The Senate

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the Clarity Act addressed this issue. The harsh reality is that politicians fear the power of the public and the democratic rights of the individual because it directly affects the ability of the government to act on its own authority. It takes power from the government and gives it to the people, where it truly belongs. Political power and wealth are the purview of the most affluent in society and any form of direct democracy detracts from that authority vested in government.

[punked]

The biggest stumbling blocks to constitutional reform by referendum are that it doesn't address the issue of complexity/clarity and it doesn't seem to be the way we've agreed to do amendments to the constitution.

If you made the referendum question specific to the actual question, the only people who could understand it ad how it would affect would be constitutional scholars. For example, if we put a question to the public "Shall we add to s.92 a 17th clause stating "All provinces shall have absolute interjurisdictional immunity in all of their areas of authority under the constitution.", unless you happen to know what that means, the bulk of the voters will go "Um...no? Yes? Maybe?". As well, if we're talking about a large amendment, the individual ballots will be 95 pages long.

On the other hand, if you allow them absolute freedom on drafting the referendum question, you'd see questions like "Do you support motherhood, freedom and democracy?", and it turns out the amendment is actually an amendment ordering the internment of all British Columbians and Albertans.

Finally, you'd have to amend the amending formula to do that. Kind of a paradox, isn't it?

Why they do this is the states all the time. Let's look at the biggest example from this year. Prop 8 in Cali. It read

The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I of the Constitution, which reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

That seems simple to me why could we not make an easy question to answer.

My favourite however of this election was I-155 in Montana. Which in a Red state created a Kids health insurance and was passed by 70%.

I mean honestly if you have a Referendum the first one in a really really long time and only the 4th one in history people will understand it no matter the language. It will be on the evening news, there will be a pro and con side and door knockers and so on. Can we give our country some credit please.

[Smallc]

Why they do this is the states all the time. Let's look at the biggest example from this year. Prop 8 in Cali. It read

The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I of the Constitution, which reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

Funny you should mention that. Its being overturned.

[punked]

Funny you should mention that. Its being overturned.

Good I am Glade, however that does not mean you can not have a vote on something which is simple and clear cut that people can understand.

[Smallc]

Good I am Glade, however that does not mean you can not have a vote on something which is simple and clear cut that people can understand.

I agree on both points. Where the problem arises is deciding what options to give people. There are many things we could do. Perhaps the first step would simply be to ask them if they want reform at all.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would think that it is up to the people what options to give the government. They don't own us, we OWN them, they are bought and paid for with OUR tax dollars.

[Smallc]

I would think that it is up to the people what options to give the government. They don't own us, we OWN them, they are bought and paid for with OUR tax dollars.

If you don't ask a question, you can't get an answer. When voting, the people need clear guidance, or we end up nowhere.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you don't ask a question, you can't get an answer. When voting, the people need clear guidance, or we end up nowhere.

Our Constitution is ass backwards on this issue. We have the government determining what is right and wrong instead of the people making that determination for themselves.

Let me put this into a set of points for you to ponder;

The Constitution of Canada 1982 was ratified by Provincial Legislatures, but not by the people directly.

There is no such thing as a citizen initiated referendum in this nation.

I think that given a choice, citizens would prefer to elect a specific leader

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer to participate in the political process by being able to vote on or ratify legislation

I think that given a choice citizens would like to see fixed election dates, term limits to public office, and some form of electoral recall

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer a triple "E" Senate

In my opinion the Canadian public is fully capable of making personal choices.

[Smallc]

In my opinion the Canadian public is fully capable of making personal choices.

Fortunately, your opinion is not cause to change the constitution.

[Boydfish]

I mean honestly if you have a Referendum the first one in a really really long time and only the 4th one in history people will understand it no matter the language. It will be on the evening news, there will be a pro and con side and door knockers and so on. Can we give our country some credit please.

I'm not sure you understand the elastic nature of our constitution based on that statement. The recent events in Ottawa over the proposed coalition and the public's general blank stare over the issues kinda showed that no, we don't generally understand the issues. Part of the problem is that constitutional law is not definiative, it's not clear, it's generally unsettled law and the people who can make a credible claim as to actually understanding the entire constitutional body of law can fit in a small room(Worse, they agree on little with each other). I wouldn't be invited into that small room either, if it's any consolation.

