot find that article that I saw previously, there was a more recent presentation to the electoral reform committee which noted that ranked voting would have easily filtered Donald Trump out of the running for the US presidential campaign.
http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/17/ranked-ballot-system-could-have-stopped-trump-says-u-s-expert-set-to-speak-to-mps-on-electoral-reform/77607


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2016)

If I'm not mistook Westminster ditched Multi-Member Ridings in 1885.  

I am still opposed to the PR system because it puts the power in the hands of the parties and not the electors - and - as is shown by the moves in Alberta and Ontario on campaign finance reform - the parties are quite capable of organizing a stitch-up to prevent any new parties making into the public square.

Our new aristocracy, family compact, chateau clique.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Sep 2016)

I will agree with those who oppose Proportional Representation for one more reason, and Andrew Coyne or any of the other talking/writing heads that haven't read the constitution be damned.

The Charter of right part of the constitution is quite clear:

_3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein._

If your vote is to be counted as against a party, who then based on the number of votes all the people give them decide from a list who will be member of Parliament - then in my mind, that deprives the citizens the right to vote on the members of Parliament - It becomes the parties who decide who gets into parliament. Moreover, such system makes it impossible for independents to ever get elected - even if rare under our current system - as it is near impossible for a single independent to ever get enough votes to get elected anywhere.

BTW, I suggest you only look at the comments and position of Segolene Royal on Brexit (reflecting that of many other  continental European politicians) to see the very type of arrogance in the "professional" politicians a PR system creates. 

In our current system, it does not matter how many people generally support a party: any one of their candidate, if unpopular with his/her electorate can find himself/herself hitting the road after an election if he/she failed to serve his/her electorate properly. In a PR system, since many parties have fairly a solid minimum percentage of vote as starting point, the core group of politician these party choose becomes entrenched and near impossible to remove, even if the public would love nothing more than trounce them.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2016)

Amen OGBD,

The party is supposed to be a creature of the MPs, not the other way around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2016)

Ditto.  PR should not even be on any list of options.
1) Even a split riding rep / party list model militates against direct representation and accountability.
2) Further weakens independents and strengthens parties, which leads to...
3) ...further consolidation/centralization at the core of party power, militating against other attempted reforms intended to oppose the trend toward centralization.
4) Nothing prevents parties from filling party lists with duds who can't get elected in a riding but are thought by the party to be deserving of patronage.
5) Most importantly: we don't have any federal positions subject to Canada-wide election.  The party share of the national vote is irrelevant.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2016)

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. While we may have one General Election, it is actually composed of 338 individual elections. In addition, the notion that you are voting for "insert name" as party leader (ie: Harper, Trudeau, or Bloggins) is only true if you live in their riding. Any of the other systems currently proposed only serve to disenfranchise the voter. It deprives the electorate of the right to be represented by their chosen Member of Parliament. Even those who didn't vote for the specific MP are represented by them. As imperfect as our current system may be, it's the least imperfect of all the proposed choices, IMHO. 

One of the cornerstones of representative democracy is that the representatives are, by and large, drawn from the communities they represent. Does anyone think for one moment that the voters of Victoria would be happy being represented by someone from Halifax or Quebec City? Conversely, how would folks from Quebec City feel if their MP lived in Calgary?


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2016)

There is no requirement for MPs to come from the riding that they represent.  All parties practice parachuting star candidates into safe ridings under our current system.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Sep 2016)

I think mixed PR is the way to go.   You'd still have FPTP, then so many seats would be allocated to PR.  New Zealand uses this model.

You'd vote for your chosen politician, then you'd vote for the party.   So everyone would still get to vote who represents their riding, however the boundaries would have to be redrawn.   A certain percentage of seats would be set aside for PR, those would be filled from the party list.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2016)

In a system like that, DH, I would certainly want to make sure that:

1) I would be allowed to vote separately on my MP and my "party" vote, because I can think of situation where I would love to have a certain person running in my riding elected as my MP, regardless of his/her party affiliation, but prefer another party's platform generally; and,

2) That the number of members appointed by PR be limited enough to "restore some balance" for those who seem to think the current system is not balanced, but not to the point of correcting it so you basically get back to a proportional system.

Remember, however, that even in such a system, you give to political parties a superior legitimacy than politician who wish to run as independent. In effect, you give political parties a greater "right" to have members in parliament than ordinary citizens who would wish to serve independently of affiliation.

To me, that is still unconstitutional.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In a PR system, since many parties have fairly a solid minimum percentage of vote as starting point, the core group of politician these party choose becomes entrenched and near impossible to remove, even if the public would love nothing more than trounce them.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ditto.  PR should not even be on any list of options.
> .....
> 2) Further weakens independents and strengthens parties, which leads to...
> 3) ...further consolidation/centralization at the core of party power, militating against other attempted reforms intended to oppose the trend toward centralization.
> ...



Which probably explains the rise of right-wing parties in Europe; the same group of politicians kept on getting elected, and they stopped listening to their constituents.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I think mixed PR is the way to go.   You'd still have FPTP, then so many seats would be allocated to PR.  New Zealand uses this model.
> 
> You'd vote for your chosen politician, then you'd vote for the party.   So everyone would still get to vote who represents their riding, however the boundaries would have to be redrawn.   A certain percentage of seats would be set aside for PR, those would be filled from the party list.



DH - I'll go this far with you:

Make the senate a PR house and keep the commons as FPTP single member.  

Then you can let the senators form government and let the commons go back to being the paymasters and the checks on government.  This would reinstate the primal balance between the governing "class" and the governed "class".

The union bosses would then be right up there in their rightful seats alongside the archbishops and the head of Power Corporation.   ;D

Oops - forgot to include the seats of Notley and Wall and the other Confederal Dukes pro tem.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oops - forgot to include the seats of Notley and Wall and the other Confederal Dukes pro tem.



Wall?  I thought Saskatchewan was the only province with a fiscally responsible and sensible Government.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Popcorn Lady....Ms Redenbacher.....Ummm......Wynne?


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no requirement for MPs to come from the riding that they represent.  All parties practice parachuting star candidates into safe ridings under our current system.



True, but it really should be the exception rather than the rule. I can understand a member giving up their riding to allow a newly elected leader an opportunity to contest a seat, but the day to day model should be that MPs come from the communities they represent.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

George - I like Wall.  And I am glad that he is Duke pro tem in Saskatchewan.  I might be moving there.

However, in Canada, all of our premiers are "national" leaders - in the sense that the Quebecois are a separate nation and Torontonians and Albertans live in separate universes (for that matter so do Oilers and Flames fans).

My thinking is that the Senate is under utilized as an institution.  I suggest leaving it as a cockpit for the vested interests - just as the House of Lords was.  The Commons can then revert to holding the purse strings and riding herd on the unruly mob that purports to govern us.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True, but it really should be the exception rather than the rule. I can understand a member giving up their riding to allow a newly elected leader an opportunity to contest a seat, but the day to day model should be that MPs come from the communities they represent.


