Senate Reform starts with Governor General

Dear Windsor Star Editor,

Re:Senate Reform: Michael Kirby's contribution.

Hooray for the Windsor Star! they're one of the few Canadian institutions that recognize the forethought involved in preparation of the BNA Act 1867's Senate to be "a bulwark against the clamour and caprice of the mob (Sir James Lougheed) and a "...a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element" ( G.E. Cartier)

In their August 31/06 Editorial, the Windsor Star identifies two of the three purposes of the Senate " ... Founding Fathers ... envisioned an institution that would provide checks and balances to the House of Commons and ensure that the PM and cabinet didn't acquire too much power. The Senate was also seen as a forum where regional interests would be able to get a fair hearing."

The third purpose - to represent the propertied class - is now oft-forgotten since the dollar amount of the Senatorial net-wealth and property-ownership qualifications (s.23 & 31) has never been adjusted-for-inflation since 1867 (and $4,000 just ain't the same thing anymore).

The Editorial continues "Without question, creating a Senate that lives up to the original vision is going to take a long time. There is no apparent will on the part of the provinces to open up the Constitution and create an elected and accountable Senate.
But change is possible, and we've long advocated a piecemeal approach to reform that would gradually lead to a more legitimate Senate."

Yes indeed, they've got it! the ORIGINAL VISION - a 4 level governance hierarchy with the Commoners on the bottom, then the property-class' Senate above them, supervised by the Privy Council that independently advises the Governor General on the use of His/Her Withhold/ Disallow/ Reserve powers and finally the Queen-in-Council ( U.K. Cabinet) with the ultimate Veto on everything Canadian.

Any legislation that got through that jungle of conflicting needs and wants MUST be a prudent and provident measure.

Perhaps you can see why Wm L M King wanted to take over the Privy Council (Order in Council P.C.1940-1121) and ensure a "Canadian" (of his own choosing) was appointed Governor General.

Party patronage (and never seasonally-adjusting the property/net-worth qualifications) undermined the Senate's credibility to double-check the Lower House's actions. Hmmm ... is that an accident?

Wm L M King usurped the power of the Governor General's advisors, placing King and his successors as virtual-appointers of Governor General and Trudeau told Canada that he'd made Canada an independent nation.

These steps ensured that all the constitutional power and powers "above" the Prime Minister Office were/are effectively nullified, either in spirit or in public perception ( but ironically NOT in law).

So Windsor Star, pick up where you finished on the Senate.

Parliamentary reform of the House, the PMO and the Senate actually starts with severing the Privy Council from the grasp of the Prime Minister, re-instating (in its original condition) the Governor General's Office and invention of a selection process to place an appropriately skilled person suitable to exercise that power in that (pen)ultimate place of authority.

Mr Harper Visits the Senate Committee

Anyone who supports the Prime Minister's plan to place term limits on Senators has not read the existing BNA/Constitution Acts.

Similarly, anyone who agrees with the reasons set out in the "Whereas' preamble to S-4 is displaying either truly-apolitical, benign nescience or truly-political, blatant "ignore-ance" of the Senate's BNA/Constitutional purpose and mandate.

I read Mr Harper's blustery "democracy" speech(Sept7) on this matter and from his comments can only deduce that either his thinking has not progressed since his days in the arrested-in-development, Reform Party, or that he is taking a so totally indefensible position constitutionally, that he is simply doing it "for public relations effect".

The Senate, one of the three elements in our "One Parliament" s.17 and one of the 4 levels of checks & balances within the hierarchical, BNA/Constitutional structure for the Executive & Legislative components of our now-called Federal government - from bottom to top: Commons, Senate, Governor General/Privy Council and Monarch-in-Council.

These 3 quotes below bear out the lack of trust that the historic 'elites' felt towards the newest and most unpredictable element in Crown-based governance.