If we make an amendment, it needs to be rock solid clear with no wiggle room for the policy agenda of the SCC in making it's interpretations of case law. To further hammer the point home, the last major amendment to the constitution happened in 1982. And we're still sorting out the impacts of that in case law.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fortunately, your opinion is not cause to change the constitution.

Lucky for you it is not!

Allowing Quebec to invoke the notwithstanding clause for the language law Bill 101, when they were not even a signatory to the damned document was a farce that made me laugh for days! The great Constitution you cite has contained within it an obligation for elected members to swear allegiance to the nation, something the Bloc has refused to do, and they get away with it because of folks like you!

That document took away our right to own property!

Yes I am a bad man for wanting to change such an honourable document.

[fellowtraveller]

The great Constitution you cite has contained within it an obligation for elected members to swear allegiance to the nation, something the Bloc has refused to do, and they get away with it because of folks like you!

Untrue. All MPs and senators and others are required to swear this oath:

I, ……………, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

That includes Bloc MPs who are required to take this oath and do just that.

[Smallc]

Lucky for you it is not!

Allowing Quebec to invoke the notwithstanding clause for the language law Bill 101, when they were not even a signatory to the damned document was a farce that made me laugh for days!

Quebec did sign the Constitution. They didn't sign the act of 1982. The signing would have been completely symbolic, as any amendments to the original 1867 act (which the 1982 act is) apply to all original signatories.

[Boydfish]

The Constitution of Canada 1982 was ratified by Provincial Legislatures, but not by the people directly.

Nor were several provinces allowed to hold referendums on joining confederation. In fact, BC didn't have an official referendum on the subject and the closest we came to having one was an election where the pro-Confederation party was soundly and totally defeated.

There is no such thing as a citizen initiated referendum in this nation.

There is also no such thing as reference questions by the sovereign governments to the general appeal courts in other countries. We do things differently here. Just because people elsewhere do things differently doesn't make it better.

I think that given a choice, citizens would prefer to elect a specific leader.

They already do. The fact is that people vote on party lines, not for their specific candidate.

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer to participate in the political process by being able to vote on or ratify legislation.

We don't like voting every 18 months. What makes you think we're going to vote every 18 days?

I think that given a choice citizens would like to see fixed election dates, term limits to public office, and some form of electoral recall.

a) The overwhelming majority of voters are indifferent to election dates. We don't plan our lives around them.

B ) Term limits have some merit, but are hard to integrate into our Parliamentary system of government. For example, does the term limit apply to cabinet positions? Or just the PM? Or even just for the MP positions? Because if the last two were the case, Trudeau would have topped out as Justice Minister. That would be a very compelling argument west of the Great Lakes for it, but in Upper and Lower Canada, it would make them hate the idea.

c) It's been shown that those kinds of initiatives often turn into political footballs or are drafted too complexly to be workable. It's a nice idea on paper, but so is communism.

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer a triple "E" Senate

Sure. Just figure out a way to convince Quebec and Ontario that they should give up the drivers seat and it'll fly.

In my opinion the Canadian public is fully capable of making personal choices.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter.

-W.Churchill.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Boydfish

[Progressive Tory]

Our Constitution is ass backwards on this issue. We have the government determining what is right and wrong instead of the people making that determination for themselves.

Let me put this into a set of points for you to ponder;

The Constitution of Canada 1982 was ratified by Provincial Legislatures, but not by the people directly.

There is no such thing as a citizen initiated referendum in this nation.

I think that given a choice, citizens would prefer to elect a specific leader

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer to participate in the political process by being able to vote on or ratify legislation

I think that given a choice citizens would like to see fixed election dates, term limits to public office, and some form of electoral recall

I think that given a choice citizens would prefer a triple "E" Senate

In my opinion the Canadian public is fully capable of making personal choices.

[Progressive Tory]

I agree in principle. I believe that the Senate is necessary to prevent one Party or one leader from making decisions that would not be in our best interest. However, I also agree that we need Senate Reform.

I like the idea that the Provinces select or elect the Senators, based on population, but feel that they need to represent all parties. There is some speculation that Harper filled the 18 seats to avoid NDP or Green representation, should the Coalition take power. This is Democracy at it's worst. Three and half million Canadians cast their votes for NDP/Green. They should have members in the Senate.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper won fair and square and can appoint who he wishes just as every PM has done before him. It is his democratic right. If Harper had made the appointments as soon as they came up we wouldn't be talking about this.

This is just more left wing fodder where anyone who doesn't give in to their plan to push their agenda over all of society is labeled. Nothing more. And they call the right fascist...lol.

