Canadians Ready to Open Consitution

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Date: Thursday May. 26, 2011 9:12 PM ET

OTTAWA - Canadians have overcome their aversion to tinkering with the country's constitution, a new poll suggests.

After almost two decades of constitutional peace, The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates a majority is now willing to risk re-opening the constitutional can of worms to accomplish some specific goals.

For instance, 61 per cent said they're prepared to re-open the Constitution to reform or abolish the appointed Senate.

And 58 per cent said they're willing to offer constitutional amendments in a bid to finally secure Quebec's signature on the Constitution.

Fifty-eight per cent also said they're willing to open up the Constitution to change the country's electoral system.

The apparent readiness to engage in constitutional wrangling is in stark contrast to the visceral antipathy to all things constitutional that followed the demise of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords in 1990 and 1992.

Those agreements, aimed at meeting Quebec's constitutional conditions, ended up bitterly dividing the country. Their failures were followed by a spike in separatist sentiment in the province, which came within a whisker of voting to secede during a 1995 referendum.

"I'm pretty sure that this level of comfort with the idea of opening up the Constitution to make any sort of change, this is evidence that there's no longer nearly as much fear about what that process actually entails," said Doug Anderson, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima.

While the poll suggests Canadians are ready to engage in specific constitutional reforms, the Meech and Charlottetown experiences proved it's well-nigh impossible to confine negotiations to only certain subjects. Once opened, those negotiations quickly became a swamp of conflicting demands from provinces and various interest groups.

"Maybe all we need is another round of constitutional hearings or negotiations to remember that, oh yes, this is trickier than we think," Anderson said.

Since the demise of Meech and Charlottetown, most politicians have avoided like the plague any suggestion of re-opening the Constitution. But in the recent federal election campaign, NDP Leader Jack Layton broached the idea of once again trying to satisfy Quebec's constitutional demands, although he stressed that wasn't an immediate priority.

His controversial suggestion appeared to boost NDP support in Quebec and did not seem to hurt the party's fortunes elsewhere. The NDP swept Quebec and scored a strong second-place finish overall for the first time in its history.

The poll probed the kinds of democratic reforms Canadians would like to see, some of which could be accomplished without amending the Constitution.

Only 10 per cent said they want the Senate to remain an appointed chamber. Thirty-nine per cent favoured an elected Senate, 20 per cent said senators should continue to be appointed but subject to term limits and another 20 per cent wanted the upper house abolished altogether.

The poll was conducted May 12-15, before Prime Minister Stephen Harper prompted outrage by appointing three defeated Conservative candidates to the Senate. Anderson said the appointments may well have increased the desire for reform.

With respect to the country's first-past-the-post electoral system, 34 per cent said they prefer the status quo, compared to 32 per cent who preferred a system of proportional representation and 24 per cent who chose a preferential ballot process.

Almost three-quarters of respondents (72 per cent) supported the idea of voting directly for the prime minister, much the way Americans directly vote for their president.

Respondents were effectively evenly split on whether voting should be mandatory (50 per cent opposed, 47 per cent in favour) and on whether Canadians should be allowed to vote by phone or over the Internet (50 per cent in favour, 47 per cent opposed).

The telephone poll of just over 1,000 Canadians is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110526/canadians-ready-to-reopen-constitution-110526/

Highlights

• 61 per cent are prepared to re-open the Constitution to reform or abolish the appointed Senate.
  
• 58 per cent are willing to offer constitutional amendments in a bid to finally secure Quebec's signature on the Constitution.
  
• 58 per cent are willing to open up the Constitution to change the country's electoral system.
  
• 72 per cent want to be able to vote directly for prime minister.
  

Edited May 27, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[g_bambino]

* 72 per cent want to be able to vote directly for prime minister.

And that, alone, illustrates why the results of such polls shouldn't be given any serious attention.

[TimG]

And that, alone, illustrates why the results of such polls shouldn't be given any serious attention.

It is easy to support something in abstract when you think you would get everything you want and nothing you don't want. Support will evaporate when a package is on the table and people see that a "deal" that satisfies all sides is impossible,

[eyeball]

Screw what the voters think. Pander to it but screw it nonetheless.

[scouterjim]

First new amendment: Abolish the monarchy in Canada!!

[Dave_ON]

First new amendment: Abolish the monarchy in Canada!!

Give me an actual, well thought out plan on how we will replace it and I'll listen.

[g_bambino]

First new amendment: Abolish the monarchy in Canada!!

Better yet: Abolish brainless slogans!!

[g_bambino]

It is easy to support something in abstract when you think you would get everything you want and nothing you don't want. Support will evaporate when a package is on the table and people see that a "deal" that satisfies all sides is impossible,

That's pretty well it.

[Dave_ON]

I think this sums up the situation rather well.

While the poll suggests Canadians are ready to engage in specific constitutional reforms, the Meech and Charlottetown experiences proved it's well-nigh impossible to confine negotiations to only certain subjects. Once opened, those negotiations quickly became a swamp of conflicting demands from provinces and various interest groups.

"Maybe all we need is another round of constitutional hearings or negotiations to remember that, oh yes, this is trickier than we think," Anderson said.

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.

[RNG]

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.

Exactly. Talk about opening up a can of worms. I suspect that Quebec's demands would infuriate much of the ROC, and lack of understanding of the Quebec POV by the ROC would infuriate them and we will end up in Meech territory again.

[eyeball]

The desire for change or reform will not go away. Left unachieved in Ottawa I expect the drift towards regionalism and greater autonomy thereof to continue.

If change within the musty old existing framework is impossible then that leaves the field wide open for newer fresher frameworks.

Bring them on, out with the old and in with the new.

[scouterjim]

Give me an actual, well thought out plan on how we will replace it and I'll listen.