G.E. Cartier -"to protect the regional interests and also a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element"

Sir James Lougheed - a "bulwark against the clamour and caprice of the mob"

Cicero (carved in oak frieze above the Canadian Senate Speaker's chambers) - "It is the duty of the nobles to oppose the fickleness of the multitude"

plus this more modern one

Alan MacEachen -"It is not only desirable but necessary for the Senate to act as somewhat of a check on the government"

The Senate was INTENDED to be superior to the House and its means-tested (for property-ownership & Net-worth s.23(3)(4), s.31(3)(5)) members were PURPOSELY not-elected by the same mob that elected the Lower House - why have two bunches of "I'm passing the hat for my re-election" fools! (nevermind what our cousins-to-the-south do)

The Senate was supposed to represent THAT wealthier class of Canadian voters and to spread THAT class' representation equally between the rich/dominant and not-so-rich/developing "divisions" (now-referred to as regions).

The only problem is the $4,000 dollar-amount of the Property-ownership & Net-worth qualifications was never seasonally-adjusted for inflation. (The 2006 equivalent-if-adjusted is probably $200-300,ooo)

If Mr Harper wants to update the Senate he should address this defining aspect its being.

Finally S-4 mis-cites the powers quite plainly written in the Amending Formula(e) of 1982 "by virtue of section 44 ... Parliament may make laws to amend the Constitution of Canada in relation to the Senate;".

Dear Sir!! Section 44 simply stands as a contrast to Section 45. (see below)

S.44 specifies the rules regarding the General/Federal order of government and s.45 does similarly regarding the provincial order, BUT BOTH ss. 44 & 45 are subject to the "2/3rds of the provinces with at least 50% of the population" provisions of section 38(1)(b).

Can you not READ, my good man? or do you think WE cannot!

PART V

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION
44.
Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

45.
Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

42.
(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a)
the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b)
the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)
the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)
subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e)
the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(f)
notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

38.
(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a)
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)
resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Who's on "constitutional thin ice"!

Dear Professor & Ottawa Citizen,

RE: Harper is headed for constitutional thin ice

Thank you for the summary of purposely-perpetuated dis-information and commonly-held misconceptions regarding the Senate of Canada. Unfortunately it's based on mostly-wrong premises and interpretations, save the 7-50 amendment aspects.

If your readers can grasp what is "true" in this letter, "what never made sense in their own minds" or "what never was successfully explained" then perhaps we all will eventually thank Mr Harper for re-introducing discussion on the priority, hierarchy, purpose and structure of the Superior House within our Constitutional-Monarchy's Legislative power.

As an ordinary Canadian who has "translated the BNA/Constitution Act 1867 into Plain Language", I hope to offer the as-written text and a plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face accurate interpretation of our foundational document's clauses re: the Upper House, as a contrast to the accepted-but-incorrect views published on June 3/11.

My hope is to help stimulate a debate by other ordinary Canadians on how we were able to be led so far off the 'as-written and still-valid' track by our leaders and the law/education professional class.

Yes, Prof Mckenna is correct - this whole 2011 Senate Re-form exercise is a sham -- the "7/50" s.38(1) amending formula prevails.

The Rt Hon PM is just waving the Reform's "The West Wants In (or else)" flag for/at the faithful old timers back home, albeit fluttering it disdainfully and with no hope for success.
--and of course, he's using it as a distraction/diversion-of-attention!

The question remains, if Peter McKenna is wrong, but, everybody THINKS he's right ..... DOES ANYONE know what the BNA/Constitution actually says on the matter?

Further and far more important, if the de jure BNA text describes a situation far-different from the de facto - what prevails? (rhetorical)

If we're not following the "as-written text" .... what 'rules of engagement' ARE we following?

NB It's similar in principle to the UK .... that means it IS different!

A few specifics.

1) Originally, one of the primary functions of the Senate was to represent the interests of the provinces or the regions in Ottawa.

No. The purpose of Upper House styled Senate was to be a House of Lords in a land with no Lords.

It is based on the hierarchical structure of the Constitutional Act of 1791 (Crown-in-Council, Governor, Executive Council, Legislative Council, Legislative Assembly). see attached Evolution of Governance Chart

The Senate Members' Property-ownership & Net-Worth disqualifications of s.31, qualifications of s.23 and their special oath in the Fifth Schedule clearly show the office was to be filled with what we'd now call "Taxpayers" - no income tax existed in 1867, just property tax, excise & customs revenue.