I agree with your observation of what should be, but you cannot argue one system introduces a flaw and wish away its actual existence in the current system with "it should not normally be done."  Mandating that candidates live in the riding in which they run could still be an element of electoral reform that keeps FPTP.  Alternately, if representing a riding in which one does not live is okay for FPTP, then it is okay for PR or other systems.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I think mixed PR is the way to go.   You'd still have FPTP, then so many seats would be allocated to PR.


Why not keep everything local?  Like maybe:



> *Why stop at just one MP per riding?*
> Andrew Coyne
> National Post
> 08 Jul 2016
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-why-stop-at-just-one-mp-per-riding

Setting aside the 5 to 7 member ridings suggested above, what does it look like if urban ridings are 2 to 4 member ridings?


----------



## VinceW (3 Sep 2016)

Whatever the outcome is it will be so PM (I admire the Chinese dictatorship the most) Selfie gets closer to his wish that Quebec and the Liberal party run Canada which he believes they are entitled to effectively shutting out Western Canadians from power unless they're the leader or in the cabinet of an Eastern based party.
Western Independence will be back in full force if this happens and might just succed when it's realized that the East is forcing us to not have a chance for power again.
There will be consequences if Junior gets his way.
The present system or electing MP's is fine most Canadians agree with that.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2016)

Much better men have thought this through. Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers were contemptuous of Democracy in general, and the American Founding Fathers instituted a Republic specifically to limit Democracy (they also had property requirements to create a Timocracy and ensure all voters had a stake in the outcome). Democracy in its direct form rapidly devolves into mob rule or the rule of Demagogues who can whip the voters passions. Of course what the Liberals are offering is to remove the Demos from Democracy and institute Oligarchy instead, hardly what we should see as an improvement.

Of course even Republican rule isn't immune to difficulties (think of the Social Wars which ended the _Res Publica Roma_ and ushered in the Imperium). The fun text of this article is behind a paywall, but Instapundit published a portion which bears thinking about:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242937/



> *ROGER KIMBALL: Since Men Aren’t Angels: Federalist 10 offers a timely warning about the dangers of factionalism.*
> 
> Given the talismanic power the word “democracy” has to modern ears, it is worth reminding ourselves that the U.S. Constitution was largely an effort to curb or trammel democracy. Democracies, Madison wrote in Federalist 10, the most widely read and cited of the essays, “have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Why? A mot often attributed to Benjamin Franklin explains it in an image. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... what the Liberals are offering is to remove the Demos from Democracy and institute Oligarchy instead, hardly what we should see as an improvement.


We have on oligarch that typically narrows to a duopoly.  You would argue that a monopoly is improvement?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> We have on oligarch that typically narrows to a duopoly.  You would argue that a monopoly is improvement?



The counter to all of the above is Adam Ferguson.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2016)

There are two ways to have multi-member ridings.

1. Increase the number of MPs.  First, though, a case needs to be made that more MPs are needed.

2. Merge ridings.  This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.


----------



## McG (6 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.


This statement is unclear to me.  What are you saying?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There are two ways to have multi-member ridings.
> 
> 1. Increase the number of MPs.  First, though, a case needs to be made that more MPs are needed.
> 
> 2. Merge ridings.  This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.



If increasing the number of MPs, to cost us more taxes and nanny government intrusion, is a solution, then that's enough reason to stick with FPTP.


----------



## McG (6 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If increasing the number of MPs, to cost us more taxes and nanny government intrusion, is a solution, then that's enough reason to stick with FPTP.


No.  It would be reason to merge ridings to keep the number of MPs constant.  Consider that London-West, London-North-Center, and London-Fanshaw could all be lumped into one riding of "London" with three MPs.  In the last election, those three ridings elected one NDP (L-F) and two Liberals (L-NC and L-W), but as a single three member riding they would have elected one Conservative and two Liberals.

By another example, the eight ridings of Winnipeg produced seven Liberals and one NDP, but mashed into two multi-member ridings of four seats each they could return two Conservatives, one NDP and only five Liberals.


* Thanks Ostrozac for reminding me to show my numbers.  It is what keeps the mistakes away.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2016)

Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.

Those members elected will feel the party every day of their working lives. They will only feel the electorate when it pleases them or they are forced.

Again, my opinion, "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections.

I guess my model sees the Commons as Jury, as impartial as it can be.  Leave the Senate as the House of Faction - the cockpit.  They can pick their own members by what ever means they like then.

GG as Judge.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections ...


More like a huuuuuge municipal council, then?


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.
> 
> Those members elected will feel the party every day of their working lives. They will only feel the electorate when it pleases them or they are forced.
> 
> ...



Whoa Mohammed. The GG must not have any executive role other than to show up sober, clean and alert to execute the will of the elected leaders. What you are suggesting is to regress to the post-confederation era when the GG (a creature of the Colonial Office) could actually issue direction to the PM. Mind you, maybe sometimes back then it was a good idea, for example when Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the second PM, suggested that instead of forming the NWMP to maintain order in the west which would have been quite expensive, the US Army be invited in to pacify the region.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2016)

On the municipal council - yes.  Except those folks generally have an overly high opinion of themselves as well.  I want to make the task a duty, not a perq.

On the GG - OK.  I'll back off on that one.  I like the honorary head of state too.  In that case move the PM and the government from the Commons to the House of Factions.  And no money, no treaties, without a Commons vote.


----------



## jmt18325 (6 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability



It depends. We could go for a hybrid system.  Places like Nunavut could stay as 1 riding with 1 member.  Places like the City of Winnipeg, or the province of PEI (having far too many members - but that's another kettle of fish) could be combined into single multi member ridings employing a simple formula STV system.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2016)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy

I swear Maryam must have read this.....



> Referendums and elections are both arcane instruments of public deliberation.





> Electoral fundamentalism is an unshakeable belief in the idea that democracy is inconceivable without elections and elections are a necessary and fundamental precondition when speaking of democracy. Electoral fundamentalists refuse to regard elections as a means of taking part in democracy, seeing them instead as an end in themselves, as a doctrine with an intrinsic, inalienable value.



I do rather like the idea of Sortition though.

Edit:  I made an extraneous reference that on reconsideration should never have been uttered.  I apologize to any who saw it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Sep 2016)

This:

"Consider that London-West, London-North-Center, and London-Fanshaw could all be lumped into one riding of "London" with three MPs.  In the last election, those three ridings elected one NDP (L-F) and two Liberals (L-NC and L-W), but as a single three member riding they would have elected one Conservative and two Liberals."

is what I mean by:

"This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared."

If a pocket of people in L-F want a NDP member for their locality, they should get one instead of another member decided in part for them by their neighbours.

I consider a system that allows representatives to be selected with non-majority pluralities, and majority governments to be formed with less than majority vote share, to be a great social stabilizer.


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2016)

Yet, it was a minority of people in L-F that decided they would have an NDP representative.  Is that really more fair when what the city (inclusive of L-F) really wants is a Conservative?


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2016)

Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.



Given the size of some of our current ridings, your concern seems somewhat arbitrary.


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.


