Canada's Civil War

[Neal.F.]

Ron Gray, one of Canada's finest conservative spokesmen, has again summed up the situation in Canada very well, and brings home the truly precarious situation in which democracy finds itself in this country.

A sad comentary on my part is that I was told that pollsters have found that most Canadians place more trust in Judges about whom they know nothing ,and can't even name, than their elected politicians. What is truly amazing is that they keep voting them back in. more later.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Canada's civil war

by Ron Gray, CHP National Leader

Canada is engaged in the first stages of a civil war. It’s a very Canadian sort of war, fought quietly and politely, using words instead of bullets. The prize is Canada’s children... and our nation’s future.

The issue is the same as the cause of England's civil war of 1688: whether Parliament has the sole authority to make laws. On one side are the élitists — the 'nobility' of the courts, and those who would use the courts' power to obtain privileges they cannot gain through democratic means; on the other side are the people and Canada's Constitution. In between — unaware and undecided, distracted and confused — sits our federal Parliament.

The courts, given unrestrained power in 1982 by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now tell elected legislatures what laws they may pass. The federal government even asks the Supreme Court's permission for laws, sending draft bills to the high court for approval before submitting them to the House!

The Supreme Court has repeatedly violated Canada's Constitution, and lesser courts follow their lead. Thus we have the spectacle of provincial court judges making ultimatums to Parliament — and the federal government supinely acquiescing.

Almost a quarter of a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s Constitution consists of two equally important parts: the written document, and the tradition surrounding our Common Law heritage. A vital part of that tradition is the division of powers to create checks and balances: the elected legislatures write the laws; their cabinets and the civil service administer the laws; and the judiciary settles disputes according to the law as it finds it written.

But in 1995, our Supremes amended the Constitution — the highest law in the land — and did it unconstitutionally. Canada’s Constitution provides a formula for amendments. Minor amendments must have the approval of the federal Parliament and seven of the ten provincial legislatures, representing at least half the population. Major amendments require the approval of all eleven legislatures. But without any reference to any of the legislatures, the Supreme Court changed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — which, remember, is part of the Constitution — by insisting that the phrase "sexual orientation" must be “read into” the list of protected categories in Section 15 of the Charter — thus overturning the deliberate decision of Parliament and the provincial legislatures to leave it out.

With that act, Canada ceased to be a democracy and became a judicial dictatorship.

There are only three ways this constitutional dilemma can now be resolved.

• Canadians can choose to remain in subjection to unconstitutional authority; the result of this would alienate our children from everything that has made Western Civilization worth preserving.

• We could have a violent revolution to overthrow the usurpers if they refuse to surrender their illicit powers — that's what happened in England in 1688, and in America in 1776.

• Parliament could find the spine to reclaim exclusive authority to make laws, thus restoring the checks and balances of democratic governance. Parliament must create a Standing Committee on the Judiciary, and give it authority to review any court decision for constitutionality; if a decision is found to be unconstitutional, the Committee would then present a bill in Parliament to amend it. This Committee on the Judiciary should also have the power to approve or reject appointments to the Supreme Court; and the legislation creating the Committee should be sheltered under Section 33, the "notwithstanding" clause.

This proposal would restore the right of appeal beyond the Supreme Court, which Canadians enjoyed from the time of Confederation. And the Supreme Court, now accountable to no one, would become accountable to the Standing Committee; the Committee to Parliament; and Parliament to the people.

Will Parliament have the courage to take the steps necessary to restore democratic government to Canada? The chances are slim. No party now sitting in the House has shown any interest in these issues at the core of the survival of democracy. But the people of Canada could demand such action.

Ultimately, saving democracy always depends on the people. If our choices are self-centred, focusing only on our own comfort and prosperity, we’ll continue to be the serfs in a judicial aristocracy; but if we desire justice for all, we can be led out of our bondage. It’s time to decide.

[Neal.F.]

One reason why they keep getting voted back in is that the electoral system is so heavily stacked in favour of the big established parties. Which is another reason so many people stay home on election day. the last Federal election was the worst turn-out ever, and its because people feel so disenfranchised.

As it exists, the parties that currently have official status in Parliament hold all the aces. For example, most Canadians are not aware of the fact that every Member of Parliament, once elected, receives 50% of their total election expenses refunded to them out of the public purse. If a major party candidate spent the maximum allowable, which is approximately $60 000.00, then they would have received $30 000.00 back. To wit, when the next election is called they are sitting in the catbird seat, with $30 000.00 (plus interest) already in their war chest....at taxpayers expense. This means that all taxpayers are contributing to the next Liberal,CA, NDP, BQ or PC campaigns, without getting a say in the matter.

The only solution to this is to pass a law which requires parties to be responsible for all their own fundraising, and receive no refund whatsoever of election expenses except the $1000.00 deposit each candidate must post, and is currently refundable only upon filing their audited election expense report with Elections Canada.

