Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[tomydoom]

I have prattled on about a Canadian Regency in several posts. I would prefer a long, long, long regency in which we just ignore the whole problem of picking a new sovereign until we are, simply, accustomed to the idea that the GG is the Head of State, de facto and, by convention, de jure, too.

I think hereditary monarchs are passé and I doubt inviting some foreign princeling to start a new one, here in Canada, would go over very well at all.

Like this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy

 

[Edward Campbell]

Like this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy

I think we would aim for someone of this calibre. Regents can be strong, resolute, wise and just.

 

[tomydoom]

I think we would aim for someone of this calibre. Regents can be strong, resolute, wise and just.

My example is slightly more recent and unfortunately, I fear, a more likely outcome.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My example is slightly more recent and unfortunately, I fear, a more likely outcome.

Why would you say "more likely?" Which of our GGs since Vincent Massey would you have though likely to have dictatorial tendencies? Mme Jeanne Sauvé, she was a bit imperious, I guess, but hardly an autocrat waiting to seize the government. What about Mme Clarkson? Do you think she was a threat to democracy?

I think the long history of British (English and Scottish and British) regents is more instructive than one Hungarian. If we must look at Europe then, surely, Sveinn Björnsson of Iceland is a better example of a modern regent.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think one of the more obvious differences between our GGs and Horthy (or any of the other 10-a-penny dictators) is that the GG's have two bosses: the PM and Her Majesty (or Her Grace for us pedants of Scots persuasion).

Horthy et al don't recognize any bosses.

By the way, for every William Marshall you can cite, I would offer a multitude of regents from north of the line,  a couple of Italian females of the Medici persuasion in France and a chap name of William Wallace.  I challenge you to find a day's peace amang the lot o' them.

Its always easier to decide when its someone else's head on the chopping block that you offer as surety.

 

[tomydoom]

Why would you say "more likely?"

I suppose it would depend on the method chosen to select the Governor General, i.e. election, direct of indirect or appointment? The strength of the current appointment process is the choice is intensely scrutinized by the opposition, the press and the monarch.  Given the quality (or lack) of many of our current elected politicians, I would fear for the worse in that situation. Especially given the broad reserve powers that the office holds. Also I may be a pessimist heart (realist?).

I think the long history of British (English and Scottish and British) regents is more instructive than one Hungarian. If we must look at Europe then, surely, Sveinn Björnsson of Iceland is a better example of a modern regent.

I believe the last British regent was the future George IV, not necessarily something to aspire too. I agree that the Sveinn Bjornsson is a laudable example, however that was a very temporary regency, from 1940-1944, then he was elected the first president in 1945. Which I do not see as a realistic path in this country. 

The reason Hungary springs to mind, is because it it the most prominent example of a monarchy without a monarch, with a permanent regency. I interpreted your posts as suggesting something similar, with a better office holder of course. If I missread, I stand corrected.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest from the courts:

The federal government will argue that it doesn’t need to open up the Constitution to reform the Senate, and that Parliament alone has the power to do so — without the need to consult with provinces, says Canada’s democratic reform minister.

The government was to file its arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada Wednesday, two days before a court-imposed deadline. The top court is being asked to determine how the Senate can be reformed or abolished.

Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre said the government has “continued confidence in the constitutionality” of the government’s proposed Senate Reform Act. He added that the government believes “Parliament has the authority to enact our Senate reform legislation.”

A hearing for the case is scheduled for mid-November.

The government is also submitting its arguments to the Quebec Court of Appeal, where the province of Quebec has also mounted a legal challenge to its proposed reforms.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the Government of Canada's factum supporting the reference to the Supreme Court on Senate reform. The detailed discussion begins on p.29.

 

[Ostrozac]

I suppose it would depend on the method chosen to select the Governor General, i.e. election, direct of indirect or appointment? The strength of the current appointment process is the choice is intensely scrutinized by the opposition, the press and the monarch.  Given the quality (or lack) of many of our current elected politicians, I would fear for the worse in that situation. Especially given the broad reserve powers that the office holds. Also I may be a pessimist heart (realist?).

Someone once suggested, and I can't remember who, that if the Governor General should ever be elected, that they should be elected by the Companions of the Order of Canada, in the same style of election as a Papal Conclave. The theory being that this would give dignity and legitimacy to the office, but not a democratic mandate from the people in the sense that a Presidency would, therefore preventing the GG from undermining the PM's executive authority.