It must be that you are being deliberately obtuse, given that the three London ridings together are all just one small "locality."  Collectively these three ridings are a fraction of the size of any adjacent riding.  Are the people of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex deprived of fairness as most of them are "encumbered by the preferences of people further away" to an extent that would be unachieved in the hypothetical three member riding that you use distance to argue against.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Sep 2016)

Size is a dangerous term to use.  Are you referring to geographic dispersion, or to population?  Should we draw a grid of equally sized shapes over Canada and assign one MP each, regardless of the population?  Should a farmer on 100 acres have more sway that a thousand people in an apartment complex on a single acre?


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.


The trick is to do as Alberta did from 1905 to 1955 and limit multi-member ridings to the urban centres that could otherwise support multiple single member ridings.  Distance is does not become a factor, and the citizens are directly connected to their representatives through municipal transportation systems (bus, light rail, monorail, subway).


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2016)

Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  So I'm more convinced that the pocket of NDP supporters in London who can currently manage to elect a NDP representative - at least occasionally - get a fair shake from FPTP that they might never otherwise get in a multi-member riding.  And, looking at Canada-wide results in general, it is clear that "locality" matters and in a densely populated area the political flavour of the population can change dramatically.  But having lived in Metro Vancouver for years, I already knew this.  Larger multi-member ridings mean shutting some people out too much of the time.

Representation is population-based.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but those who want to have angels-on-a-pin discussions may go ahead.


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  So I'm more convinced that the pocket of NDP supporters in London who can currently manage to elect a NDP representative - at least occasionally - get a fair shake from FPTP that they might never otherwise get in a multi-member riding.



That literally makes no sense.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.   ... looking at Canada-wide results in general, it is clear that "locality" matters and ...


What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance.  If "locality matters" is your underlying premise against geographically small multi-member ridings, then it does not matter what surrounds the city of London when we are talking about voting results inside the city of London.  Looking inside the city of London, 32% (almost 1/3) want a conservative MP but they do not get this under FPTP single representative ridings.  A multi-member riding would give one conservative MP.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Places like Nunavut could stay as 1 riding with 1 member.  Places like the City of Winnipeg, or the province of PEI could be combined into single multi member ridings employing a simple formula STV system.


I do not think PEI makes a good candidate for a single multi-member riding.  Much of it is rural, without the benefit of public transportation to connect voters to riding offices.  Further, despite the province being small, its three rural ridings are still geographically much larger than the multi-member ridings that could be created through combining existing urban ridings in large cities. 

The only potential east coast multi-member ridings that I can see are Halifax and maybe St John's.  In either city one Liberal MP would be replaced by one NDP MP under a multi-member riding.


----------



## jmt18325 (9 Sep 2016)

And that's a compromise I could go for - turning the larger CMAs (the ones with more than one MP) into mixed member ridings and leaving the rural ridings as is would be fine with me.  Places like Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, etc, could work well.

I totally disagree with PEI though.  I live in Dauphin - Swan River - Neepawa.  There's nothing large about PEI.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Again, my opinion, "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections.


Agreed, and that means that any consideration of multi-member ridings would have to give voters the ability to select the individual MPs (ie. no party lists).  Unfortunately, when working with FPTP results to model a hypothetical multi-member riding, the data just does not exist to replicate STV.  It also does not let you model an independent ... Brent Rathgeber scored well enough in his riding that if other ridings provided him similar support he would have been a contender in a North Edmonton multi-member riding, but data only exists for the riding he actually ran in.

In any case, I extended the model of multi-member ridings across the country (less Vancouver and Victoria which I just did not get to) to get 36 multi-member ridings (including the ones already posted).  I am sure threehundredeight.com could do a better job of this, but my model suggests use of big city multi-member ridings would have produced the following results in the 2015 election:


Liberal  Conservative  NDP  Green  BQ163​  112​  44​  1​  11​-21​  +13​  +7​  +0​  +1​

Attached are the ridings that I have not yet posted, if you want to see what the results would be in your neighbourhood.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I totally disagree with PEI though.  I live in Dauphin - Swan River - Neepawa.  There's nothing large about PEI.


At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.  I would not form multi-member ridings on that island unless Charlottetown ever grows big enough to merit two MPs.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.  I would not form multi-member ridings on that island unless Charlottetown ever grows big enough to merit two MPs.



Let me know when it's big enough to merit one.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Let me know when it's big enough to merit one.


I don't think that either of us will be around when that day comes.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2016)

The problem that I have, overall, is that every system will be gamed over time.  Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to take advantage of the rules for their own betterment.

We can continue to keep changing the rules to try and stay ahead of those types.  Or we can just accept that all systems are suspect and live with it.

Football - Soccer - Rugby Union - Rugby League - Rugby Sevens - Gaelic Football - Aussie Rules - American Football - Canadian Football 

Or if you prefer

Hurling - Shinty - Field Hockey - Ice Hockey

Always on the lookout for a better set of rules.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2016)

Well, Mike Duffy lives in PEI apparently.  And the Ottawa suburb of Kanata (where he lives and has lived for 25 years or so) has an urban population of 100,000.  So...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2016)

I am against anything that would mean more MPs on the payroll. We have too many freeloaders already.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2016)

I agree the payroll is too large.  I don't agree that we don't need more MPs.  The "job" should be a duty not a reward.  And it shouldn't be a vocation or even an avocation.  I don't want anybody there that wants to be there.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.



And still much smaller than many single member ridings that exist now.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The problem that I have, overall, is that every system will be gamed over time.  Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to take advantage of the rules for their own betterment.



People do that now.


----------



## Lumber (10 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I agree the payroll is too large.  I don't agree that we don't need more MPs.  The "job" should be a duty not a reward.  And it shouldn't be a vocation or even an avocation.  *I don't want anybody there that wants to be there.*



Maybe I'm getting the context wrong, but at face value, I disagree with the completely. I don't want anyone doing any job that they _don't_ want to be doing, especially running our legislature.  Sure, make the job difficult, onerous, and demanding, but I want people who are passionate about what they are doing.

No one "wants" to go to war, kill people, and see their friends killed; but I don't want my next CO to hate his job either.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> People do that now.



Yes. They do.

And they have.

And they will.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm getting the context wrong, but at face value, I disagree with the completely. I don't want anyone doing any job that they _don't_ want to be doing, especially running our legislature.  Sure, make the job difficult, onerous, and demanding, but I want people who are passionate about what they are doing.
> 
> No one "wants" to go to war, kill people, and see their friends killed; but I don't want my next CO to hate his job either.



Context.  Right enough.

I agree with you on your CO.  And you for that matter.

I also don't have a problem with the governors wanting to govern.  Even being passionate about wanting change.

But before they are allowed to make change, before they are allowed the funds to finance the change, I want them to face the most contrary, ornery bunch of tightwad jurors imaginable.  I don't want the Government to "enjoy the confidence of the House".  I want them to have to justify their existence to the House every day.

The business of the Government may be rendered less efficient - but when efficiency is demanded then it has the Royal Prerogative.  It can act as it sees fit.  It will be held accountable at the next election by the general public.  In the nearer term it is to be held accountable, after the fact, by the House.

But.