[Progressive Tory]

Harper won fair and square and can appoint who he wishes just as every PM has done before him. It is his democratic right. If Harper had made the appointments as soon as they came up we wouldn't be talking about this.

This is just more left wing fodder where anyone who doesn't give in to their plan to push their agenda over all of society is labeled. Nothing more. And they call the right fascist...lol.

I'm not Left wing, but Centre (and on some issues, just right of centre). In Canada, right or wrong, we don't elect Prime Ministers, we elect Members of Parliament. Had the Conservatives won the majority of seats, he would have been free to what he wanted, more or less. However, Democracy means the will of the Majority. He lost the confidence of the Majority and with a non-confidence vote on the table, he really has NO authority.

I will be voting Liberal next election only because Michael Ignatieff best represents my political views. If the Conservatives have a new leader, like say Jim Prentice; I may return to voting Conservative. Stephen Harper had his best chance last election, but blew it. I no longer have any faith that he can deliver on promises.

My point still stands however, that the Senate should represent the Canadian people with proportional representation from all provinces and all political stripes. Don't really care about how long they sit, though 12 years sounds fine.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We do not elect a Prime Minister, the partisan factions elect leaders and the partisan faction with the most seats forms a government. To say that we elect a leader is simply false, the citizens of Canada do not get to pick who gets that job.

The Government of Canada has three different functions as designed by our constitution. The House of Commons is elected and is where a government is chosen from. It is populated with representatives based on a formula of X numbers of citizens per seat. The Senate of Canada is made up of appointed representatives chosen by a Prime Minister based not on population but on five regions within confederation. Three of those regions are actually provinces, and the two other regions contain four provinces and three provinces respectively. It is supposed to reflect a regional conglomeration of representatives. The third and final function within the political system is the Governor General which is another appointed position. So you can see that two of the three separate identities of government are appointed, not elected. Finally it becomes clear that the design of government is the concentration of power and authority in unelected positions.

The Prime Minister is not elected as such, they are only elected as representatives from their own constituency. The Senate is not elected, and neither is the Governor General. Understanding this can anyone even conceive of a government in this nation that is not subject to manipulation? Our system supports and promotes patronage in the extreme. At every step the will of the people is subverted to a degree that is hard to believe. Even so we have been lead to believe and even trained to accept our system as democratic.

These are the reasons that I decided to become a separatist. The country is as poorly designed, as it is poorly administered. Ministers in charge of huge bureaucracies are partisan appointments of the Prime Minister that are not based on anything other than patronage. These ministers makeup an inner cabinet where all power is concentrated and decisions are made behind closed doors far from the ears of the public. They are not designed to solve problems but instead to act as a funnel to facilitate even more patronage appointments. Virtually all of the top bureaucrats are appointed by the government with a very partisan slant. In my mind this constitutes a form of corruption that is so insidious that it has permeated the entire structure and form of government.

I do believe that the greatest political document of all time was the Declaration of Independence written by our southern friends. "We the people", that is the basis of their political model. It speaks volumes about who the true power of government is vested in. Yet even those southern friends failed to achieve their desired goals in formulating a government, but they came damn close. The most advanced method yet devised of democratic government is the Swiss version of direct democracy. It comes even closer to what I believe is a fully functional system of governance. Yet even it has its drawbacks. While I have concluded in my own mind that there is no such thing as a perfect system, this system of ours is firmly fixed in my mind as a failed and non-functional system.

To end this little rant, let me state that Senate reform is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of things that need fixing in this nation.

[Wild Bill]

I agree in principle. I believe that the Senate is necessary to prevent one Party or one leader from making decisions that would not be in our best interest. However, I also agree that we need Senate Reform.

I like the idea that the Provinces select or elect the Senators, based on population, but feel that they need to represent all parties. There is some speculation that Harper filled the 18 seats to avoid NDP or Green representation, should the Coalition take power. This is Democracy at it's worst. Three and half million Canadians cast their votes for NDP/Green. They should have members in the Senate.

And if the coalition took over how many Tory Senators would have been appointed? Don't forget, after all those years of Liberal rule there are only about 20 Conservative Senators left! The Liberals have overwhelmingly stacked the Senate in their favour.

If you like the idea of represention so much, why not simply elect Senators? That way no one would need some stretched out convoluted argument that if we voted in Liberals then we are also supporting them as our proxies to pick our Senators for us.