Simple. We replace it with an elected president and vice president. We elect the Senate as well. It would take only an act of parliament to abolish the monarchy. How do you think all those other nations did so?

[Dave_ON]

Simple. We replace it with an elected president and vice president. We elect the Senate as well. It would take only an act of parliament to abolish the monarchy. How do you think all those other nations did so?

I'm afraid an act of parliament is utterly incapable of unilaterally altering the constitution. The senate must also pass such a motion and in terms of the monarchy it is likely we would need the 7/10 50% pop rule. to make a fundamental alteration to the constitution. Why must the executive, as it exists in Canada be elected? How does it benefit us to politicize the head of state? Why do we need a vice president, what purpose would that serve? Are you simply attempting to copy and paste the US executive into the parliamentary system? History has proven on many occasions that such botch jobs, result in more harm than good.

[CPCFTW]

Hmmmm where have I seen that 60% number before? Oh yeah, that's the number of losers of the last election. Coincidence? People don't like the results so now they want to change the rules.

My hockey team sucked this year, I want hockey reform. The bottom 5 teams should get all the picks in the first round!! Actually no.. I forgot I'm not a whiner and sore loser.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Hmmmm where have I seen that 60% number before? Oh yeah, that's the number of losers of the last election. Coincidence? People don't like the results so now they want to change the rules.

At least you are consistent and predictable.

Surely conservatives don't believe in electoral reform. They'd never consider it. They don't think for themselves, right?

Edited May 28, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[RNG]

At least you are consistent and predictable.

Surely conservatives don't believe in electoral reform. They'd never consider it. They don't think for themselves, right?

What kind of convoluted and perverted thought processes led to that verbal diarrhea?

[Guest Derek L]

What kind of convoluted and perverted thought processes led to that verbal diarrhea?

I think it's the mantra of the typical champagne, limousine liberal.

Those that claim Conservatives are archaic and can't think for themselves, yet also control Big Business, Oil and the military etc, always give me a laugh.....You got ask, if us knuckle draggers are doing this, what are they doing wrong and what does it say of their level of intelligence

[Remiel]

Hmmmm where have I seen that 60% number before? Oh yeah, that's the number of losers of the last election. Coincidence? People don't like the results so now they want to change the rules.

My hockey team sucked this year, I want hockey reform. The bottom 5 teams should get all the picks in the first round!! Actually no.. I forgot I'm not a whiner and sore loser.

While I suppose there is a minute chance that you could just be really bad at satire, most of the signs point to your being an idiot.

[Saipan]

There are losers, and then there are sore losers

[August1991]

First new amendment: Abolish the monarchy in Canada!!

I agree but I also have to be realistic and agree with Bambino. This is harder than it looks.

Some constitutional changes (eg. making Canada a federal republic) require the agreement of all provincial legislatures plus the two houses of the federal parliament and the GG. It would be difficult to obtain this level of agreement to abolish the monarchy in Canada.

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.

In fact, Mulroney's Meech Lake Accord came very close to getting this level of agreement.

In some ways, Canada has saddled itself with a constitution that is similar to the inter-war Polish parliament. Each member has a veto and this makes reform impossible.

----

Incidentally, we have amended the constitution in the past 20 years or so. It was amended to deconfessionalize schools in Quebec and create two school systems along lingustic lines instead of along religious-linguistic lines. This amendment however required only the agreement of the Quebec and federal governments.

Our current constitution provides more protection to the Queen than it does to minority rights.

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

[Saipan]

Some constitutional changes (eg. making Canada a federal republic) require the agreement of all provincial legislatures plus the two houses of the federal parliament and the GG. It would be difficult to obtain this level of agreement to abolish the monarchy in Canada.

I say let's dump all the tea into St. Lawrence River

[RNG]

While I suppose there is a minute chance that you could just be really bad at satire, most of the signs point to your being an idiot.

That was quite idiotic.

[Remiel]

That was quite idiotic.

Maybe; maybe not. It was, however, completely true.

[Moonlight Graham]

The thing with changes like an elected Senate, abolishing the monarchy etc. is that few people, myself included before i studied the matters closely, realize that there comes a whole can of new problems that arise with these things. ie: elected senate means more partisanship & could lead to deadlock, it will harm the very good bipartisan committee work the senate currently does, and of course may cause Constitutional bickering where the provinces can't agree on what they want...possibly leading again to national unity problems like what happened with Quebec.

The changes sound great as an idea but in reality the unforeseen challenges/risks can be high. Scholars have been studying most of these issues in huge detail for a very long time and there's no easy answers.

Honestly i wish we could just explode the constitutions and all conventions blah blah and just start from scratch. I find our system very warped because it's rooted in a very old and different system from another country, with different institutions playing different roles long ago compared to now (ie: the monarchy, senate). It's similar to having a fighter plane made in the 1940's in use today, but over the years you've had to add and take away things and install new equipment & upgrades to make the plane able to function to today's standards. It works ok, but it's a damn Frankenstein plane that doesn't quite fit together 100% perfectly and it may just be easier to scrap it and buy a shiny new one.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

The thing with changes like an elected Senate, abolishing the monarchy etc. is that few people, myself included before i studied the matters closely, realize that there comes a whole can of new problems that arise with these things.

Our "elect a dictator" system puts governments in power and gives them 4-5 years to drive the bus with minimal interruptions. If they do well they are re-elected. If they don't they are tossed out and the other guys are given chance to drive. The system ensures governments can get unpopular stuff done if they need to and to reverse whatever dumb policies the previous guys put in. Policies that were not so dumb but unpopular tend to survive (e.g. GST, Free Trade, Healthcare etc.).

All this means is we are generally run by centrist governments that get stuff done. This system is much superior to what most countries have to put up with.

Edited May 28, 2011 by TimG