Canadian Democracy

[K Oud]

I would like to prefix this with a few things:

1: My spelling and grammar are not all that good, so please comment on the content rather then the writing mistakes.

2: every time you see a # sign its just because I haven’t done the math yet or decided on the best percentage.

3: This is meant to open a discussion, please let me know what you like don’t like, what you think will work, what you think wont work. Also if you are interested in making it a reality you can get a hold of me at:

[email protected]

Canadian Democracy

The objective of democracy is that each and every eligible adult within the nation have an equal and fair voice in the actions, morals and standards of the nation. In Direct Democracy this is achieved by allowing each and every adult to vote on each and every issues thus letting the people express their views and values. It is obvious that in a society as complex, busy and populated as today’s modern nation this form of government is not viable. Today’s democratic nations have since turned to Representational Democracy. The idea of representational democracy is that citizens are guped, usually based on their geographic location, and then as a whole elect one of their peers to represent and to vote for them.

The Canadian Parliament is based off the British government and is made up of three branches. The first being the Sovereign, the Sovereign is a left over of Canada’s colonial past when it was still under the control of the British crown. Although in theory the Sovereign holds unprecedented power in Canadian politics any attempt by the Governor General, who represents the British Monarch in Canada, to realistically use there powers would be struck down by Canadian courts or by the rest of the Parliament. This leaves the Sovereign as a figurehead whose duties are completely ceremonial in nature.

The second branch on the Canadian Parliament is the Senate. Based on the British concept of Lords the Senate in theory is meant to perform many of the same actions as the House of Commons. Because the Senate is appointed instead of being elected it rarely if ever challenges a bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact it is with in the governments powers to bypass the Senates approval. In effect the Senate is a over paid body of government officials whose sole job is to give the thumbs up to whatever the House proposes, and if they say no? They can be ignored.

This leaves us with the last branch of Parliament, the House of Commons. The house is made up of Canadian Citizens elected in the spirit of representational democracy to represent the constituents of their riding. Members are elected using the “first past the post” system. In this system each candidate is presented to the voting public and who ever garners the most votes it elected to parliament wail all other votes are disregarded. This is important because although it is not a prerequisite of running, most candidates are members of a political party. Many times when voters are casting there ballet they are voting more for the political platform they believe in then the for a specific person to represent them. This means that when all the votes that were not cast for the winning party are discarded, the opinions and beliefs of many times more then half the riding are discarded as well. This leads to high levels of voter apathy and the common assumption that ones vote doesn’t really matter. This is not the only serious flaw in the electoral system as it stands now the second is not mentioned often although it is far more insidious and destructive to the very nature of democratic societies. As it stands now when your average person or riding elects a MP one of two things happen, one: they are a high profile MP, two: they are a low profile MP. In the first case the MP would be given a cabinet job such as Minister of Justice, or in the case of an opposition party they would become the Justice critic. This job takes up a huge amount of time for the MP meaning they are not effectively communicating to there constituents what the government is doing and conversely what the people of there riding want of the government. In the second case the MP becomes what is called a backbench witch is a nice way of saying they are a seat filler, they do nothing but vote the way they are told by their party and are therefore not able to truly act as the voice of people they are representing. Now lets take a moment to remember the entire point of representational democracy. The people we elect to public office are supposed to be our connection to government informing us of what the government is doing and how it affects us and making sure our values and opinions are being voiced. The act of connecting and representing constituents should not be election time only activity.

A New Option:

For these reasons we have come up with a outline for a new form of government. In the new form of government that we are proposing there is no need for the Sovereign, although if it pleases the Canadian population to retain the Sovereign and its figurehead duties this can be accommodated. The senate would be abolished. This leaves the House of Commons to operate much as it already dose as the sole body of federal Canadian law making.

The House of Commons will be made up of two groups. The first, which we will call P1, will hold 49% of the voting power in the House and will be made up of a number of federal political parties. The second group, P2, will hold the reaming 51% of political sway in the House and will be made up of individual Canadian citizens elected to represent their riding.

