Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Reccesoldier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is there anything that the GG does that could not be spelled out in a constitution thus rendering her and her position obsolete?

 

[stegner]

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]

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]

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]

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

The government of Canada will be in the Ontario Court of Appeal today, attempting to get a class-action lawsuit tossed out. At issue is whether the Charter rights of new Canadians are violated by the requirement to swear an oath to the Queen.

The case's very existence is remarkable, given that it was already fought at the Federal Court of Appeal in 1994, when Charles Roach, the Trinidadian-Canadian lawyer who believes forcing blacks to swear to the British monarch is like forcing Jews to swear to Hitler, lost a split decision.

But that was an appeal of a mere citizenship court ruling, sparked in 1987 when the Law Society of Upper Canada required lawyers to be Canadian citizens, and Mr. Roach, a permanent resident after emigrating to Saskatchewan from the Caribbean island in 1955, asked for an exemption.

Now, with the case re-framed as a Charter breach, the government is pulling out all the stops in defence of Her Majesty, Canada's head of state, to whom new citizens -- but, notably, not native-born ones -- must promise to "be faithful and bear true allegiance." In the past year, government lawyers have tried and failed in lower courts to have the case judged frivolous, doomed or already decided. They have argued that removing the oath would require a wholesale constitutional change, on par with abolishing constitutional monarchy. So if they win today against Mr. Roach and his loyal band of republican followers, all eyes will turn to the Supreme Court's schedule.

Represented by his lawyer and daughter Kikelola Roach, Mr. Roach, 74, is an unusual plaintiff, and not just because he is a lawyer himself. A prominent black activist and founder of Toronto's Caribana festival, he has in the past sued police for false arrest and won $512 in damages. He sued a local politician and NOW Magazine, a free Toronto weekly, for libelling him as anti-Semitic. He successfully defended his friend and fellow activist Dudley Laws on a sexual-assault charge and led the campaign to label former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae a racist for bringing the Barnes Exhibit to Toronto in 1994, because Dr. Albert Barnes' significant collection of African art was not included in the popular show.

Now, in uniting the causes of African slavery, Irish and Indian repression, and casual republicanism, his case has drawn into focus the ancient conundrum of governments forcing people to declare things they do not mean.

As such, Mr. Roach is the latest in a tradition of objectors that stretches back at least to George Fox, the 17th-century founder of the Quakers, who, like Mennonites, have long refused oaths due to their scriptural prohibition against swearing.

In federal court last month, for example, a judge ruled in the case of Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh of the Royal Military College in Kingston, who, being Irish, objected to outward displays of loyalty to the Queen at regimental functions. The judge ruled that opting out of such protocols would lead to a "chaotic and unworkable situation."

U.S. presidents Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover both "affirmed," rather than swore, to God at their inaugurations. And when she was sworn in as Toronto's police commissioner in 1989, Susan Eng promised to do her job faithfully, but not to "well and truly serve Her Majesty the Queen." Her refusal eventually led to a change in the police oath.

Early on in Mr. Roach's campaign, a citizenship judge suggested that if he were to "do it in a large group, you won't even have to move your lips." This is a commonly proposed solution to objectionable oaths, but a strange one: that it is best to just hold one's nose and recite a meaningless vow.

A precedent of sorts was set in 1880, when the atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected an MP in Britain but refused to swear the religious oath of allegiance, preferring to affirm it, or to recite it without meaning it "as a matter of form." Instead, he was imprisoned for trying to take his seat unlawfully, and after getting re-elected four times, managed to rewrite the Oaths Act with the option to affirm.

Today, some of the most culturally important oaths still retain a streak of duplicity. Most doctors do not literally believe in the pantheon of Greek deities, but few if any object to the Hippocratic Oath, in which they swear "by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygeia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses." Boy Scouts in Canada swear to do their duty to both God and the Queen, even though those with diverse religious and political views are accepted. Girl Guides, on the other hand, swear to either God or "faith," and Canada, not the Queen.

After decades of legal wrangling, Canada's oath to the Queen is lurching toward a crisis. As Mr. Roach declared yesterday in a letter to supporters, "If we win this class action, a centuries-old tradition would begin to unravel."

[email protected]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service  Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

NP Network Blogs

Stephen Harper stands to speak during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in the background.Chris Wattie/ReutersStephen Harper stands to speak during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in the background.

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to ask the Governor General to pull the plug on the minority Parliament and trigger a spring election if the Senate does not pass the government's violent-crime bill by March 1.

The House of Commons began debate Monday on a government motion calling on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by the start of next month. If the Commons passes the motion and the Senate does not comply, the prime minister could ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament, said a Harper spokeswoman.