The House should not be contrary for the sake of being contrary.   I don't want careerists.  I don't want people that see their time in the House as a lifetime sinecure.  I want people to see it as a civic duty of limited duration.  I want them to see it in exactly the same sense as Jury duty.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Sep 2016)

>Looking inside the city of London, 32% (almost 1/3) want a conservative MP but they do not get this under FPTP single representative ridings.  A multi-member riding would give one conservative MP.

Which one?  I don't see how one of the Conservative candidates winning an MP's seat with 10-15% of the vote is an improvement over winning with 30-35%.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Yet, it was a minority of people in L-F that decided they would have an NDP representative.  Is that really more fair when what the city (inclusive of L-F) really wants is a Conservative?





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> It must be that you are being deliberately obtuse, given that the three London ridings together are all just one small "locality."  Collectively these three ridings are a fraction of the size of any adjacent riding.  Are the people of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex deprived of fairness as most of them are "encumbered by the preferences of people further away" to an extent that would be unachieved in the hypothetical three member riding that you use distance to argue against.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  So I'm more convinced that the pocket of NDP supporters in London who can currently manage to elect a NDP representative - at least occasionally - get a fair shake from FPTP that they might never otherwise get in a multi-member riding.  And, looking at Canada-wide results in general, it is clear that "locality" matters and in a densely populated area the political flavour of the population can change dramatically.  But having lived in Metro Vancouver for years, I already knew this.  Larger multi-member ridings mean shutting some people out too much of the time.
> 
> Representation is population-based.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but those who want to have angels-on-a-pin discussions may go ahead.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance.  If "locality matters" is your underlying premise against geographically small multi-member ridings, then it does not matter what surrounds the city of London when we are talking about voting results inside the city of London.  Looking inside the city of London, 32% (almost 1/3) want a conservative MP but they do not get this under FPTP single representative ridings.  A multi-member riding would give one conservative MP.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Which one?  I don't see how one of the Conservative candidates winning an MP's seat with 10-15% of the vote is an improvement over winning with 30-35%.


Which one?  Are we even having the same conversation, or are you just posting baffle-gab nonsense?  In a hypothetical three member riding consisting of the combined  London-West, London-North-Center, and London-Fanshaw ridings the results of the last election show 32% support for the conservatives. That same hypothetical riding would have given the Conservatives one of the three seats had it existed in the last election.

You do understand that riding boundaries are not divinely created?  They are drawn on a map by a human being.  They exist as a product of historical evolution and boundaries that shift somewhat arbitrarily in attempt to keep relative population parity between adjacent ridings.  London-West and London-North-Center are arbitrarily divided by a street, while London-West itself is bisected by a river.  I can assure you that Hyde Park and White Hills (L-W) are more closely linked to Sherwood Forest and University Heights (L-NC) than either is to Byron or Westmont (L-W).

I joined the Army in London.  The able bodied can easily walk across the whole thing in a morning, but reliable public transit gives everyone quicker access to anywhere.  I lived in one riding, worked in another riding and when to school in a third - and I was not atypical.  If you live in that city, your daily life likely takes you across riding boundaries for work, shopping, school, social activities, community events, etc.  By contrast, when I was at Gagetown, I could go weeks at a time (months if you discount trips into the training area) without leaving my riding.

So inside high density urban areas, riding boundaries are less accurate in defining communities because they are driven by population pressures, and riding boundaries are less relevant because people's daily lives (and so the communities they identify with) are much broader.  L-F no more accurately defines a community than a single riding that encompass all of L-F, L-NC and L-W.  Why is an NDP seat wanted by a minority within an arbitrary box "more fair" than giving one third of the city's seats (ie. 1 seat) to a Conservative that one third of the city wants?

Maybe instead look at all the other small multi-member riding examples and note that, with few enough exceptions that you could count on one hand, small multi-member ridings do not remove parties from cities regions.  Instead, multi-member ridings generally add a representative from one of the "big three" in a city was swept by one of the other "big three."  Instead of everybody being represented by the voice of 35-40%, the next 30-35% of the community also get a voice at the table ... and all without the addition of any new MP seats.

You could also turn your concerns to something like the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London which, created and allowed under the current system, sees the desires of citizens in St Thomas "encumbered by the preferences of people further away" in south London.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Agreed, and that means that any consideration of multi-member ridings would have to give voters the ability to select the individual MPs (ie. no party lists).  Unfortunately, when working with FPTP results to model a hypothetical multi-member riding, the data just does not exist to replicate STV.  It also does not let you model an independent ... Brent Rathgeber scored well enough in his riding that if other ridings provided him similar support he would have been a contender in a North Edmonton multi-member riding, but data only exists for the riding he actually ran in.
> 
> In any case, I extended the model of multi-member ridings across the country (less Vancouver and Victoria which I just did not get to) to get 36 multi-member ridings (including the ones already posted).  I am sure threehundredeight.com could do a better job of this, but my model suggests use of big city multi-member ridings would have produced the following results in the 2015 election:
> 
> ...


So I have applied the model to Vancouver and Victoria.  In Vancouver the model would have given two additional Conservatives, two fewer Liberals, and an equal number of NDP being more geographically dispersed.  That gives new national results as:


Liberal  Conservative  NDP  Green  BQ161​  114​  44​  1​  11​-23​  +15​  +7​  +0​  +1​

Victoria would go from two NDP and a Green to one each for NDP, Liberal and Green. However, I would not use the riding in the Victoria model.  Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and Saanich—Gulf Islands both extend well away from the urban hub.  I suspect that Victoria could support a two member riding, but the three ridings would have to be combined with Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and then divided into a two-member city riding and two single member outlying ridings.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Sep 2016)

You seem to assume there would only be one CPC candidate running in a multi-member riding.  Why wouldn't each of the major parties run three candidates in a three-member riding?  Certainly the LPC would have to run at least two candidates to claim the two seats you suggest they could capture.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You seem to assume there would only be one CPC candidate running in a multi-member riding.


No.  I have shown the math for each party running one candidate for each seat in the hypothetical multi-member ridings.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2016)

You've shown some vote counts, but how do you justify the assumption that all of the votes for each party are distributed among candidates with perfect efficiency?

If 58,917 votes were cast for CPC candidates in the three distinct London ridings, why would you assume those voters would support one particular CPC candidate in great enough numbers to capture a seat in the equivalent multi-member riding?  Why would the 58,917 votes not be distributed among three CPC candidates, such that each of them falls short of the candidates who won the election?


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You've shown some vote counts, but how do you justify the assumption that all of the votes for each party are distributed among candidates with perfect efficiency?


I did not make that assumption.

I have previously described some limitations that come from using real world FPTP results to create a model for multi-member ridings, and the assumptions made can be found there.  While the limitations prevent modelling a number of factors (relative popularity of candidates within a party, popular independents, popular candidates in disliked parties, and disliked candidates in popular parties), I think the results are a good approximation of what a real world run would get us.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2016)

Strictly speaking, I agree the assumption of "perfect efficiency" of distribution of votes was not made; I exaggerated the case.  Nevertheless, discard the absolutism of "perfect" and there is still an implied assumption that the votes will somehow be distributed more efficiently, sufficiently to  lift one of the (in the example of London) CPC candidates above the count obtained by the NDP member.  That assumption applies in all cases: the distribution of votes for each member must actually be different for the outcomes to be different.