Would this lead to an increased politicization of the Order? Maybe. But it sounds to me like a neat idea. Maybe this is a better solution than letting the sitting PM select his own viceroy/regent.

 

[tomydoom]

Someone once suggested, and I can't remember who, that if the Governor General should ever be elected, that they should be elected by the Companions of the Order of Canada, in the same style of election as a Papal Conclave. The theory being that this would give dignity and legitimacy to the office, but not a democratic mandate from the people in the sense that a Presidency would, therefore preventing the GG from undermining the PM's executive authority.

Would this lead to an increased politicization of the Order? Maybe. But it sounds to me like a neat idea. Maybe this is a better solution than letting the sitting PM select his own viceroy/regent.

Sounds like we might be inventing the Electoral College..

 

[RangerRay]

If we were to end personal union, my preference would be to invite one of the more bored members of the House of Windsor (e.g. Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne) to become King of Canada.

 

[tomydoom]

If we were to end personal union, my preference would be to invite one of the more bored members of the House of Windsor (e.g. Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne) to become King of Canada.

I've actually often had the same thought. My current preference is Prince Edward. A's he seems to mostly avoid the tabloids, I'd still married and has two children to act as heirs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thumbs up RR and TMD.

I prefer a cipher resulting from genetic lottery than someone that actually wants the job because they feel a desire to act.

Dear Lord preserve us from do-gooders.  I would sooner pay for bordello fees if that's what it took to keep the occupant of the throne from engaging in the business of the nation.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Given that 3 generations of males have been produced by the Windsors, succession isn't an issue for 80 - 100 years.  I am not a lawyer but I can't imagine that putting females in the line of succession would be over-ruled by the Supreme Court because public policy demands it.  Denying a woman the throne because of her sex is contrary to the Charter of Rights.  The Constitution Act 1867 makes no mention of succession because the rules thus far have been well defined.  However, changes in succession are mentioned in the Statute of Westminster and they are specifically what has been done, the Parliaments of the Dominions and the UK must pass the new law. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

As a form of government I like a constitutional monarchy using a Westminster style of government. I don't approve of a hereditary monarchy ~ I think we should turn the clock back over 1,000 years and elect the sovereign, as Ælfric of Eynsham suggests1 was done when he said: "No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please." By "the people" he meant the notables who constituted the Witenagemot.

In my creaky old mind that tradition ought to displace primogeniture as the normal way to select a sovereign.

I do not agree with direct, popular, elections. That would subvert the Westminster system. I do suggest that parliament - perhaps the Senate nominating a list and the HoC electing the sovereign from that list  - is the body best suited, by tradition, to provide the electors. Perhaps we should constrain parliament by defining a list of eligible candidates, as as done in medieval times: perhaps only Companions of the Order of Canada2 may be considered. I would think that the sovereign ought to be encouraged to abdicate should e.g. ill health limit her/his ability to serve. I would think there might be an age limit - it is 75 for senators and justices of the supreme court, why not the same for the sovereign?

We could have a Canadian constitutional monarchy - we could, even, change the title from king/queen to something more appropriate.

_____
1.  Cited in Whitelock, Review of The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor, p. 642
2. These are the Companions of the Order of Canada who were born after 1940:

Yannick Nézet-Séguin, Chantal Petitclerc , Celine Dion, Wayne Gretzky, Rick Hansen, Michaëlle Jean (has already been GG)
Robert Lepage, Evelyn Hart, Ben Heppner, Louise Charron, Karen Kain, Marc Garneau, Louise Arbour, Michel Bastarache
Kim Campbell, John Ralston Saul, L. Jacques Ménard, Veronica Tennant, Anne Murray, Jean-Daniel Lafond, Sharon Johnston
Joni Mitchell, Preston Manning, Denys Arcand, David Lloyd Johnston (is the current GG), Diana Fowler LeBlanc

Perhaps we might want to expand the list to include, e.g. Companions of the Order of Military Merit and the Royal Victorian Order.

 

[Kirkhill]

The messy thing about elections is the need to build up a party of supporters.  Sooner or later everybody thinks they have a stake in the winner and expect returns on their investment while the winners and losers feel like winners and losers.   

If you don't like the genetic lottery how do you feel about the jury duty model or the draft model?

I'd rather have somebody who didn't want the job but was willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of the cause for a period of sybaritic idyll, world travel and signing the occasional document.

Edit:  PS - Rereading some Heinlein just now.  That may be influencing my outlook. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

The messy thing about elections is the need to build up a party of supporters.  Sooner or later everybody thinks they have a stake in the winner and expect returns on their investment while the winners and losers feel like winners and losers.   