"It's a confidence motion, so that's still an option," said Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, the prime minister's press secretary.

It is the strongest statement yet that Harper is willing to force an election if the Senate does not yield to his government's agenda.

But some constitutional experts say such a move would conflict with a federal law passed last year setting fixed-election dates. Under the law, which was introduced by the Harper government, the next federal election is slated for October, 2009, unless the opposition parties defeat the government before then.

"One could make a very strong argument to the Governor General to refuse his request because he's violating his own law," said Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa.

An attempt to force an election would also violate the constitutional principle of Senate independence, noted Mendes. The Commons has no authority to compel the Senate to pass legislation, he said.

"Confidence motions are basically about the government of the day retaining the confidence of the House, not the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Senate, which is why there has never in the history of Canada been a motion such as this."

Government officials beg to differ. Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan has said the fixed-election law doesn't prevent the prime minister from asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.

"There is nothing in the law that takes away the Crown's traditional and usual prerogatives on this matter," he told reporters at a news conference to announce the motion last week.

The motion will be put to a vote as early as today, and is expected to pass. If the Senate then refuses to pass the bill by March 1, the two chambers of Parliament would be at a "clear impasse," Van Loan said last week.

It is not unprecedented for the Governor General to refuse a prime minister's request to drop the writ. The most famous case was in 1926, when then-governor general Lord Byng refused a request by William Lyon MacKenzie King. Byng instead asked Conservative Leader Arthur Meighen to form the government, but Meighen's government was quickly defeated.

But today, some constitutional experts believe Jean would have little choice but to drop the writ if approached by Harper.

"I don't see any constitutional problem at this point in time for the Governor General on the question of dissolving the House," said Ned Franks, professor emeritus of politics at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. "The Parliament's gone on for two years and, historically, if a minority government has lasted that long, the Governor General doesn't raise any squawks."

In building its case for a possible snap election, the Harper government has referred to the 1988 election. Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney called the election after Liberal Leader John Turner asked the Senate to delay passage of Free Trade Agreement legislation.

But some observers question whether that is a valid comparison.

"It's a change of direction for Canadian laws on crime, but it's nothing near as momentous as the Free Trade Agreement," said Franks.

The Conservatives argue the Senate has been impeding the government's crime agenda for months. The Tackling Violent Crime Act actually repackages five crime bills that the government failed to get through in the last parliamentary session. Among other things, it would impose tougher sentences for gun crimes and raise the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14.

But the Liberals point out it was the Harper government itself that prorogued the last session in the summer, thus requiring the bills to wend their way through Parliament again. And they note the bill was introduced in the Senate on Nov. 29, and Parliament only recently resumed after a holiday break.

The Senate legal affairs committee, which is studying the bill, has extended its sitting hours and will likely meet during a parliamentary recess next week to fast-track the bill, said Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs. But she said it's "unrealistic" to expect the Senate to pass the bill by March 1.

"They clearly don't want their bill. If they wanted their bill, they clearly would give the Senate time to examine it," said Carstairs. "We have a constitutional responsibility to give it sober second thought."

POSSIBLE ELECTION TRIGGERS

Feb. 26: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed Monday he will table the government's annual budget on Feb. 26. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have given strong indications they will oppose it, while Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says his party will wait and see. There will be up to four days of debate, though not necessarily on consecutive days, on the budget motion and any opposition amendments. The first confidence vote could come on the second day of debate, when MPs will vote on the first set of amendments.

March 1: Parliament is expected to pass a motion this week calling on the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by March 1. If the Senate does not pass the bill by then, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, on the grounds the Senate is impeding his government's agenda.

March 31: The government has tabled a motion calling for the extension of the Afghanistan mission until at least 2011, provided the government can procure additional equipment and convince its allies to commit roughly 1,000 more troops. The government has said it will put the motion to a vote before Prime Minister Stephen Harper heads to a NATO leaders summit in early April. Last week, government House leader Peter Van Loan said the vote could come "sometime" next month.

The government must also schedule seven "opposition days" between now and March 26. The opposition can use those days to introduce non-confidence motions that could topple the government.

Ottawa Citizen

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

MICHAEL ADAMS

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
March 26, 2008 at 7:35 AM EDT

Last week's federal by-elections represent the most recent chapter in a narrative that has been unfolding in this country for decades: the divergence of urban and rural Canada. As in the United States, where Democratic districts are overwhelmingly urban and Republican ones overwhelmingly rural, the urban-rural dimension in Canada is overtaking region as a predictor of how people will cast their votes.