The assumption is unsound and unreasonable.  What is the basis for making it?  The premise can't be assumed. It must be proven.  There is no reason to believe the model is a useful approximation, because there is no way of knowing whether the distribution of votes would be nearly the same, more uneven but favourable in just the right way to benefit a party on the basis of vote count, or so wildly different as to result in a completely unforeseen outcome; the model is too weak to draw any conclusion.  At this point, it is just a bunch of hand-waving: 
1) The vote count is such-and-such.
2) ???
3) The outcome should be thus (but not this, or that, or anything else).

What is left, then, is a solution which has not been shown to solve the suggested problem (that there is an unfair imbalance of votes which needs to be resolved with slightly larger boundaries, but not any larger), and still no demonstration that a problem exists which needs to be solved.  The measurement of party vote share over a region larger than a single riding is no more relevant than the distribution within a province, or within the country as a whole.

If a riding votes 90% to elect a CPC MP, then they have elected one CPC MP.  The fact that they did so with a large surplus of votes is irrelevant.  No rational basis has been advanced for extending the boundaries of ridings some arbitrary distance, and no further.  If there is some objective criterion for making some ridings larger but not others, explain it.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Sep 2016)

Is it not possible to create a ballot where you rank party choices, and then within that rank your choice of candidates if you so choose?


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Is it not possible to create a ballot where you rank party choices, and then within that rank your choice of candidates if you so choose?



Sure it is possible. But what is the point of doing this?   No one needs this complicated process. The KISS principle for voting is the only efficient and effective choice.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... there is still an implied assumption that the votes will somehow be distributed more efficiently, sufficiently to  lift one of the (in the example of London) CPC candidates above the count obtained by the NDP member.  That assumption applies in all cases: the distribution of votes for each member must actually be different for the outcomes to be different.


No there is not "an implied assumption."  The only undeclared assumption is being made by you.  You have assumed that SNTV is the only voting option for a multi-member riding.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Is it not possible to create a ballot where you rank party choices, and then within that rank your choice of candidates if you so choose?


It is possible:





...but I would rather any ranked ballot just rank the individual candidates while identifying which party each one represents.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2016)

Whether you depend on the voters making a single SNTV choice each or an alternate mechanism, there is still an "assumption that the votes will somehow be distributed more efficiently".  What alternate mechanism(s) would you propose to channel the outcome?

>Is it not possible to create a ballot where you rank party choices, and then within that rank your choice of candidates if you so choose?

A ranking system gives "anybody but" voters a mathematical advantage over "single preference" voters.  A system which yields imbalanced strategic voting power should be discarded.  (There must be no imbalances, because safeguarding the output legitimacy - essentially, the sense of a level playing field - is of paramount importance).  That is one of the strong advantages of FPTP: every voter makes exactly one choice, with the same information, with no possible way of gaming a path through a decision tree.


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Whether you depend on the voters making a single SNTV choice each or an alternate mechanism, there is still an "assumption that the votes will somehow be distributed more efficiently".  What alternate mechanism(s) would you propose to channel the outcome?
> 
> >Is it not possible to create a ballot where you rank party choices, and then within that rank your choice of candidates if you so choose?
> 
> A ranking system gives "anybody but" voters a mathematical advantage over "single preference" voters.  A system which yields imbalanced strategic voting power should be discarded.  (There must be no imbalances, because safeguarding the output legitimacy - essentially, the sense of a level playing field - is of paramount importance).  That is one of the strong advantages of FPTP: every voter makes exactly one choice, with the same information, with no possible way of gaming a path through a decision tree.



This is why we should leave it alone and stick with the status quo.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Sure it is possible. But what is the point of doing this?



Proportional representation.  Many would argue that our current structure doesn't allow for people to have their voices heard in the way that they wanted them to be heard.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Whether you depend on the voters making a single SNTV choice each or an alternate mechanism, there is still an "assumption that the votes will somehow be distributed more efficiently".


No there is not.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What alternate mechanism(s) would you propose to channel the outcome?


There is Single Transferable Vote or Schulze Transferable Vote.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A ranking system gives "anybody but" voters a mathematical advantage over "single preference" voters.


The federal 2015 election shows that, informed by polls, the "anybody but" camp will just as easily organize a mathematical advantage in FPTP.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That is one of the strong advantages of FPTP: every voter makes exactly one choice, with the same information, with no possible way of gaming a path through a decision tree.


I can game the FPTP system by running an irrelevant candidate with a platform similar to the contender(s) that I oppose, and in strong contrast to the contender(s) that I support.  My irrelevant candidate stands no chance to win, but despite that my irrelevant candidate will draw votes away from those competitors that I want to loose while not affecting my preferred candidate.


----------



## Jed (11 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> No there is not.
> There is Single Transferable Vote or Schulze Transferable Vote.
> The federal 2015 election shows that, informed by polls, the "anybody but" camp will just as easily organize a mathematical advantage in FPTP.
> I can game the FPTP system by running an irrelevant candidate with a platform similar to the contender(s) that I oppose, and in strong contrast to the contender(s) that I support.  My irrelevant candidate stands no chance to win, but despite that my irrelevant candidate will draw votes away from those competitors that I want to loose while not affecting my preferred candidate.



I have seen a couple of elections were that process did not work for gaming the system.   Ask Roy Romanow how he was beaten by Jo Z. the giant killer.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I have seen a couple of elections were that process did not work for gaming the system.


From 1997 to 2004, that split gave the Liberals a series of majority governments.  It does work.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> From 1997 to 2004, that split gave the Liberals a series of majority governments.  It does work.



It worked because Quebec and Ontario could game the system not because FPTP.


----------



## jmt18325 (12 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> It worked because Quebec and Ontario could game the system not because FPTP.




Game the system?  How were they gaming the system, exactly?  Ontario is actually still, to this day, shortchanged for seats.


----------



## Jed (12 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Game the system?  How were they gaming the system, exactly?  Ontario is actually still, to this day, shortchanged for seats.



Upper Canada has been gaming it since 1867.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

How are any of these systems going to stop Toronto from politically driving Ontario. One city, no matter size or population, should not be allowed to discount and nullify the rest of the population in that province.

Unless we can do that, I'd rather see the winning candidate triumph in mortal combat over the other candidates.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How are any of these systems going to stop Toronto from politically driving Ontario.


Or Canada's biggest cities collectively doing the same nationally?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2016)

>The federal 2015 election shows that, informed by polls, the "anybody but" camp will just as easily organize a mathematical advantage in FPTP.

Not the same thing at all.  What you describe was just the result of campaign persuasion.

Since I already have no interest in STV due to its strategic voting imbalance, inherent advantage for centrist parties, and its transparent manipulation to create the illusion of a stronger popular mandate than really exists, I am further persuaded that there is no reason to change to multi-member ridings.  STV and/or multi-member ridings are more flawed than our current single-member FPTP model, are unnecessarily complex, and - due to the inherent imbalances - likely to militate against output legitimacy, which is likely to further aggravate an already problematical level of incivility.

