2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Edward Campbell]

Remember 1832? The Great Reform Act, the birth of modern liberalism (the small "L" really, really matters)? All that?

Small L liberal democracy is neither old new especially robust. Some forms of illiberal democracy have been around for a long time, since, arguably, the Athenian agora, but the whole idea of liberalism - where the individual is sovereign and all rights belong, equally, to each sovereign individual, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc, is quite new - starting, maybe, in Iceland about 1,000 years ago and not really flourishing until Britain in the 19th century.

Anyway, 1832, the Reform Act, brought us the idea of "one man-one vote," which, quickly spread to America and even to Canada, where it was opposed by the rich and powerful in Toronto, Charlottetown and Halifax and especially in Montreal and Québec City.

But the 1860s, when the British contemplated casting Canada adrift, was the time of Palmerston, Smith-Stanley and Russel and saw the rise of Disraeli and Gladstone. In 1867, besides granting Canada a form of sovereignty, Smith-Stanley, the Earl of Derby, also passed another Reform Act and cemented liberalism into Anglo-American political culture where it resides, not always securely, today.

Anyway, the notion that each person should have a roughly equal say in deciding who gets to govern us all is a major liberal democratic value. Those of us who call ourselves liberals believe that we should all have a nearly equal say - yes, there is a need for regional representation and that explains why Nunavut gets one MP but there is no valid democratic excuse for PEI's four seats; it is a Constitutional anomaly and highlights the nonsense that we find in all written constitutions.

The people of rural Saskatchewan have no inherent right to extra representation just because they live in a rural area. Their fundamental right is to live where and (broadly) how they wish, they do not get rewarded, politically, for that choice. Equally the people in, e.g. Calgary and Toronto do not deserve to be underrepresented, just because they live in cities, do they?

This map matters - more than half of all Canadians live South of the red line. They deserve more than half of the seats in the House of Commons, don't they? (The Senate is a whole different matter, related more to federalism and to democracy.)

 

[FSTO]

^^
I see your point, but in these times of concentrated power in the PMO does it really matter? And yes PEI and 4 seats are outrageous. If we were draconian, Canada would just amalgamate the 3 maritime provinces into one and give it the 14 seats like Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Could you imagine the howls if that was to happen?

 

[GR66]

^^
I see your point, but in these times of concentrated power in the PMO does it really matter? And yes PEI and 4 seats are outrageous. If we were draconian, Canada would just amalgamate the 3 maritime provinces into one and give it the 14 seats like Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Could you imagine the howls if that was to happen?

Sadly, the concentration of power in the PMO is in effect a self-inflicted wound. The members of Parliament select the Prime Minister. Should the members of the governing party's caucus choose to exercise their power they could replace the sitting PM with one more to their liking (as is happening in the UK and has happened a number of times in Australia). The system itself isn't the problem, it's the people we elect that allow for the concentration of power in the PMO.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Sadly, the concentration of power in the PMO is in effect a self-inflicted wound. The members of Parliament select the Prime Minister. Should the members of the governing party's caucus choose to exercise their power they could replace the sitting PM with one more to their liking (as is happening in the UK and has happened a number of times in Australia). The system itself isn't the problem, it's the people we elect that allow for the concentration of power in the PMO.

IIRC it was Chretien that consolidated a lot of the power in the PMO. It just has become the status quo ever since, despite the recommendations found in the Gomery Comission.

 

[Edward Campbell]

IIRC it was Chretien that consolidated a lot of the power in the PMO. It just has become the status quo ever since, despite the recommendations found in the Gomery Comission.

It was actually Pierre Trudeau when he made Michael Pitfield his Clerk of the Privy Council and "integrated" the PMO and PCO - see Don Savoie's 'Governing from the Centre' (1999).

 

[mariomike]

This map matters - more than half of all Canadians live South of the red line. They deserve more than half of the seats in the House of Commons, don't they?

Good question.

 

[Kirkhill]

Remember 1832? The Great Reform Act, the birth of modern liberalism (the small "L" really, really matters)? All that?

Small L liberal democracy is neither old new especially robust. Some forms of illiberal democracy have been around for a long time, since, arguably, the Athenian agora, but the whole idea of liberalism - where the individual is sovereign and all rights belong, equally, to each sovereign individual, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc, is quite new - starting, maybe, in Iceland about 1,000 years ago and not really flourishing until Britain in the 19th century.