Another example of the corruption that helps maintain the status quo is the allocation of broadcast time during an election. This is calculated in proportion to the number of seats each party held in the last Parliament. While I agree with the concept that free time should be made available so that the electorate may be informed of the options available to them, as of now, the current system is a sham as it is stacked in favour of the party in power which gets most of the time. Free time should be equally available to all officially registered political parties so that voters will benefit from a free market of ideas. As far as paid time advertising goes, it should be available freely to whomever wishes to, and is able to purchase the time.

And finally we need to bring in some kind of proportional representation system. Preferably one which allows ridings/regions to elect a local voice, and at the same time guarantees all parties seats in proportion to the popular vote they receive.

Before anyone screams blue murder about riding associations losing their say about who represents them, I point out that as things currently stand, in many cases, the associations are overruled by Party apparatus which often parachutes a "star" into the ridings. One example is none other than Paul Martin, who does not live in LaSalle-Emard. It's a part of town the likes of him would not normally frequent. I can go on all day about that. Suffice it to say, if some of the seats were elected from slates based on PR, the so-called "stars" could run on the slate, allowing ridings to focus on picking a truly representive local candidate.

[theWatcher]

Another reason is that being around for a while builds up a habitual following.

In Alberta I have worked in the polling stations for the last three elections and its very disheartening.

Upwards of 100 voters will ask me which one is the Liberal?

Can't you just mark it for me?

Can you point it out to me?

Yes, I can read, but the form confuses me.

One or two voters ask the same questions about the PCs.

But no one ever asks about the Alliance or NDP.

If someone can't decipher an election ballot, how would they ever be able to read information, and make an actual decision?

[Lost in Manitoba]

That's probablly a tale that many doing that job can recount. It seems that some people will vote as they always have (and maybe as their parents always had) just because of party name, not the place they stand on issues. I've noticed a few on this site even, that seem to think that they must change their attitudes to belong to a party, to lockstep to the beat of a political drum. Generally I would say that this is a bad idea and would expect only mediocre minds to do it. As much as I disagree with, say, Neal's beliefs, I would be sorry to hear he voted for a party that didn't support those beliefs. That's the way it should be: listen to the debate, decide where you stand, and look for a party that represents you. Unfortunately, like I said, I don't think most people are this proactive in their decision making.

[Lost in Manitoba]

On another note though....

Judges, though not elected, are hired to preside over the laws of the land. No, there not here to make laws, just decipher, interpret, and uphold the laws made by the elected reps. In my way of thinking, if the Judges thought that a law was invalid or went against the contitution or charter of rights, which no law shall go against, then it was their job, the job they were hired by the elected reps for, to ammend the law, or rather, bring it to the attention of the elected reps so that they could ammend it.

[dnsfurlan]

Lost,

The problem with your theory about the work that judges do is that interpretation becomes activism, especially when judges decide to write into the Charter things that were never there in the first place.

Part of the problem that I have with this issue of same-sex marriage is that the Court is treating marriage as though it were an issue of rights rather than one of values. It also bothers me that it is already seen as a fait accompli that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gay marriages. Is the Court so steeped in its own ideology that it cannot decide these issues with some greater degree of objectivity?

Why is this marriage issues seen in terms of human rights? Why does the Court have to decide how society is to define marriage. If a father and daughter want to get married is that an abridgement of equal rights if they are excluded from marriage? Is this also the case if somebody wants to be married to more than one person? Why should polygamists be denied their right to be recognized as being married? The very idea of recognizing marriage is an act of exclusion. You just don't recognize all relationships as marriages.

The very notion that society can't chose on its own how it will define marriage I think defies common sense and logic. The Court sees it as a violation of rights so, presto, gays can be married too.

I guess I would have far less difficulty with this if the Courts were to allow the people to decide what a marriage really is.

I'll say this again: the same people who accuse the Right of trying to force their values on society turn right back and try to get the courts to do their work for them. At least Stockwell Day tried to get elected. And when he wasn't, he didn't ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Also, regarding Neal F.'s sentiment about the apparrent popularity of the courts, nobody even knows who these judges are. Yet, somehow the media is always telling us how the Charter is so popular among the Canadian people.

Well, the fact that politicians are scared to use the notwithstanding clause may lend some evidence to the claim. But maybe there is something else at play. Maybe the notwithstanding clause is a trigger you only pull if you think it will kill the beast you're trying to slay. Otherwise, it only makes it angrier and could come back to eat you.

The notwithstanding clause is divisive. The Supreme Court making rulings has not been, even in the States. Controversial decisions get made and people learn to live with them. It may be peaceful. I'm not sure if it is a shining example of democracy at work. Sometimes democracy has to be messy in order for freedom and justice to prevail.

[Craig Read]

good post, I will use it and post it on a web site of mine.

do you have a URL ?

good ideas and he is right on the mark.

[Pellaken]

And finally we need to bring in some kind of proportional representation system. Preferably one which allows ridings/regions to elect a local voice, and at the same time guarantees all parties seats in proportion to the popular vote they receive.

Before anyone screams blue murder about riding associations losing their say about who represents them,.....

can SOMEONE explain where this idea that PR means no more riding-elected MP's comes from?