The vote split which resulted in the temporary rise of the BQ, and Alliance/Reform, illustrates a further advantage of FPTP - meaningful expression of regionally-based protest movements.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How are any of these systems going to stop Toronto from politically driving Ontario. One city, no matter size or population, should not be allowed to discount and nullify the rest of the population in that province.



You're arguing against representation by population?  Based on what, exactly?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

To ensure the rest of the country doesn't become a colony of Toronto?


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How are any of these systems going to stop Toronto from politically driving Ontario. One city, no matter size or population, should not be allowed to discount and nullify the rest of the population in that province.



But Toronto doesn't actually drive Ontario politically -- of our 25 Premiers, few have been from Toronto, only 4 by my count. And nationally I don't think we've ever had a Prime Minister from Toronto -- certainly no one that represented a Toronto riding. Arguably in our current setup politicians with strong bases in medium sized cities are in the best position to take a shot at the Premier's office. London, Ottawa and North Bay have all produced Premiers in my lifetime.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But Toronto doesn't actually drive Ontario politically --



Sorry, but I too feel that Toronto is driving Ontario politically with a metropolitan population that has no clue what the world outside their comfy homes is like.  A population that has no concept of what life is like outside their "small world".  Quite often no concept of where the food comes from that is on their table.  Out of curiousity, how many activists do you know of that do not reside in a large metropolitan area?  



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> -- of our 25 Premiers, few have been from Toronto, only 4 by my count.



That is a moot point and not related to the statement at all.


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is a moot point and not related to the statement at all.



I disagree. In a unicameral legislature the Premier wields considerable power -- power that, in Ontario, is not solely confined to Torontonians.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I disagree. In a unicameral legislature the Premier wields considerable power -- power that, in Ontario, is not solely confined to Torontonians.



Meanwhile, recceguy and I are not looking at the Premier, nor the politicians, BUT at the voter base that is electing them.  A whole different view of where the power in Ontario is based......upon voters in a large metropolitan area with NO CONCERNS, INTEREST or KNOWLEDGE of what is going on outside their 'small world'.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, recceguy and I are not looking at the Premier, nor the politicians, BUT at the voter base that is electing them.  A whole different view of where the power in Ontario is based......upon voters in a large metropolitan area with NO CONCERNS, INTEREST or KNOWLEDGE of what is going on outside their 'small world'.




Except, of course, that if you happen to believe in something akin to at least rough equality of representation then doesn't it make sense that the GTA, with a population (2011 census) of over 6 million, ought to "drive" Ontario that has a population of (same census) 12.8 million? Or is it that, since many, Many, _*Many*_ Torontonians do not share your socio-political views, that you object to the fact that they are represented as their number warrant?


----------



## McG (14 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The federal 2015 election shows that, informed by polls, the "anybody but" camp will just as easily organize a mathematical advantage in FPTP.
> 
> Not the same thing at all.  What you describe was just the result of campaign persuasion.


But it is the same thing.  FPTP gives the win to the largest minority, so the anti-vote does not have to overcome the will of any majority - it just has to give its support to the next largest minority.  In fact, this is a feature of FPTP, right?  It is the ability to "vote the bums out"?  What's more, FPTP encourages the anti-vote.  A Libertarian can't vote for his preferred candidate because he must give that vote to a Conservative keep the NDP candidate out.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The vote split which resulted in the temporary rise of the BQ, and Alliance/Reform, illustrates a further advantage of FPTP - meaningful expression of regionally-based protest movements.


The vote split did not give rise to regionally based protest movements.  You have got it backwards.  Those parties got into Parlaiment in spite of the vote split.  It was the Liberal super majorities are attributable to the vote split; right to right-of-center ridings went to Liberals because a saturation of options diluted the vote of the majority.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2016)

By "rise" I did not mean "generate", I meant "grow".  When sub-factions of the old PC went looking for new homes, parties coalescing around protest movements were able to grow significantly.  Without a (PC) vote split, the PC vote would by definition have stayed with the PC.

The advantage of being able to systematically enumerate "all of the above except that guy" without any particular need to think about rank order has nothing to do with campaigning.


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2016)

It would seem the Liberals are less inclined to change the electoral process now that the process has given them a four year monopoly of power. Who could have predicted that?



> *PM backs away from electoral reform pledge*
> CTV News
> 19 Oct 16
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-backs-away-from-electoral-reform-pledge-1.3122167




> *Trudeau says government's popularity has dampened public's desire for electoral reform*
> Prime minister criticized for suggesting electorate might not be clamouring for change he promised
> Aaron Wherry
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-1.3811862


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2016)

Dammed cynical pills.....

Of course.  39% Blue, Bad.   39% Red, Double Plus Good.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Dammed cynical pills.....
> 
> Of course.  39% Blue, Bad.   39% Red, Double Plus Good.


Heh.

People were afraid that the Liberals would be in power indefinitely using ranked ballots.

People were afraid that PR would lead to never ending coalition governments.

Now they get criticized for backing down and doing nothing.

So...they can't win. Good that we established that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2016)

Not me. I am glad that they backed down. The criticism is that it was a damned stupid promise to make in the first place. 

There are way too many unintended second and third order effects on the country to ram this thru.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> People were afraid that the Liberals would be in power indefinitely using ranked ballots.
> 
> ...


Great spin job, you really can't see past partisan views can you? This is a promise that wasn't needed and those who thought that are happy they aren't changing it. What people are attacking here, is the rationale for dumping the promise (which people knew was the reason all along): the system that gets them elected is the best system for Canada. It's the entitlement to govern that irks people.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Oct 2016)

Personally, I suspect this is dis-information.  Let everyone calm down, then introduce electoral reform in the house with max Lib MP attendance and push it through before opposition can organize.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Great spin job, you really can't see past partisan views can you? This is a promise that wasn't needed and those who thought that are happy they aren't changing it. What people are attacking here, is the rationale for dumping the promise (which people knew was the reason all along): the system that gets them elected is the best system for Canada. It's the entitlement to govern that irks people.


I went on record saying that they would not pass electoral reform without a referendum.

I went on record saying they would either back down of let Canadians vote on it.

They backed down. Is the reason that they are backing down silly? Sure. But who cares about the reason as long as they do the right thing? 

They promised it, consulted, saw nobody cares, backed down. Isn't that what you wanted?


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> They backed down. Is the reason that they are backing down silly? Sure. But who cares about the reason as long as they do the right thing?
> 
> They promised it, consulted, saw nobody cares, backed down. Isn't that what you wanted?


That's what you call a "can't win" -- the haters'll never give credit for a bad idea rejected, and the starry-eyed dreamers'll consider it a betrayal/promised reneged on.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What people are attacking here, is the rationale for dumping the promise (which people knew was the reason all along): the system that gets them elected is the best system for Canada.