P1:

The P1 would be made up of a cross section of different federal Canadian parties. Each parties representation within the P1 would be directly proportional to there shear of the popular vote in the last federal election. (eg. if the Liberals won 30% of the popular vote in the last election they would hold 30% control of the P1’s 49% of the House of Commons)

The party with the highest percentage of the popular vote would form the government. No post-election coalitions may be formed in the attempt to form a government. The Party that forms the government will have a leader who would become the Canadian Prime minister and a cabinet who would become the ministers of Justice, Labour ect. Each opposition party would also have a leader and a cabinet who would act as a shadow government and critic.

At the outset of an election each party would be obligated to publicly post who would be filling what positions if the party were elected to power. All choices would be binding and any changes a party would like to make to their roster post-election would be subject to open and public scrutiny and explanation.

During a vote in the House of Commons the Party leader would cast their parties percentage of the vote.

P2:

The P2 will consist of Canadian Citizens elected by their peers in ridings across the country. Members of the P2 may not belong to a political party; therefore they will not be subject to party wip and will only be accountable to the people living within the riding that elected them. There primary obligation will be to relay to their constituents what the government is doing and how it will affect them as well as to bring their constituents concerns and opinions to the attention of the House. Members of the P2 will act as the direct contact between their constituents and the government. It is the responsibility and possible a running platform of each P2 member to find an effective way of communicating with their constituents.

Elections:

Elections for the P1 and the P2 are separate, despite this it is not inappropriate for the two campaigns to overlap.

P1 Elections:

Any Canadian Citizen can put forward a party to be considered in a general election so long as they are able to produce upon registration a clear platform and a list of eligible candidates to, if elected to government act as ministers or if elected to opposition to sit as a shadow government. Only parties that have achieved more then #% of the popular vote will be allotted a position in the P1. The government formed from the P1 party that achieves the highest popular vote is depended on the Confidence of the entire House of Commons to stay in power. Meaning if the government puts forward a bill that is central to its platform (eg. Budget) and it fails then the P1 must dissolve for a federal election. After 5 consecutive years of rule with the confidence of the house the P1 must dissolve for an election.

P2 Elections:

Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population. Any Canadian Citizen can run for a seat in the P2 so long as they can present a petition that can be verified that contains # signatures of people from the given riding. If the P1 dissolves due to a vote of no confidence the P2 is not obliged to dissolve as well.

Law Making:

Any member or party in the House of Commons may enter bill to be considered so long as they have the signed support of #% of the house. This means that any party already hold more then #% of the house can introduce bills at will but lesser parties or P2 members must garner the required support from other parties or P2 members. Supporting a bill to be introduced dose not bind the party or P2 member to vote for it after reading.

thats all

[Michael Hardner]

I've read other people advance the argument that voter apathy would be improved by electoral reform, but...

a ) From everything I have read, people are turned off by politics and every proposal I read seems to have more politics than what we have now.

b ) It's too risky to overturn the entire system (a system that has produced one of the best business environments on the planet, side by side with one of the best supported social infrastructures) in order to try a 'hunch' on a new system.

As such, I reject your proposal.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[g_bambino]

The Sovereign is a left over of Canada’s colonial past when it was still under the control of the British crown. Although in theory the Sovereign holds unprecedented power in Canadian politics any attempt by the Governor General, who represents the British Monarch in Canada, to realistically use there powers would be struck down by Canadian courts or by the rest of the Parliament. This leaves the Sovereign as a figurehead whose duties are completely ceremonial in nature.

It's unfortunate to start this way, but it's hard to take you seriously when you're so far off the mark so soon into your thesis.

The sovereign isn't any kind of "left over." A chief executive is an important part of any parliamentary democracy, who is the source of executive power, beyond the control of the government, and who thus has the ability to hold the government in check. This is the purpose of the monarch, and, in the parliamentary republics, the president. At the time of the patriation of the constitution, in 1982, when we had the opportunity to change the system, we didn't. Not because of external force, or because nobody could think of anything else, but because constitutional monarchy was well established and served us well, and there wasn't anything better. (There still isn't, in my opinion.) Canada is now an independent kingdom; no British monarch has ruled over the country since 1931.

The Constitution Act, 1867, still clearly states that all authority in and over Canada is vested in the Queen, and that the Governor General shall govern on her behalf. Thus a court could not rule any use of the Royal Prerogative by either the sovereign or the viceroy as illegal unless it specifically contradicted a law granted Royal Assent by the same body. Parliament would be similarly powerless unless they, and the 10 provincial parliaments, could unanimously agree to abolish the monarchy.