In the last federal election, Stephen Harper's Conservatives did not win a single seat in any of Canada's three largest cities. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver belonged to the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. In last week's by-elections, prominent Liberals sailed to victory in two Toronto ridings while a Tory took a seat in rural Saskatchewan. In Vancouver Quadra, the Conservative candidate came remarkably close to edging out Liberal Joyce Murray, but this outcome speaks more to the departure of a popular Liberal incumbent, Stephen Owen, and to surging Greens than to a strong embrace of the Tories.

It is not surprising that Canada's cities and rural areas vote differently; they are very different places. The 2006 census reveals significant demographic disparities between people living in our 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs), places with 100,000 people or more and now home to 80 per cent of Canadians, and those living elsewhere in the country.

To begin with, urban Canadians are younger. More than a third of urban dwellers (35.7 per cent) are between 20 and 44. In rural areas, just over a quarter (27.7 per cent) fall into this age group. With fewer residents in the prime of adulthood, rural areas have higher proportions of their labour markets made up of people in their late 50s and early 60s - on the brink of retirement.

Much of the youth and vitality of Canada's cities comes from the steady inflow of immigrants from elsewhere (the average age of immigrants to Canada is 30). Seven in 10 newcomers settle in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. The rest head for other urban areas, increasingly booming Western cities such as Calgary. According to Statistics Canada, only 3 per cent of newcomers who arrived between 2001 and 2006 settled in rural areas.

Immigrants, of course, are most often drawn by the promise of economic opportunity - and incomes in urban and rural Canada tell them where to go. In federal electoral ridings within CMAs, the average household income is nearly $79,000. In ridings outside CMAs, incomes are just over $63,000.

The differences between urban and rural Canada do not stop at demography: Strong psychographic differences emerge when we examine the social values of Canadians. Not surprisingly, given the concentration of immigrants in cities, urban Canadians are more likely to report a sense of global citizenship and feelings of connectedness with people and events in other countries. By contrast, rural Canadians tend to identify more strongly with their own regions.

Urban Canadians register greater comfort with change and complexity, reporting that, when they think about the changes happening around them, they see more opportunities than threats. They say they love seizing on new technologies, they enjoy mixing with people of different backgrounds, and they think diversity - whether in family models or ethnocultural backgrounds - enriches society.

Rural Canadians say they are not so sure about all this change: They are less eager to buy and learn about new technology. They express greater wariness of social changes, whether related to immigration or growing sexual permissiveness. They are more likely than other Canadians to say that religion is an important part of their life, that they prize family bonds above all else, and that they are heavily involved in their local communities.

These divergent attitudes are surely reinforced by the economic outlooks in each milieu: People in cities generally have a lot to look forward to, situated as they are in places that are relatively vibrant both economically and culturally.

Some rural Canadians are living idyllic existences in intimate small towns, but many are clinging to relatively isolated communities where economic opportunity seems to be waning and morale is going with it. Intermittent resource booms like those in Newfoundland and Alberta will keep spirits up in some pockets, but many of the family farms and local resource jobs and manufacturing plants that once yielded small-town self-sufficiency are fading away.

If current trends continue, these two Canadas will be even more different in 2017 (our 150th birthday) than they are today. One result of this divergence will be growing pressure for electoral reform that would allow the two Canadas to be more accurately represented in federal politics. Currently, while 80 per cent of Canadians live in CMAs, only 68 per cent of federal ridings fall within CMAs. Sparsely populated rural ridings - such as Prince Edward Island's Egmont (population: 35,747) or Labrador (26,928) - send MPs to Ottawa who have no less voice or influence than ridings with many times the population.

This arrangement might have made sense when Canada was a rural country and a riding meant a riding - as in a candidate riding on horseback to meet constituents. In a Canada where four out of five people live in densely populated urban constituencies, it makes much less sense. And with municipal budget crises and other jurisdictional irritants, it may not be long before city dwellers join their politicians and begin to cry foul.

It used to be difficult for urbanites to push for more electoral influence because the struggle would often be cast as rich city folk who already hold too much power trying to steal whatever meagre influence good country people exerted. Today, though, with increasing proportions of Canada's cities made up of immigrants, the narrative might be very different: Should eighth-generation pure laine WASPS in rural ridings hold more sway than immigrant citizens struggling to build new lives in cities? It almost has the whiff of a Charter of Rights case about it.

Michael Adams, president of the Environics group of companies, is also the author of "Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Pluralism."

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  4,380.30117      5732.7/135
Yukon Territory  311            36.9/1
Northwest  42.61            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]

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]

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]

....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.