Anyway, 1832, the Reform Act, brought us the idea of "one man-one vote," which, quickly spread to America and even to Canada, where it was opposed by the rich and powerful in Toronto, Charlottetown and Halifax and especially in Montreal and Québec City.

But the 1860s, when the British contemplated casting Canada adrift, was the time of Palmerston, Smith-Stanley and Russel and saw the rise of Disraeli and Gladstone. In 1867, besides granting Canada a form of sovereignty, Smith-Stanley, the Earl of Derby, also passed another Reform Act and cemented liberalism into Anglo-American political culture where it resides, not always securely, today.

Anyway, the notion that each person should have a roughly equal say in deciding who gets to govern us all is a major liberal democratic value. Those of us who call ourselves liberals believe that we should all have a nearly equal say - yes, there is a need for regional representation and that explains why Nunavut gets one MP but there is no valid democratic excuse for PEI's four seats; it is a Constitutional anomaly and highlights the nonsense that we find in all written constitutions.

The people of rural Saskatchewan have no inherent right to extra representation just because they live in a rural area. Their fundamental right is to live where and (broadly) how they wish, they do not get rewarded, politically, for that choice. Equally the people in, e.g. Calgary and Toronto do not deserve to be underrepresented, just because they live in cities, do they?

This map matters - more than half of all Canadians live South of the red line. They deserve more than half of the seats in the House of Commons, don't they? (The Senate is a whole different matter, related more to federalism and to democracy.)

Indeed the map matters - but unless we hew to Brad's position on subsidiarity AND an effective regional senate then everything north of that line is nothing more than a colony of the Laurentian Imperium.

Edit: The central organizing principal should be the local municipality.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Indeed the map matters - but unless we hew to Brad's position on subsidiarity AND an effective regional senate then everything north of that line is nothing more than a colony of the Laurentian Imperium.

Edit: The central organizing principal should be the local municipality.

I know I use this cartoon too often, but it's from 1915 - nothing is new:

 

[Halifax Tar]

This map matters - more than half of all Canadians live South of the red line. They deserve more than half of the seats in the House of Commons, don't they? (The Senate is a whole different matter, related more to federalism and to democracy.)

Yes and no.

We're getting a concentration of power, in a very small space, and it can generally disregard the rest of the country. Im not looking for domination from outside, I am looking for equal representation and a spreading of power equally.

I say again, The problems from Twillingate -> Yarmouth -> Toronto -> Gimli -> Victoria all deserve equal representation in our government. The concentration of population in the in the Windsor -> Montreal corridor should not be let to dictate to the rest country simply because of population density.

Otherwise we will remain a regionally fractured country.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yes and no.

We're getting a concentration of power, in a very small space, and it can generally disregard the rest of the country. Im not looking for domination from outside, I am looking for equal representation and a spreading of power equally.

I say again, The problems from Twillingate -> Yarmouth -> Toronto -> Gimli -> Victoria all deserve equal representation in our government. The concentration of population in the in the Windsor -> Montreal corridor should not be let to dictate to the rest country simply because of population density.

Otherwise we will remain a regionally fractured country.

Canada in all rights has always been too big to have a competent, functioning federation since we took on MB and BC in the 1870s.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The size of the federation doesn't matter that much if federal government authority is appropriately limited. But almost everyone contributes to scope creep. We would even find people who think that the provinces should have power to meddle in international affairs and defence, and certainly find people who consistently argue that their pet idea is something that has to be imposed upon everyone.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The size of the federation doesn't matter that much if federal government authority is appropriately limited. But almost everyone contributes to scope creep. We would even find people who think that the provinces should have power to meddle in international affairs and defence, and certainly find people who consistently argue that their pet idea is something that has to be imposed upon everyone.

OH believe me, I'm not an advocate for devolving powers to provinces, nor do I believe that regional influence should trump national priorities.

My point was that, much like the U.S, the system we built and designed in 1867 wasn't done so with the belief we'd become the second largest and dispersed country on earth. With that in mind, does the system need tweaking? Probably. Do those changes need to happen in the Senate? Maybe. Should we move toward proportional representation in the House? 100 percent. Will it happen in my life time? I highly doubt it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Should we move toward proportional representation in the House? 100 percent. Will it happen in my life time? I highly doubt it.