So, though we most often witness the monarch and the Governor General performing ceremonial tasks, they still retain powerful reserve powers specifically for use against any prime minister who tries to act beyond his scope. That they don't often use these powers is precisely the evidence that shows the system works.

For these reasons we have come up with a outline for a new form of government. In the new form of government that we are proposing there is no need for the Sovereign, although if it pleases the Canadian population to retain the Sovereign and its figurehead duties this can be accommodated.

Who then holds the prime minister away from absolute authoritarianism? By who's authority are laws made? In whose name do the courts operate? Who do the armed forces serve? In essence, what individual or office embodies the state and holds all power within it?

As this is the kingpin of our constitution you're dismissing, until you can answer the above there's little use in considering your proposal.

Edited November 13, 2007 by g_bambino

[K Oud]

Mr Hardner the entire problem in today's society is that there is sooo much apathy with our very governance. Anyone who dismisses politics or our government as “not their business” has not been properly educated in how every choice the parliament makes effects your daily life.

The cause of apathy, the reason they get "turned off of politics" is disenfranchisement. If you re-enfranchise your population, make there voice heard and matter it will revitalize your citizens and your democracies. As for it being a "hunch" I am not proposing this as the be all end all. This is the start and we can modify and mold this model to, if you have a comment let it be on how to make this better or how it wont work based on its structure.

Ahh as for g_bambino, it is hard to take you seriously when you are so desperately wet for a system that has no more basis in modern reality then knights in shining armor do.

If you seriously think that the representative of a foreign figurehead is positive check to the democratically elected officials of this nation, you are crazy. If you think for one second the Governor General would oppose the will of the elected officials of this country, you are crazy. Ok so your crazy, you think the Canadian people would stand for the GG interfering with their elected representatives doing there will, your double crazy.

Its too bad you got so bunged up with your own lock-step devotion to some day dream of how this country operates and didn’t bother to read the rest of my "thesis". Who would hold the PM accountable? The people of Canada!!! And by extension the members of the P2, that’s why they hold 51%, if at any point the PM goes too far the (none party member) P2 can listen to there constituents (who are telling them the PM is going to far) and hold a vote of confidence where they can defeat the government even if they held 100% of the P1.

Sir I suggest you do two things. One pay attention to how our democracy truly operates and two get your head out to the collective British ass, you might discover that Canada is a fully capable country with no need for some foreign authority.

all this being said, some people are attached to the UK and to our historical ties to them. For this reason I see no reason why we cant keep the GG on with her continued ceremonial duties.

and by "kingpin" do you mean keystone? or are we talking Spiderman?

[M.Dancer]

Although in theory the Sovereign holds unprecedented power in Canadian politics any attempt by the Governor General, who represents the British Monarch in Canada, to realistically use there powers would be struck down by Canadian courts or by the rest of the Parliament.

There is mothing unprecedented about the power or the duties of the G-G. In fact, it is steeped in precedent.

If you have a desire to reform, it's best to learn more about what you wish to replace, to wit, one of the finest funtional democracies in the world and a wholey Canadian formulae of the westminster parliamentary democracy.

There is no reason ti re-invent the wheel, just tweak it with some aluminium rims....

[no queenslave]

There is mothing unprecedented about the power or the duties of the G-G. In fact, it is steeped in precedent.

If you have a desire to reform, it's best to learn more about what you wish to replace, to wit, one of the finest funtional democracies in the world and a wholey Canadian formulae of the westminster parliamentary democracy.

There is no reason ti re-invent the wheel, just tweak it with some aluminium rims....

Another member of the flat earth society who thinks it understands everything. It is not necessary to learn how corrupt government is before change is called for. How many inquires will you want ? Canadian form of government is not a Canadian formula at all ; it is a British B.N.A.Act to govern its colony until 1931 and then the politicians assuming power for themselves.

A Canadian system of government is provided for by the Statute of Westminster , giving the people of Canada , and the provinces the right to form any arrangement they want. The federal government did what they wanted ; not what the people wanted.

Read the Quebec resolutions that the B.N.A.Act was to be based on; the provinces wanted to keep the exclusive power of income tax and all things of a personal matter.

IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY quote by bk 59

just some corrupt civil servant.

[g_bambino]

Ahh as for g_bambino, it is hard to take you seriously when you are so desperately wet for a system that has no more basis in modern reality then knights in shining armor do.