If you don't like the genetic lottery how do you feel about the jury duty model or the draft model?

I'd rather have somebody who didn't want the job but was willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of the cause for a period of sybaritic idyll, world travel and signing the occasional document.

That is, roughly, how the Whitan was constrained in searching for the best possible sovereign. They couldn't select "at large," only from a qualified (by status) pool. That's, roughly, how we select for juries and compulsory military service: people have to be qualified, first - within a certain age range, physically fit, sane, and so on. I'm suggesting a slightly more stringent range (but not as strict as circa 1,000 AD) ~ Companion of one of the "big three" orders, for example, and aged below, say, 72 (so that the sovereign could serve for three years before reaching CRA for the job).

 

[GAP]

Provinces insist consent required
By Jordan Press, Postmedia News August 3, 2013
http://www.canada.com/news/Provinces+insist+consent+required/8745421/story.html

Provincial governments are taking a dim view of the federal government's latest argument that it can reform the Senate without provincial consent.

After the Harper government filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court of Canada this week, a spokeswoman for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said Ontario's position "is that provincial consent is required" to reform the upper chamber, a sentiment echoed by the government of British Columbia Premier Christy Clark. A spokesman for Clark said "British Columbians should have a say" in what happens to the upper chamber.

Several constitutional experts agree with them, suggesting that the Constitution was not designed to limit the provinces' input into Senate reform.

That view will likely form the basis of the provinces' arguments before Canada's top court, which is being asked to rule on how the Senate can be reformed or abolished.

The federal government, in its submission to the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, argued that the Constitution grants more control to Parliament than to the provinces when it comes to changing the Senate.

It also argued that the drafters of the Constitution and the amending formula for it saw provincial involvement in changing the Senate as limited to just "a few matters."

"The argument that the provinces were somehow a negligible partner in this seems a little dubious," said David E. Smith, a noted constitutional expert now at Ryerson University in Toronto. "Do the provinces have a role here in regards to amending? The answer is yes."

The federal government's legal factum also provided a history of Senate reform debates and decisions, and references a Pearsonera decision that set the mandatory retirement age for senators at 75 and a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that determined the federal government had power to make some changes to the Senate.

All were used in the factum to support the federal government's position.

Experts say the past decisions are helpful for context, but they predate the current amending formula for the Constitution, which is the subject of review.

"When the amending formula was created, it was a compromise and one of the big things it (ensured) is that the fundamental law of the land could not be amended without the consent of the provinces," said Ned Franks, a constitutional expert from Queen's University.

Even then, Franks said, the Chretien Liberals gave constitutional veto power to five regions - the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. That means unanimous consent for any change to the Constitution is almost required, which the government doesn't address in its submission, he said.

"Unless it's a very extraordinary circumstance, I see the amending formula as a straitjacket," Franks said.

The Constitution requires the unanimous consent of provinces for changes to the official languages of Canada and the composition of the Supreme Court, while requiring the consent of at least seven provinces representing half the country's population for other changes (the so-called "7/50" formula).

That wording in the Constitution may make it difficult for the federal government to successfully argue that eliminating or reforming the Senate can be done unilaterally by Parliament.
more on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

"Threat" is such a harsh term ....

If the RCMP investigation into Mike Duffy over alleged breach of trust reaches court, the senator’s lawyers will call Stephen Harper as a witness and grill the Prime Minister under oath, sources said.

Mr. Duffy’s lawyers have barred him from speaking to the press but he has told friends that he feels he has been thrown under the bus and that the Conservative PR machine is out to destroy him.

Sources close to the now-Independent senator at the centre of the expenses scandal said Mr. Duffy was recruited to present a “kinder, softer” face to the Conservative Party in the run-up to the 2011 election. Friends say he was told that political appearances on the Senate tab were not only tolerated, they were expected by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Duffy’s case for the defence is likely to rest on public statements by Mr. Harper that show he was comfortable the senator satisfied all residency requirements (the RCMP alleges Mr. Duffy broke the law by claiming a primary residence in Prince Edward Island, when his primary residence was really in Ontario). Back in February, Mr. Harper told the House of Commons that all Conservative senators conformed with the Red Chamber’s residency requirements. “That’s the basis on which they were appointed to the Senate and those requirements have been clear for 150 years,” he said ....

National Post, 16 Aug 13

 

[jollyjacktar]

He has friends or people who'd admit to it ?