The Lower house was for the Plebeians, the Upper House for the Patricians - the Senate was for the "Upper Class" to be selected equally from the 3 (now 4) 'Divisions' (now regions)

It's the ONLY office in Canada with a Property-ownership & Net-Worth prerequisite - lost to inflation .... $4,000 just ain't what it used to be. Learned folks say it should be 60x ($240,000) or 80x ($320,000) - not a stupendously high threshold ... but remember, it is a "net" amount.

2) Other premiers, like Darrell Dexter of Nova Scotia and Dalton McGuinty of Ontario, have supported the outright abolition of the Senate.

Foolish drivel -- 7/50 amendment again.

These Premiers too, lack understanding of the true purpose of the Senate (they too think the Upper House reps the Provinces vis a vis representing the "taxpaying class") and therefore fear that the Senate could undermine their position as 'elected-monarch' of their sorta-sovereign fiefdoms. That's what the ss.91-92 (plus 92a thru 95) Distribution of Legislative Powers PART IV is all about.

HOWEVER, quite separately, Mr Layton objects because he's a Unionist/Corporatist, social-democrat. How can his ilk (representing the plebes) "take over" if a permanent, wealth-based, super-structure exists above the Lower House of assembly?

3) There are other potential problems: can you have an elected Senate without a corresponding increase in powers and responsibilities for that body (or acting authoritatively with its traditional powers)?

The Power of the Senate as a hierarchical, senior-partner in the Legislative Power triumvirate s.17 is clear - it's mandate and place within the "power-sharing agreement" has simply become obscured by time, nescience and the patronage appointments described by Professor McKenna - appointments (of "unqualified-if-inflation-adjusted" hacks) that were intended to control the subsequent votes/ loyalty of the grateful new Upper House members.

 

4) But if you enhance the powers of Senators, which chamber of Parliament would take precedence when the inevitable legislative stalemate occurs?

Remember the GST Senators? s.26 allows the s.12 Governor General (i.e. NOT the s.13 Governor General In Council) to appoint more Upper Class/ Patricians to break the tie. - Wonderfully prescient those 1867 Charlottetown/Quebec/London folks!

5) send the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court as a reference matter to test its constitutionality. That way, any potential provincial blowback could be cut off at the knees -presuming, of course, that the court rules in favour of the federal government's unilateralism.

No question of Constitutionality ... it's just not being followed -- I encourage the reference case and look forward to the (unexpected) blowback!

6) So expect the governing Conservatives to go fullsteam ahead with Senate reform and pay little heed to constitutional challenges

Expect nothing but self-aggrandizement. On the PM's part, on the part of tenured and scholarly constitutional "legal experts" (think how much of their writing and pontificating they'd have to "undo"), the political backroom-player's part and even the Supreme Court's members' part (how much "wrong" they've allowed by avoiding the issue).

But now you know. You now know you've been deceived for your whole lifetime by every political science writer, teacher, prof, friend who has ever explained to you the Canadian Governance system

The Senate IS screwed up, but the real problem is with a neutered Governor General (widely-considered just another anachronism) and His/Her subsumed/stolen stable of appointed-for-life, independent advisors -- the Queen's Privy Council for Canada!!

The pivotal point EVERYONE'S missing is the usurpation of the CLEARLY superior Executive Power (ss.9-16) by the Legislative Power's Lower House's 50%+1 majority (with less than 40% support) Gang-Leader's office - ask me about Wm L M King's Order in Council P.C. 1940-1121 that accomplished this manoeuvre under cover of war while their was no GG!

With hope,

rce

Secrets to ReForming our ONE Parliament

Dear National Post Editor,


Re: Link Byfield's close-but-no-cigar proposals (below) to remedy The House of Commons' apoplexy. Plus a step-by-step outline of how to address our problems comprehensively.


Mr Byfield's recommendation that appointing him (and his senator-elect comrades) to the Upper Chamber as the all-in-one solution to the shambles of the arrested-in-development Constitutional framework of Canada and the turned-on-its-head institution of (responsible) government in this country is in itself nothing more than self-aggrandizement but it IS tantalizingly close to the solution.

In fact when Mr Byfield quotes the BNA Act's Section 22 he mis-reads the "4 Divisions" regional aspect of the Upper House's mandate and overlooks the most important aspect of the Senate constitutional construction -Section 23 & 31. (look it up - www.solon.org )

The Senators are the ONLY Canadian office holders that must meet a Real Property ownership & net worth qualification. The reason for this qualification standard was/is to ensure that the occupants of our "House of Lords" were sufficiently wealthy personally that they might counter-balance the "spend all the treasury" thinking of the plebeians of the Lower House.