If you seriously think that the representative of a foreign figurehead is positive check to the democratically elected officials of this nation, you are crazy. If you think for one second the Governor General would oppose the will of the elected officials of this country, you are crazy. Ok so your crazy, you think the Canadian people would stand for the GG interfering with their elected representatives doing there will, your double crazy.

Its too bad you got so bunged up with your own lock-step devotion to some day dream of how this country operates and didn’t bother to read the rest of my "thesis". Who would hold the PM accountable? The people of Canada!!! And by extension the members of the P2, that’s why they hold 51%, if at any point the PM goes too far the (none party member) P2 can listen to there constituents (who are telling them the PM is going to far) and hold a vote of confidence where they can defeat the government even if they held 100% of the P1.

Sir I suggest you do two things. One pay attention to how our democracy truly operates and two get your head out to the collective British ass, you might discover that Canada is a fully capable country with no need for some foreign authority.

I see, so you weren't posting your theory for comments, you were posting it for praise. From the pre-teen tone of your response I sense that you're disappointed with the result. So sorry.

I'm also sorry to tell you that a leader of a party with a majority of seats in the House who becomes PM would have no check to his power - and let's not call him a PM, as he no longer ministers anyone; he would essentially be President of Canada. Once in that position, with little opposition in the House, he would be able to do as he pleases, which includes ceasing elections, dismissing judges, imprisoning opposition... Well, just look to Pakistan or Venezuela. If you think that just because some of the House doesn't belong to a party they won't be swayed by an ambitious President, or form "parties" amongst themselves, then that would make me wonder who the crazy one is.

Quite contrary to your assertions, I know full well that the Governor General can oppose the will of his ministers, all of whom he appointed, because, you know, sometimes those ministers do want to act unconstitutionally and do things like limit the media or hold onto office when they don't have the support of the House. This has happened here, and elsewhere. It has also been necessary for the GG to select a PM in a hung parliament, a situation where in your system we'd be left without a government.

There's no need here to understand democracy - democracy is a flexible notion not written anywhere in law. What is necessary to understand here is a constitutional structure that protects our notion of democracy. As you propose we live under a completely unstable system that would open the door wide for a dictatorship to emerge, I can only assume you don't understand the constitution in the least. Words like "foreign figurehead" and "British ass" also shows your motives are tinged by an ignorant xenophobia as opposed to reality.

...by "kingpin" do you mean keystone? or are we talking Spiderman?

You figure it out.

[edited for spelling] g

Edited November 14, 2007 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

Another member of the flat earth society who thinks it understands everything. It is not necessary to learn how corrupt government is before change is called for. How many inquires will you want ? Canadian form of government is not a Canadian formula at all ; it is a British B.N.A.Act to govern its colony until 1931 and then the politicians assuming power for themselves.

A Canadian system of government is provided for by the Statute of Westminster , giving the people of Canada , and the provinces the right to form any arrangement they want. The federal government did what they wanted ; not what the people wanted.

Read the Quebec resolutions that the B.N.A.Act was to be based on; the provinces wanted to keep the exclusive power of income tax and all things of a personal matter.

IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY quote by bk 59

just some corrupt civil servant.

Good I like our system. We have very few scandals and the ones we do have pretty much always come to light.

The Federal Government is made up of people. Queen Slave is crazy.

[M.Dancer]

Good I like our system. We have very few scandals and the ones we do have pretty much always come to light.

The Federal Government is made up of people. Queen Slave is crazy.

How long did it take you to figure that out? I sniffed Freeman on the land material on its first post. The second clue was each and every new thread is nothing more than a continuation of the other threads OCD in spades.

[Michael Hardner]

K oud,

Mr Hardner the entire problem in today's society is that there is sooo much apathy with our very governance. Anyone who dismisses politics or our government as “not their business” has not been properly educated in how every choice the parliament makes effects your daily life.

That may be true, but what are you going to do about it ? Your solution has to take realities such as this into account.

The cause of apathy, the reason they get "turned off of politics" is disenfranchisement. If you re-enfranchise your population, make there voice heard and matter it will revitalize your citizens and your democracies.

In a mass society, we can't accommodate all of the voices. I don't see your system being much different from what we have now.