Yup, or win a majority, anyway - which is why no party reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally wants to change things toooooooooo much.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Oct 2016)

In multi-party democracy, there simply is no way to get 50+1 unless the other parties are all so in disrepute which is a star alignment that is rare indeed.  38 to 42% is the norm for 2 big plus 1 medium sized party choice.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> In multi-party democracy, there simply is no way to get 50+1 unless the other parties are all so in disrepute which is a star alignment that is rare indeed.  38 to 42% is the norm for 2 big plus 1 medium sized party choice.


Ranked ballots would be the only way.

I think everyone is in agreement that this would give a unfair advantage to the LPC since they are most peoples second choice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2016)

There are two levels of dissatisfaction being expressed.

1. Some people criticize the abandonment of what was not a particularly ambiguous election promise on the grounds of "promise broken".

2. Some people criticize the abandonment of electoral reform.

Green and Orange seem to fall into groups (1) and (2) .  Blue seems content with the result and is merely using the opportunity to needle the government benches a little for their inconstancy (1).

(1) is always going to be there, on any issue.  There's no point riding a high horse to death and then beating it while lamenting that the governing party can never win.


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2016)

FPTP put Donald and Hillary in the lead of their respective US parties.  To win, you only need to be the looser with the most.  Contrary to popular narrative, it does not seem to be the system to screen out extremist views.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2016)

And systems other than FPTP gave you Hollande, Merckel, Orban, Whatever passes for a government in Spain and Belgium these days, and a host of other outcomes.  Including Vladimir Putin and Xi.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

I'm one of those who is not disappointed. I can live with our current system.  I am suspicious of those that want to change the rules of any game after the game has started.  And I am chuckling at the learning opportunity that has been presented to yet another generation of voters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2016)

The only objection to FPTP is that "my vote didn't count ..."

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... which has always struck me as being an extraordinarily childish reaction to electoral outcomes. But, then, I've always felt that 50+% of the voters are extraordinarily childish, so my reactions ought not to surprise anyone.

Assuming that we can agree that some people (how many? 15%? 25%? 35%? 60%?) do not like the outcome of any election in any riding then there are two questions:

    1. So what? and

    2. Who cares?

In _my opinion_ the answer to "so what?" is "So, nothing, see question 2," because no one should care ... my opinion, again.

But in 2015 enough people did care ~ even if, _I suspect_, they had very, very little idea about that about which they professed to care ~ so the Liberals now, do care ... sort of.

But it's a hideously complex subject, something that, _I guess_, is dawning on _Team Trudeau_, and they gave the file to a "token," rather to someone who might have been able to develop a workable strategy and sell the project to Parliament and Canadians, and now it is doomed to fail because too few people actually know enough about the subject to care at all.

My next _guess_ is that _Team Trudeau_ is working on some sort of quite meaningless electoral reform bill that the _Trudeau toadies_ in Elections Canada will laud as being a major reform to democracy itself, but which, despite being nothing at all, will allow them to put a check mark beside that promise in the 2019 campaign brochure.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Ranked ballots would be the only way.  I think everyone is in agreement that this would give a unfair advantage to the LPC since they are most peoples second choice.


They are many people’s second choice under voting practices under FPTP, but people’s voting practices would not remain the same under another system.  FPTP encourages voters not to vote for who they feel is the best candidate but to instead line-up behind the candidate seen as most likely able to defeat they guy they oppose.  Under a different system, many voters’ first choice candidate would shift away from the big parties to others such as independents, Libertarians, Greens, or something else. 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And systems other than FPTP gave you Hollande, Merckel, Orban, Whatever passes for a government in Spain and Belgium these days, and a host of other outcomes.  Including Vladimir Putin and Xi.


So you point is that other systems have flaws?  I won't disagree.  But so what?  That argument does not mean there are not improvements that can be made or there are no better systems to be found over our current system.  And I am sure you are not being so disingenuous as to suggest electoral reform means becoming aligned with faux democracies such as Russia. 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I am suspicious of those that want to change the rules of any game after the game has started.


Changing the rules after the game has started would be changing the rules after the election has been called.  Unless you are arguing that the Parliament should never be able to amend election laws … but there is not precedent for such a restriction.

But there might be precedent for governments flip-flopping on election promises.


> *Critics accuse Justin Trudeau of electoral reform flip-flop for 'selfish' political gain*
> Prime minister insists he is 'deeply committed' to consultation process on changes to voting system
> Kathleen Harris
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-electoral-reform-critics-1.3813714


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Who cares?


Someone has researched that.



> *Proportional representation: fair, but unsatisfying *
> André Blais
> The Globe and Mail
> 17 Oct 16
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/proportional-representation-fair-but-unsatisfying/article32374194/


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2016)

MCG:

Other systems have flaws.  FPTP has flaws. All systems can be changed.  Our system can be changed.  

Forgive me if I remain suspicious of those that wish change,  especially if they change their minds on discovering that the old system actually benefited them.

Feel free to change to your heart's content.   [


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> They are many people’s second choice under voting practices under FPTP, but people’s voting practices would not remain the same under another system.  FPTP encourages voters not to vote for who they feel is the best candidate but to instead line-up behind the candidate seen as most likely able to defeat they guy they oppose.  Under a different system, many voters’ first choice candidate would shift away from the big parties to others such as independents, Libertarians, Greens, or something else.
> So you point is that other systems have flaws?  I won't disagree.  But so what?  That argument does not mean there are not improvements that can be made or there are no better systems to be found over our current system.  And I am sure you are not being so disingenuous as to suggest electoral reform means becoming aligned with faux democracies such as Russia.
> Changing the rules after the game has started would be changing the rules after the election has been called.  Unless you are arguing that the Parliament should never be able to amend election laws … but there is not precedent for such a restriction.
> 
> But there might be precedent for governments flip-flopping on election promises.http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-electoral-reform-critics-1.3813714




This is a key point and it is a HUGE, fundamental flaw in ALL "alternative voting" systems ... you first choice will change with the situation. 

The only solution, IF you think the winning candidate must have more than a plurality of the votes, is to go the French route:

     1. On election day we all vote for our favourite candidates; then, for most of us (say 75% of ridings where the winner did not get 50%+1)

     2. On the run off election day, about a week later, we vote for out choice of the top two candidates from election day.

Those of us who voted Green or Communist Party of Canada (Groucho Marxist) will now have a choice between, say, a Conservative and and NDPer, or a Dipper vs a Liberal or a Conservative vs a Liberal or even, in one of two ridings a Conservative vs a Green or a Green vs a BQer. We will now have to make new choices:

     Choice 1 is to vote or stay home. Many of us who were committed to one party and one party only will stay home.

     Choice 2 is to vote and to choose between the two candidates who best represent the views of most of our fellow constituents.

PR ought to be a non-starter in a large, diverse country like Canada. We have been represented in our communities since Simon de Montfort and all that ... the French title _Chambre des communes_ is, in fact, "better" than the English _House of Commons_ because "commons" meaning local communities has fallen into disuse in English and some people even think it refers to the common people versus the Lords. When the English say "Lords and commons," they mean the lords of the manors and the people of the towns and villages around them.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2016)

But the problem is "The Party".

The system works best when it is based on a group of independent MPs, acting as a jury, to hold the Government to account.

It fails on two fronts.