Notwithstanding the fact that the now-lowly $4,000 property & net worth standards have been undermined by inflation, the concept behind the Senate was as "a bulwark against the caprices of the mob".

Step 1 to fix Canada is to seasonally adjust that $4,000 property & net worth qualification AND apply Section 31 DIS-qualification regulations to all incumbents who fail to remain qualified - this provision was placed intentionally, human nature has not changed much since 1867.

Step 2 Read BNA Act 17 and re-discover that in Canada our "One Parliament" has three integral AND hierarchical parts. Then read Sections 9-16 to re-discover the role of the Queen (particularly since 1982, which freed HER from HER ministers Advice regarding Canada) and the Governor General.

With particular care read Section 13 and compare it to Section 12 and note the express difference between decisions to be made by the "Governor General" and those to be made by the "Governor General in Council".

Dig out the Letters Patent of the Governor General (1947) and see the re-affirmation of the powers outlined in Section 12.

Step 3 Repeal Order-in-Council #1940-1121 a vital bit of 'masked by necessity in time of war' revenge by Wm L.Mackenzie King which merged the Privy Council into the Lower House's cabinet.

This little bit of chicanery (in reaction to Lord Byng's legally rightful refusal to grant King's request to dissolve Parliament a few years earlier) stripped the Governor General of His/Her independent advisors (the Privy Council, BNA Section 11) and led to today's mess where the captains of the Lower House double-check themselves.

Canada has a wonderfully suitable governance system. It was based on the failures and successes of the British system, the first & second US Constitutional systems and the structures devised to administer the Great Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy.

It is all written down, it is easy to read and follow, once read - but we're NOT FOLLOWING the provisions of the BNA ACT and we (including Mr Byfield) are NOT READING the whole document.