As for it being a "hunch" I am not proposing this as the be all end all. This is the start and we can modify and mold this model to, if you have a comment let it be on how to make this better or how it wont work based on its structure.

Your "start" is to institute 100% proportional representation in the lower house. That's a radical change, and would likely lead to more minority governments and more elections.

I don't think that such a change would excite a public that is apathetic about politics.

My comment on how to make this better, is to not adopt it - to keep with the current system that made Canada one of the best places to live, rather than throw the dice on a new system for no reason whatsoever.

[K Oud]

g_bambino

I will start with an apology if my words were too harsh for you. If a desire to reform our political structure so that it better represents the voice and values of Canadians is the tone of a pre-teen then the level of single minded, slack jawed conformity prevalent in those over 12 is much higher then I feared.

Again it seems as though you haven’t bothered to read my original post of the following response to your comments. Let me reiterate, the members of the P2s only job would be to in a non-partisan manner represent their constituents. If they fail to do so their constituents would cause a by-election and vote in a P2 member who would act more in their interest. If the PM is doing crazy things like dismissing judges P2 would put forward a vote of no confidence and vote him out of power. Another option is that if the Party to whom the power crazy PM belongs to feels he is off his rocker they could vote in a new leader (this of coarse would cause an election of the P1). As federal political parties are open to anyone any citizen could join a party and take part in a “check to the executive” from that end.

To compare Canada, its democratic history and tendencies to that of Pakistan or Venezuela would be like comparing a apple to a Volkswagen

“Quite contrary to my assertions” eh? I would like you to give me one example since 1982 where the GG used any of its powers without the support of the House of Commons, better yet give me one scenario where you feel it would be correct for the GG to do any of the following (witch are all with in her power)

Appoint a party other then the party who won the most seats the Government.

Dissolve the government without the request of the PM

Veto a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons.

I have a firm understanding our constitutional structure and clearly you do as well. The difference is that rather then seeing it written in unchangeable stone I look at our government and laws surrounding it as being flexible and capable of evolving along with the nation, its needs and its citizen’s values.

As for being xenophobic, I am far from it. I just don’t think that any other nation has any business with anything pertaining to Canadian sovereignty. Do you honestly believe otherwise? In fact wouldnt that a complete contradiction to the very definition of sovereignty?

Mr. Hardner

How dose this plan to help the Canadian public understand the importance of their own governance? By making their government more accessible and more responsive to them. This ties into you 2nd comment as well. This system is different because it gives our representatives the mandate to really listen to us and respond, in effect truly represent us in the government. Its true that not every single voice in such a diverse and complex society as Canada can be heard, but through polling, town halls meetings, door to door canvassing P2 members should be able to ascertain the values of the majority of there constituents and then vote accordingly.

Yes this would be a massive change, to clarify the “start” I was talking about was the “start” of a discussion on a possible evolution of Canadian Democracy. Canadian Democracy is sick, its not terminal yet, it still works and Canada is still a great place to live. But simply because we haven’t shot ourselves yet dose not mean we should keep the gun to our head.

[g_bambino]

g_bambino

I will start with an apology if my words were too harsh for you. If a desire to reform our political structure so that it better represents the voice and values of Canadians is the tone of a pre-teen then the level of single minded, slack jawed conformity prevalent in those over 12 is much higher then I feared.

Apology accepted; but, your veil of concern for the common man does little to cover your bad attitude.

Let me reiterate, the members of the P2s only job would be to in a non-partisan manner represent their constituents. If they fail to do so their constituents would cause a by-election and vote in a P2 member who would act more in their interest.

If the PM is doing crazy things like dismissing judges P2 would put forward a vote of no confidence and vote him out of power. Another option is that if the Party to whom the power crazy PM belongs to feels he is off his rocker they could vote in a new leader (this of coarse would cause an election of the P1). As federal political parties are open to anyone any citizen could join a party and take part in a “check to the executive” from that end.

No need to reiterate your points; I read them. But perhaps I need to reiterate mine: What is in place to stop the P2s forming into groups to help work towards a commonly desired outcome? Indeed, as there's no Governor General any more, who would call the by-elections to get these cohorts immediately out of their seats? The citizens don't have the authority to call an election, so who does? The President? Well, what if that cohort of P2s has been bribed or threatened into supporting the President? As the President has the support of his party, why would they vote him out as leader? I'm sure his firing judges and imprisoning the opposition would bring great benefits to his fellow party MPs.