Never going to happen. It would mean the two major parties would have to give up their reigns on things. And then there is the whole instability factor of PR.

Id divide the country into electoral geographic regions incorporating multiple provinces and evenly dist the seats.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The flaw wasn't the 1867 design; the flaw was relying on the British approach to a "constitution". Anything not written down can be subjected to argument, litigation, and pressure to change. What the forefathers didn't foresee was just how hard modern activists would push on black letter law, let alone mere customary practices. The US did an admirable job, and look how hard it is to prevent people from reading ideas in that aren't explicitly mentioned anywhere.

We need constitutional law that divides political authority and sets aside individual rights in plain language with no room for subjective interpretation ("reasonable") or exceptions ("notwithstanding"), and we haven't got it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me that those arguing for regionalism want something akin to wan the American revolutionaries wanted in the late 18th century: strong, almost independent provinces and a weak federal government which has only limited powers.

In many respects that's what we got in 1867 - look at §§91 and 92 of the BNA. §91.29 is a hole big enough to allow almost anything but by then the authors - in London - had seen, in the USA, that "states' rights" led to some insurmountable problems.

It seems to me that Canadians (and Americans, Australians, Brits, Germans and Indians and so on) want a strong national government. It's probably natural given modern transportation and communications - in 1867 a trip from Halifax to Victoria was a once-in-a-lifetime adventure, now it is a matter of a few hours and one change of planes (in YYZ ). People feel that they are at least as much Canadian as British Columbian or Nova Scotian and they expect similar standards of public services everywhere in Canada.

Many of the intrusions that the federal government has made into areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (§92) were made at the request of t.he provinces, during both world wars. Canadians didn't;t object and there was no pressure, from locals, to shove the feeds out - back where they, Constitutionally, belonged when the emergencies were ended.

In most federal states there are two chambers - one in which the people, on a roughly equal (one person-one vote) get to elect the people who will make §91 work and another in which the political partners in Confederation, the provinces, have their voices.

In my mind equal, elected and effective makes sense in the second chamber but only if we have, say, just five provinces (BC+ Yukon, the Prairies + NU and NWT, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada).

 

[Edward Campbell]

The flaw wasn't the 1867 design; the flaw was relying on the British approach to a "constitution". Anything not written down can be subjected to argument, litigation, and pressure to change. What the forefathers didn't foresee was just how hard modern activists would push on black letter law, let alone mere customary practices. The US did an admirable job, and look how hard it is to prevent people from reading ideas in that aren't explicitly mentioned anywhere.

We need constitutional law that divides political authority and sets aside individual rights in plain language with no room for subjective interpretation ("reasonable") or exceptions ("notwithstanding"), and we haven't got it.

I disagree, quite vehemently. I think unwritten constitutions are always and in every way better. Tell me, please, what rights and freedoms or "peace order and good government" we, Canadians, have that are denied to Brits, Israelis and Kiwis.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't think the Brits, Israelis, and Kiwis have enough rights. In fact, I'm dismayed by the NZ and AUS policies on firearms, and by the creeping surveillance state the Brits are submitting to, along with bizarre ideas like "anti-social behaviour orders" and its successors.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think the Brits, Israelis, and Kiwis have enough rights. In fact, I'm dismayed by the NZ and AUS policies on firearms, and by the creeping surveillance state the Brits are submitting to, along with bizarre ideas like "anti-social behaviour orders" and its successors.

And Bill C-11? And the goings on in the USA and India and Germany don't suggest that written constitutions are hazardous to democracy and individual liberty? We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Brad - I suspect we are too far apart to find much common ground.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I am likely to lean much more strongly toward individual freedoms than nearly anyone else on this board, as a consequence of which I have a much higher tolerance for the messiness of freedom and a much higher interest in hard-to-overcome limits on governments (all aspects - executive, legislative, judicial, administrative). So there's that.

C-11 is mixed. On balance, I'd discard it.

Written constitutions are not error-free, but they are amendable. Rule of law requires that the rules be written down where everyone can see them, that the rules be enforced, and that the rules be enforced impartially. First step is to write them down.

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems to me that Canadians (and Americans, Australians, Brits, Germans and Indians and so on) want a strong national government.

But only if it is their national government and it does the things they want done.

We don't do a very good job of teaching our kids how to lose gracefully and prepare for the next match. Because there will always be a next match.