Truly,

Robert Ede

see
Evolution of functions of the Clerk of the Privy Council

see
The Treasury Board and its Secretariat



The dream of the Red Chamber

Monday » June 6 » 2005 Saturday » June 4 » 2005



Link Byfield
National Post
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Such stinging irony. On Monday, while the government vehemently denied taped proof it had subverted Parliament by attempting to bribe another member of the Opposition, a Liberal MP put a motion before the House.
Derek Lee wants the House of Commons to adopt a suitably dignified emblem, to express the vital role it plays in the process we call "responsible government." This at the very moment that the House of Commons has almost ceased to matter, and responsible government has been abandoned.
Rather like the formalizing of medieval heraldry precisely when feudalism began to die, or the perfecting of Scottish Highland symbols while clan chiefs were depopulating the Highlands to make more money from sheep.
It requires no special acumen (except, apparently, among Liberal MPs) to see that our parliamentary democracy is, for all practical purposes, dead.
A defeated national government last month refused against all precedent to relinquish power, preferring instead to give itself nine days to bribe and coax enough opposition MPs across the floor.
Not wishing to inconvenience itself with the fuss and bother of choosing a government, the public seems to have acquiesced, as did the governor-general. If parliamentary democracy is not dead, it's at least (as classics scholars like to say of Latin) resting.
And who could possibly be surprised after half-a-century of rampant centralization of power, away from Parliament and into the hands of the judiciary, the bureaucracy and (ultimately) the prime minister?
Elected Members of Parliament were long ago reduced to living at the mercy of the party machine, torn between fear of their leader and hope of Cabinet rewards that might make the rubber-stamp, trained-seal servility of their role more bearable.
Among MPs there are still impressive exceptions, but that's the point. They are exceptions.
The castration of representative government was exhaustively and depressingly chronicled by Universite de Moncton professor Donald Savoie in his landmark 1999 book Governing from the Centre. Unfortunately, he was then hired by the Prime Minister's Office and we haven't heard from him since.
The question Canadians should be addressing is how to fix this -- if indeed it can be fixed.
How can Parliament regain control of a government which has lost all sense of responsibility to Parliament?
The key to restoring Parliament doesn't lie in the Commons, I suggest, but in the Senate.
The Commons is a wreck. The Senate, despite its useless and porcine reputation, is a blank slate. Consider.
It has awesome powers it has never used, because it lacks elected legitimacy and serves as an extension of the PMO.
But suppose it were elected. Suppose every province elected its complement of senators with provincial elections, restricting the race to provincial party candidates and independents.
Result: a federal house that (1) actually protects provincial interests and constitutional rights, and (2) cares not a whit about what the national party leaders want in the Lower House.
With no change in the Senate's existing powers or seat distribution, and with no constitutional amendment, a provincially-elected Upper House could:
- Root out federal corruption. It would not need six years and an auditor-general's report to check into widespread rumours of corruption like the sponsorship scandal.
- Block any government legislation without forcing an election, even a budget. It could initiate its own legislation, except money bills.
- Review any federal appointment, and force the leader of even the strongest majority government to modify questionable or partisan-driven changes in public policy.
At this point, up to three major objections will be forming in some minds.
First, why should provinces be represented in a national Parliament? Answer, because that's how our constitution is written. Unlike MPs, senators are supposed to represent provinces. It states this explicitly in section 22.
Second, how can any government govern if it must constantly worry about getting its legislation through an independent elected House? Answer, ask the Australians. They manage. Ask the Americans, the Swiss, the Germans and people in every other federal system in the world.
Third, even if provinces do start electing Senate candidates, why would any prime minister appoint them? Answer, because if he doesn't he will lose seats in the House of Commons and not form a government.
Albertans realize that as long as it's just them electing candidates, the Liberals have nothing to gain by appointing the winners, and nothing to lose by ignoring them.
The same is not true of the Atlantic provinces (all now run by Conservative premiers) where the Liberals could lose 21 Commons seats. In the West outside Alberta they could lose 12, in Ontario 75 and in Quebec 21.
This is a done deal if there is ever a Conservative government in Ottawa. Both party and leader have pledged to appoint provincially elected candidates.
But even a Liberal prime minister could be pushed into it. For one thing, he would get all of the credit for an historic reform, and none of the headache. At the present rate of Senate retirements, it would take eight years or more for elected replacements to form a majority in the Upper House.
During that time, it would be possible for Canadians to assess whether the elected senators were better than the appointees.
For now, the question is not whether parliamentarians should be elected. The real question is whether the premiers are smart enough to claim control of the election process before a Liberal prime minister's office steps in and sabotages our last, best hope for genuine parliamentary reform.
The premiers bear a weighty responsibility to the nation's future in this. We should hold them to it.
© National Post 2005

Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

Canada's NOT following the BNA/Constitution

First published on Mocassins on Nov 27/2006 and moved due to timeliness.
"What Executive Decision will be made, next time, since the GovGen has now agreed to prorogue the House?".
"Whose advising Her?" - anyone other than the prime beneficiaries of the 'recommendation'?


The Executive Order of Government - lost, forgotten or never learned.

Just one aspect of the "Preparing for 55 Seconds of Power "
Campaign in the London North Centre By-election

Dear Editors, Authors and Monarchist League Members,

The powers of the Canadian Executive Order of government - the Monarch, the Governor General and His/Her Privy Council (ss.9-16) -- of our 1867 system of checks-and-balances were usurped by the Rt Hon Wm Lyon Mackenzie King starting in 1940.

Since then, things have never been the same in Parliament or Canada, because the lost, forgotten or never-learned written provisions of our BNA/Constitution Acts are simply NOT being followed.

This benign neglect of the text (or, the very-human, purposeful pushing-of-the-envelope of power) culminates with today's 37% Minority in the Commons Prime Minister's Office being able to control and direct the Military, the Civil Service, the Governor General's Privy Council and (with a little stick-handling) the Senate and the Commons.

'Twas never meant to be, but it happened so long ago, that gradually, over time, our current, not-following the Constitution, de facto system has replaced the de jure provisions of the text.

Why?

Civics isn't taught (how could it be when the observable facts don't match the text), any talk about the Constitution gets rolled-back-eye reaction and knee-jerk assumption that it somehow is restricted to discussion about Quebec plus no present-day expert, player or pundit has any personal experience with any other system.

Does no one actually bother to READ the Constitution? Are all the experts, players and pundits just regurgitating what someone else wrote, or an understanding expressed by the authority-of-the-previous-day? or is there a tacit agreement, not to open this particular, foundational can of worms? - sort of a present-day Emperor's New Clothes conspiracy of rear-end covering.