As I said, you open the door wide for a dictatorship.

To compare Canada, its democratic history and tendencies to that of Pakistan or Venezuela would be like comparing a apple to a Volkswagen.

Your system has nothing to do with Canada's democratic history, so it's quite easy to compare it to that of other banana republics.

I would like you to give me one example since 1982 where the GG used any of its powers without the support of the House of Commons, better yet give me one scenario where you feel it would be correct for the GG to do any of the following (witch are all with in her power).

Appoint a party other then the party who won the most seats the Government.

Dissolve the government without the request of the PM

Veto a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons.

Why since '82?

1) If the party of the government is in a minority situation and has lost the confidence of the House but the Prime Minsiter insists on continuing to govern.

2) If the actions of parliament are thwarting the functioning of government

3) If the bill is unconstitutional

There are almost countless instances where a Governor General would have to step in to ensure governance continues steadily; the necessity of the support of the HoC depends entirely on the situation.

I have a firm understanding our constitutional structure and clearly you do as well. The difference is that rather then seeing it written in unchangeable stone I look at our government and laws surrounding it as being flexible and capable of evolving along with the nation, its needs and its citizen’s values.

Certainly, but the system we have isn't written in stone; this is not the United States. What we have is a mixture of statute law and convention, and thus it's built to flex; that's one of its best assets and the reason it has existed continuously, in constant evolution, for the last 350 years. That doesn't, however, affirm that its necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As for being xenophobic, I am far from it. I just don’t think that any other nation has any business with anything pertaining to Canadian sovereignty. Do you honestly believe otherwise? In fact wouldnt that a complete contradiction to the very definition of sovereignty?

No, I don't believe otherwise, but I am perplexed by the reason for the question. Do you somehow believe Canada to still be subordinate to some foreign power, and therefore not sovereign?

Edited November 14, 2007 by g_bambino

[Higgly]

I love the sound of the Oud, but I have a lot of trouble with a thread that starts with a post that says you are using a "#" because you haven't done the math yet.

Do your homework. Please.

[K Oud]

Apology accepted; but, your veil of concern for the common man does little to cover your bad attitude.

ZING!

No need to reiterate your points; I read them. But perhaps I need to reiterate mine: What is in place to stop the P2s forming into groups to help work towards a commonly desired outcome? Indeed, as there's no Governor General any more, who would call the by-elections to get these cohorts immediately out of their seats? The citizens don't have the authority to call an election, so who does? The President? Well, what if that cohort of P2s has been bribed or threatened into supporting the President? As the President has the support of his party, why would they vote him out as leader? I'm sure his firing judges and imprisoning the opposition would bring great benefits to his fellow party MPs.

As I said, you open the door wide for a dictatorship.

The citizens do hold the power to force a by-election. That is stated in my first post.

This form of government is no more susceptible to a dictatorship then the current one. I don’t know what you think the GG can do? If a PM actually went bat crazy and took over the country do you think the GG would turn into the Incredible Hulk, bust in and spank the PM? If the PM has garnered enough support to actually declare a dictatorship then the least of there worries would be the ceremonial figurehead of our colonial past.

Your system has nothing to do with Canada's democratic history, so it's quite easy to compare it to that of other banana republics.

This system has everything to do with Canada’s democratic history. Our history of having a democracy at all. Our history of peacefully changing how we are governed.

Why since '82?

1) If the party of the government is in a minority situation and has lost the confidence of the House but the Prime Minsiter insists on continuing to govern.

2) If the actions of parliament are thwarting the functioning of government

3) If the bill is unconstitutional

There are almost countless instances where a Governor General would have to step in to ensure governance continues steadily; the necessity of the support of the HoC depends entirely on the situation.

I don’t know why ’82 I was just shooting.

1) Again if a minority government refused to dissolve now, even after the GG insisted they do so. What is she going to do? The Incredible GG Hulk? It’s all semantics at this point. If you need someone whose official job it is then fine in this new form of government we will estate the “Official Government Dissolver” who has express powers to dissolve the government and whose authority is absolute in that regard. Is that any better??

2) Again no need for a GG a simple vote of no confidence will collapse the government.