As for NDP or Green representation, the NDP want nothing to do with the Senate other than to abolish it. That's their own stated policy. And as for the Greens, shouldn't a party be expected to win at least one seat in the Commons before they should arbitrarily given a Senator?

So many of these arguments seem to me to be just a smoke screen for an elitist agenda to avoid letting Canadians directly make their own choices.

[Boydfish]

My point still stands however, that the Senate should represent the Canadian people with proportional representation from all provinces and all political stripes.

I'm not clear what you mean by proportional representation.

If you're suggesting that the seat distribution be done by proportion of population, that simply duplicates what the House of Commons is supposed to be. I know that it isn't due to the adjustments to seat distribution that artifically keeps certain provinces over-represented, but what's the point of two houses set up the same way?

If you're suggesting that in the sense of the electoral format, where people with unpopular views are given undue political power, I'd also disagree with you. Just because a person votes for somebody that ultimately isn't elected doesn't mean that they aren't represented or their vote is "wasted" as the rhetoric often suggests. The person still has an MP and they represent them.

[ToadBrother]

If you're suggesting that in the sense of the electoral format, where people with unpopular views are given undue political power, I'd also disagree with you. Just because a person votes for somebody that ultimately isn't elected doesn't mean that they aren't represented or their vote is "wasted" as the rhetoric often suggests. The person still has an MP and they represent them.

Certain proportional representation formulas might lead to that, but the whole point of proportional representation is to make the makeup of legislature more in line with the actual makeup of the vote. Depending on the formula, like STV that is being considered in BC, you wouldn't see much alteration in the potential for majority governments, but a party that, say, got 15% of the vote, would at least get some seats, reflecting more truly the will of the voters. It would also reduce the effects of vote splitting to some degree, and might discourage strategic voting.

[Boydfish]

Certain proportional representation formulas might lead to that, but the whole point of proportional representation is to make the makeup of legislature more in line with the actual makeup of the vote.

But the actual make up of the vote is reflected in our system. If we stop and realize that we don't have one transprovincial, confederation wide election, but rather over 300 individual elections, it helps make it clear. I like the fact that merely being a member of the lunatic fringe does not qualify you for seats in the government house. That may sound cold, but until a particular point of view is widespread enough to be the largest in at least one community, it's perfectly democratic to not give it much power in government.

Depending on the formula, like STV that is being considered in BC, you wouldn't see much alteration in the potential for majority governments, but a party that, say, got 15% of the vote, would at least get some seats, reflecting more truly the will of the voters.

I dislike the STV system that was proposed. It is too complex and far too easy to be misunderstood by voters. Worse, it allows candidates to avoid personal local accountability in large ridings. Even worse, it virtually thwarts the idea of democracy by allowing parties in urban centres to move votes from areas where they are assured to have large turn out in their favour to areas where they wouldn't have so much support.

It would also reduce the effects of vote splitting to some degree, and might discourage strategic voting.

Vote splitting is the best facet of our democratic system. If a person, or more accurately a party, is so unwilling to adopt policies that appeal broadly, then they have no business holding office. I don't want limited issue zealots like Layton anywhere near the levers of power because of their intolerance of others and their ideas. Until he grows up and becomes able to accept the point of view of others(Eg.Dosanjh, Rae), the fact that his party hives off into vote split nightmares is a good thing.

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't want limited issue zealots like Layton anywhere near the levers of power because of their intolerance of others and their ideas. Until he grows up and becomes able to accept the point of view of others(Eg.Dosanjh, Rae), the fact that his party hives off into vote split nightmares is a good thing.

Ever visit reality? Layton IS able to cooperate with others as was shown in his ability to put together a coalition of three different parties with different ideas. It is HArper that cannot compromise, or cooperate, and I certainly hope the Liberals give him the boot at the first opportunity.

[g_bambino]

No you see Layton as PM would not appoint members to the Senate if all PM's did this the Senate would die out to a point where every province would have to agree to do something to have representation of some sort. Although Harper does not have the spine to do this. It takes all parties to agree on this.

The Constitution Act 1867 instructs the Governor General to appoint senators:

IV.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

IV.32 When a Vacancy happens in the Senate by Resignation, Death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by Summons to a fit and qualified Person fill the Vacancy.

If the Prime Minister did not advise the viceroy on whom to appoint, a constitutional crisis would arise wherein the Governor General would have to make appointments without ministerial advice. Not a good idea.

_{[ed. to add clause]}

Edited December 29, 2008 by g_bambino