How did it happen?

Under cover of the war effort Mackenzie King exacted his revenge for the refusal of Lord Byng to grant his request for a dissolution of Parliament in 1926. King merged the Office of Principal Secretary with the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council ( s.11 -advisors to the s.10 Governor General) by simultaneously appointing Arnold Danford Patrick Heeney to both posts with Order in Council (PC 1940-1121) thus ensuring that only Mackenzie King's people would be advising the GG.

N.B.King's revenge was complete when he succeed in lobbying for a Canadian to be appointed Governor General (on the PM's recommendation), since surely no mere Canadian would be so un-flattered by the Vice Regal appointment that they'd want to exercise the Executive powers of the Office as well.

Because of the war, unifying the Privy Council & the Prime Minister's Office likely seemed a good idea - consolidation of planning etc etc. But in peacetime, the concentration of power created with this Machiavellian manoeuvre was the reason behind the complaints that Diefenbaker and opposition MP's had with the over the heads of the Commons actions of C.D. Howe et al in the Pipeline Plan and in the implementation of other grand designs of the post-war re-construction.

In the 50's, parliamentarians, pundits and the general public would have remember how it used to be from their own life experience, but now, no one actually remembers first-hand - fortunately we do have the written text of the BNA/Constitution as a benchmark.

In addition, we have the historic progression of responsible government flowing from the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act, the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Act of Union 1840 and the Charlottetown & Quebec versions of resolutions that formed the basis ( i.e. changes were made in London) for the BNA 1867 that was proclaimed by the Imperial government.

If you read the text of 1867, the Legislative Order with it's two chambers were designed to be inferior to the Executive - policies and programs could initiate from either, and being approved by both, were to be submitted for approval of the Executive.

The provinces too (now viewed as asymmetrically-independent, quasi-states), were designed to be inferior to the Executive - there is no distribution of Executive Powers. In addition, all provincial Bills may be Disallowed by the general government's Governor in Council ( s.13), or reserved by the Lt Governor for Executive scrutiny (s.90) or outright not assented to by the GG's appointee, the Lt Governor (s.65).

The Governor General is supposed to be the Top Dog, the Big Kahuna and to be involved in all Bills and Acts hence the imperative tradition of the Speech from the Throne.

The Vice Regal with(s.13) and/or without(s.12) an independent group of advisors (He/She could select or consult with any prior P.C. member or appoint new outsiders) vetted the proposals and was empowered either to approve the measure, withhold Assent or reserve the Bill for consideration by the Monarch-in-Council in the UK ( ss.55 & 57). Further any and every Bill could be Disallowed by the Imperial government within two years(s.56).

Notwithstanding a few amendments in 1931's Statute of Westminster, the 1947 Letters Patent of the Governor General and 1982 partial-patriation exercise (with the almost impossible to utilize Amending Formulae, entrenching a condition-bracketed Charter of Rights that we previously fully enjoyed et al), nothing has changed.

The Executive is separate and superior to the Legislative. Intentionally!

Further, notwithstanding the present-day conventional-wisdom, the Senate is superior to the Lower House, it's representatives of the propertied-class who will likely be paying the freight members face (then)stringent property ownership & net-worth qualifications/ disqualifications (sadly eroded by inflation -it's the only number in Canada not seasonally-adjusted) and a special oath (the Fifth Schedule).

The Senate stands as a "bulwark against the clamour and caprices of the mob" ( Sir James Lougheed), "to protect the regional interests and also a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element" ( G.E Cartier) and "It is the duty of the nobles to oppose the fickleness of the multitude"(Cicero -carved in oak frieze of Senate Speaker's chambers).

The Fathers of Confederation, in concert with the Imperial government knew from world-wide experience that without some superior Office or institutions to double-check (in Canada's case quadruple-checking) the actions of the Democratic Element in the Lower House (i.e. the Leaders of the party-members making the 'best ' promises to spend more on me and somehow tax someone else), short-term-motivated chaos would reign, the interests of those needing to be re-elected would be paramount, the Treasury would be depleted or over-drawn, the lunatics would be running the asylum (and its accounting department) - in short, the present situation.