3) if a bill is past by our elected representatives (representing our values) that is not constitutional then maybe we should be looking at why or how our values have changed and how the constitution may be out of date at this point. Regardless there is no need for the GG the courts would strike down anything unconstitutional.

If there are countless instances . . . name one? In the last 20 years?

Certainly, but the system we have isn't written in stone; this is not the United States. What we have is a mixture of statute law and convention, and thus it's built to flex; that's one of its best assets and the reason it has existed continuously, in constant evolution, for the last 350 years. That doesn't, however, affirm that its necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What we have now is not fully representing the wishes of the people of Canada or giving them enough access to their own government. What I am say is, lets use some of that flex to built a system that still operates but addresses those issues.

No, I don't believe otherwise, but I am perplexed by the reason for the question. Do you somehow believe Canada to still be subordinate to some foreign power, and therefore not sovereign?

You take the powers the GG holds so seriously even though they would never be used. But if you are going to take the GG’s powers at face value then the face value of the entire position is that they are representing someone who is not Canadian and who for some reason people believe should still have power over us. You cant have one and not the other.

[K Oud]

I love the sound of the Oud, but I have a lot of trouble with a thread that starts with a post that says you are using a "#" because you haven't done the math yet.

Do your homework. Please.

Sorry maybe I should expand.

I have not of yet come to a consensus of to what the best totally or percentages would be the most democratic. eg. I was thinking you would need at least 3% poplar vote to get a "seat" in the P1.

It is not that I haven’t done my "homework" these points are open to discussion, in fact let me know what you think they should be

[g_bambino]

The citizens do hold the power to force a by-election.

How?

I don’t know what you think the GG can do? If a PM actually went bat crazy and took over the country do you think the GG would turn into the Incredible Hulk, bust in and spank the PM?

No, he would just fire the PM. Pure and simple. That may not stop the former-PM from trying to gain absolute power, but any move he then made to do so would be illegal and thus illegitimate. That would be called a coup.

This system has everything to do with Canada’s democratic history. Our history of having a democracy at all. Our history of peacefully changing how we are governed.

And our democratic history has formed under a Westminster parliamentary system in a framework of constitutional monarchy. What you propose has nothing to do with that, and puts democratic government at real risk of being strangled by one opportunistic leader; a peaceful democratic history isn't going to stop that.

1) Again if a minority government refused to dissolve now, even after the GG insisted they do so. What is she going to do?

Again, they'd be illegitimate and, after the GG dismissed them, not the actual government of Canada. Whomever could command the House would then be called to form a government, and/or the GG could simply call an election.

If you need someone whose official job it is then fine in this new form of government we will estate the “Official Government Dissolver” who has express powers to dissolve the government and whose authority is absolute in that regard.

Authority granted by whom?

2) Again no need for a GG a simple vote of no confidence will collapse the government.

Not necessarily.

3) if a bill is past by our elected representatives (representing our values) that is not constitutional then maybe we should be looking at why or how our values have changed and how the constitution may be out of date at this point. Regardless there is no need for the GG the courts would strike down anything unconstitutional.

Who currently appoints the judges of the courts?

If there are countless instances . . . name one? In the last 20 years?

I didn't say there had been (thank god), I said there are countless possibilities. Anything could happen.

What we have now is not fully representing the wishes of the people of Canada or giving them enough access to their own government. What I am say is, lets use some of that flex to built a system that still operates but addresses those issues.

Okay.

You take the powers the GG holds so seriously even though they would never be used. But if you are going to take the GG’s powers at face value then the face value of the entire position is that they are representing someone who is not Canadian and who for some reason people believe should still have power over us. You cant have one and not the other.

The GG uses his constitutional powers every day; what you're talking about is using them without ministerial advice. Well, why would we want him to do so? The only reason for that to happen would be in some governmental crisis. As I said, the fact that it hasn't been necessary for the GG to act unilaterally in over 70 years shows that something's working right.

I don't understand your last point. Who is not Canadian?

[M.Dancer]

I don't understand your last point. Who is not Canadian?

iI think he is refering to the woman who speaks both official languages perfectly (La Reine's Francais?) and who's son went to school in Ontario.

[K Oud]

As stated above “Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population.”

One moment you are talking about the PM becoming a dictator and then the next you say the GG would fire him and have new elections pure and "simple".