1 - too many people don't get to know the character of their local representatives and instead take the facile route of using "party" as a surrogate screen that allows them to make a choice with the minimum amount of fuss and effort.

2 - the government, being elected by party, is now no longer accountable to the MPs.  The MPs of the government party are now accountable to the government and the government is accountable to the extra-parliamentary party.

As a result the government does what its backers decide it can get away with.

And, I am sorry, but I don't care which system of selection you put in place, the Houses of Stuart, Valois, Guise, Hapsburg and Medici will always find a way to game their interests.  They have had ample opportunity to learn over the millennia.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I remain suspicious of those that wish change, especially if they change their minds on discovering that the old system actually benefited them.


Well, we can agree here.  The flop certainly raises questions of motivation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-trudeau-s-flip-flop-1.3815060



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only solution, IF you think the winning candidate must have more than a plurality of the votes, is to go the French route:
> 
> 1. On election day we all vote for our favourite candidates; then, for most of us (say 75% of ridings where the winner did not get 50%+1)
> 
> 2. On the run off election day, about a week later, we vote for our choice of the top two candidates from election day.


Why is this the only option?  Ranked ballots offer the same results without the requirement to bring everybody back to the polling stations for a second or third go.  With ranked ballots, you can see identify the candidate who beats every other candidate in a round robin competition (also known as the Condorcet winner).  If that guy does not exist, you see who wins as a result of run-off elections.  And it is all done without re-establishing polling centres and brining all the voters back.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> PR ought to be a non-starter in a large, diverse country like Canada.


I agree.  Seems the PM may also agree with you too.


> *How does Justin Trudeau really feel about electoral reform? Let's go to the tape*
> What the prime minister has said about the need for change and proportional representation
> By Aaron Wherry, CBC News
> 21 Oct16
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-opinion-1.3814319


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, we can agree here.  The flop certainly raises questions of motivation.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-trudeau-s-flip-flop-1.3815060
> Why is this the only option?  Ranked ballots offer the same results without the requirement to bring everybody back to the polling stations for a second or third go.  With ranked ballots, you can see identify the candidate who beats every other candidate in a round robin competition (also known as the Condorcet winner).  If that guy does not exist, you see who wins as a result of run-off elections.  And it is all done without re-establishing polling centres and brining all the voters back.
> I agree.  Seems the PM may also agree with you too.http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-opinion-1.3814319




No, they do not, because your choice probably will, likely should change when the situation changes. Ranked ballots and the like allow/force a single choice for only one situation and it is, most likely, a false dilemma because there ought to be more choices ~ a ranked ballot to "work" in one "go" would have to be in some sort of matrix format to allow for a proper range of choices. Serial elections, when no candidate gets 50%+1, at least offer a partial range. The single round ranked ballot is, _in my opinion_, even less "fair" than FPTP.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, they do not, because your choice probably will, likely should change when the situation changes. Ranked ballots and the like allow/force a single choice for only one situation and it is, most likely, a false dilemma because there ought to be more choices ~ a ranked ballot to "work" in one "go" would have to be in some sort of matrix format to allow for a proper range of choices. Serial elections, when no candidate gets 50%+1, at least offer a partial range. The single round ranked ballot is, _in my opinion_, even less "fair" than FPTP.


I do not understand how you arrive at your conclusion.  Which one situation do you believe ranked ballots force voters to make a decision for?  What is the false dilemma?  

As I see it, ranked ballots can offer voters the freedom to give their decision for all possible outcomes, and no matrix is required.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2016)

I think what ERC is suggesting is a variation on the theme of "A week is a long time in politics".

The decision that the Americans made during their primary campaigns is obviously different than the decision they are likely to make during the final campaign.

Likewise, in the French case, once confronted with a stark choice and a focused "debate"  the decision, two weeks later, may be considerably different than that which results from automatically filling in boxes on a form just because the boxes have to be filled.






Le Pen may be everybody's second choice - but they still might not want to see her in power.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Oct 2016)

I still think "one vote, use it wisely" however flawed, is the best system. The problem is the "use it wisely" part that many people ignore.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I still think "one vote, use it wisely" however flawed, is the best system.


   :nod:

The system may be fine, but it's the voters that need some adjustment.  Reading through any number of political threads on this site alone suggests the process could benefit from a Psych Eval and an IQ test to register, followed up by a breathalyzer at the polling station.  



    ;D   <---  so no one takes it _too_  personally


----------



## dapaterson (24 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The system may be fine, but it's the voters that need some adjustment.  Reading through any number of political threads on this site alone suggests the process could benefit from a Psych Eval and an IQ test to register, followed up by a breathalyzer at the polling station.



Now, are you suggesting people should be sober to vote, or should reach a certain threshold of inebriation before casting their ballot?


----------



## RangerRay (27 Oct 2016)

During the first referendum on BC-STV, I voted in favour.  To me, it sounded like ridings like the two Peace River ridings (Peace River North, Peace River South) and the two Cariboo ridings would be merged so that they would be larger Peace River or Cariboo ridings with 2 MLA's.  Sounded like a good way to make a fairer system that retained local representation.  That vote just barely failed.

Four years later, they had another referendum, with all the details fleshed out.  This system had a large riding spanning from Prince George to Kamloops with 5 MLA's.  The driving distance between these two cities is 5 to 6 hours.  Under this system, it was entirely possible for the Cariboo to not have local representation, and dominated by two larger centres far away.  This proposal was soundly defeated at referendum, and I voted against it.

No other province that had referenda for electoral reform has had it pass muster with the voters (including 2 of the 3 largest provinces).  The Feds would be wise not to push a new system without widespread voter support.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2016)

Wonder if this counts as a broken promise, or the Liberals coming to their senses?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-electoral-reform-until-enough-canadians-want-it-monsef-says-1.3177209



> No electoral reform until enough Canadians want it, Monsef says
> 
> Laura Payton, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer
> @laura_payton
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wonder if this counts as a broken promise, or the Liberals coming to their senses?
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-electoral-reform-until-enough-canadians-want-it-monsef-says-1.3177209



It is a "DEFLECTION".  A deflection from the changes that they have already done to the Canada Elections Act in rolling back changes made by the Conservatives.  One glaring rollback was the allowing of someone to VOUCH for another person at the Polling Station.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2016)

From Dec 4th's Globe and Mail

An article on Italy's referendum

The final paragraph



> Doing so would require rewriting Italy’s new electoral law – known as the Italicum – which automatically gives the party that wins the second round of an election enough bonus seats to guarantee it a majority. If the rewritten Italicum reverts back to proportional representation, M5S’s chances of forming a government would fall because, unlike other parties, it refuses to form coalitions.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/italian-prime-minister-matteo-renzi-faces-big-referendum-defeat/article33202003/


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2016)

From Dec 5th Daily Express



> Mr Renzi will formally stand down this morning after visiting Italian President Sergio Mattarella who will then have to embark on a round of consultations with party leaders before naming a new prime minister - Italy's fifth in as many years - who will be tasked with drawing up a new electoral law.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739870/Italian-referendum-Matteo-Renzi-Angela-Merkel-European-Union


----------