I don’t know if you have ever done any reading on how dictatorships start but they don’t happen if you don’t have the undivided support of the Military. If the PM is about to become a Dictator and has the support of the military it will be anything but “simple” to fire him. And that brings me to another point, the reason Canada has not succumbed to dictatorship is not because it has a snappy electoral and parliament system. It is because our population is well educated and that we have a large and well established middle class. Before we had a middle class, before the majority of our population was highly educated the Westminster system worked well . . . but that was two hundred years ago! I am glad you agree with me that it might be time to use a little flex and “evolve” into a new system.

As should be apparent I am advocating transferring more power to the people of Canada, making them the check to the executive. Since we have cleared that up, do you have any other issues?

iI think he is refering to the woman who speaks both official languages perfectly (La Reine's Francais?) and who's son went to school in Ontario.

Mr. Dancer I did not say the GG was not a Canadian, i said that she represents and is sub-servent to a none-Canadian citizen, the Queen.

[M.Dancer]

Mr. Dancer I did not say the GG was not a Canadian, i said that she represents and is sub-servent to a none-Canadian citizen, the Queen.

I know you didn't say that and I stated as much. The woman who speaks both official languages and whose son went to school in Ontario.

Do I need to draw a picture?

[K Oud]

Ahh my bad, my point still stays the same.

Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? no.?

[M.Dancer]

Ahh my bad, my point still stays the same.

Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? no.?

And your point is irrelevent.

[g_bambino]

As stated above “Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population.”

Who verifies this petition and who calls the election? How do the citizens know these P2s are acting covertly before its too late?

One moment you are talking about the PM becoming a dictator and then the next you say the GG would fire him and have new elections pure and "simple".

I don’t know if you have ever done any reading on how dictatorships start but they don’t happen if you don’t have the undivided support of the Military. If the PM is about to become a Dictator and has the support of the military it will be anything but “simple” to fire him.

Sorry, what? I said the GG prevents the PM from simply declaring himself a dictator. If he tried to do so, he would most likely be dismissed. Once out of office the PM is no longer the PM, and if that person continues to attempt to usurp power from the Crown then he would be doing so without legitimacy under the law.

Similarly, the military owes its allegiance to the Queen, not the PM. Thus, military members who supported anyone - whether sitting PM, ex-PM, or candlestick maker - who was attempting to take absolute power away from the sovereign would also be acting illegally.

The system, of course, is not infallible. If that person has enough backing, then they can forcefully take control like a thug; whether that new government would be internationally recognized over the original one is another matter. But the sovereign's, and thus the viceroy's, main responsibility is to ensure the continuum of governance, as stably as possible, however that end comes about, depending on the circumstances.

In your scenario, though, a sitting president wouldn't even need the backing of the military (though, who would the military take command from and owe allegiance to?). With no crown to hold power out of his grasp, he could simply become dictator through legal means.

…the reason Canada has not succumbed to dictatorship is not because it has a snappy electoral and parliament system. It is because our population is well educated and that we have a large and well established middle class.

Not only do you insult the intelligence of the people of those countries have succumbed to dictatorship, you also don't give our constitutional framework enough credit. An educated middle class could not stop someone from seizing control of absolute power. Knowledgeable people can protest such a move, but once that person is in control, and can arrest and punish opponents, the middle class will not matter much. Besides, by that point, the damage is done.

As should be apparent I am advocating transferring more power to the people of Canada, making them the check to the executive.

The people can't do it collectively, that's why they assign someone to do it for them: the Queen. She's impartial, she works for free, was trained from birth to do her job, will never retire, and she listens to the people of Canada. Simply flick her away and someone who is much more partisan and self-interested will quickly take her place.

the GG... represents and is sub-servent to a none-Canadian citizen, the Queen.

Why would the Queen grant herself citizenship? And just because she isn't a citizen she's foreign? Your understanding of constitutional monarchy is evidently worse than I thought.

Edited November 15, 2007 by g_bambino

[Riverwind]

Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? no.?

The Queen is in a unique position - she is not even a citizen of the UK. Edited November 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

The Queen is in a unique position - she is not even a citizen of the UK.

Exactly.

[Michael Hardner]

But simply because we haven’t shot ourselves yet dose not mean we should keep the gun to our head.

K,

We're perfectly healthy, so I submit that we shouldn't shoot ourselves at all.