What can be done?

Simply, read the Constitution for yourself (I've started on a Plain-language version to make it easier) and if you agree with my reading, demand that it's provisions be followed, yes you, yes demand. Introduction, Part 1-1867, Part 2-1982

Separate the Privy Council (reversing an Order in Council is easy) from the Cabinet and let the Prime Minister and a few of his/her top Ministers be ex officio members of the Privy Council instead of occupying every chair on every committee.

Seasonally-adjust the $4,000 Senatorial property & net-worth qualifications with no grand-fathering/mothering and watch that place snap to life with new blood (if provinces want to pre-elect their choices, why not) NB $4,000 is somewhere between $240,000 and $320,000 so it's not an impossibly high standard, but would shake out the folks who should never have been appointed)

Governor General will be too powerful to be appointed, you say? No problem, just start the restoration of the government structure to the as-written format with the Privy Council and the Senate, then work on establishing a process to elect the next Governor General. (Perhaps every other general election, with the term actually stating one year after the return of the writs allowing a break-in, transition period)

The House of Commons, well it can go back to being the assembly of everybody and every voice. Relieved of the pressure of being the source of authority for the PMO/PCO juggernaut, the MP's can debate, propose, oppose, discuss ... BE a democratically selected assembly of popular representatives instead of trained puppets, whipped into shape by the party bosses.

The Re-Confederation of Canada, in its own image, starts today, with you.

Rce
November 15, 2006


Robert Ede, on the Ballot in the London North Centre By-election on November 27, 2006, is running on an 11 point platform of fundamental awareness and education of Voters in preparation for them exercising their 55 seconds of power (casting their ballot) Point # 5 relates to the article above. His full platform is on robertede.blogspot.com.



-- Robert Ede
Independent Candidate,
London North Centre By-election - Nov 27/06.
25 Dersingham CresThornhill ONL3T 4P5
Direct 416-819-7333
London 519-282-8303
robertede.blogspot.com
stephenleacock.blogspot.com
There is no shame is turning back, when you discover you're on the wrong path. -------------------------------------------------------------------

More on this topic

Senate Reform Starts starts with the Governor General
see robertede.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-reform-starts-with-governor.html

The Root of the Problem with Government in Canada.
see stephenleacock.blogspot.com/2005/12/root-of-problem-with-government-in.html

Press Release - London Campaign - applies (with obvious diff's) to this one too!

Robert Ede
Confirmed by Elections Canada
as Independent Candidate in
London North Centre, Federal By-election

Robert Ede, 53 a Realtor from Thornhill, ON has joined with 6 other candidates to contest the Federal By-election to be held Nov 27, 2006 in the riding of London North Centre.

Ede, as an independent, is not affiliated with any political party and is conducting a campaign of his own design and content.

Themes include a discussion on the definition of the Crown, re-establishment of the 1867 as-written in BNA Act roles for the Governor General, Privy Council, Senate, House of Commons and Prime Minister.

Robert is presenting 11 foundational points about Canadian governance that he feels "are never discussed at elections and will never be on any party's platform" .

Ede admits the points he raises are "too complicated and too fundamentally important for conventional political strategists to want to present - it's not possible to reduce the concepts to a catchy slogan".

Based on his door to door campaign to obtain the written consent of 120 voters for his official nomination "Londoners are fed up with being fed pablum & platitudes at election time - they're skeptical of any party's election promises"

Ede's campaign entitled "Money, Power & Simplicity - Understanding Canada's Government System and then Doing Something to remedy its shortcomings" is the culmination of Robert's 14 year personal study of the BNA/Constitution Acts and their predecessor documents dating from 1763. Ede says he's "so boring that I enjoy poring over the Public Accounts & Annual Financial Reports".

No stranger to politics Robert established a Charlottetown Referendum Committee in 1992 (hence the BNA/Constitutional predisposition of his program) and ran for a small party in Richmond Hill ON, nationally in 1993 and provincially in 1995. Ede moved to the Federal Progressive Conservatives from 1995 until 2003 serving on the Riding Executives in Richmond Hill and Markham and attending their Policy Convention in Winnipeg in 1996.

Most recently, Robert attended the Calgary Congress in late September 2006, intrigued by the Conference's agenda including Western alienation, Alberta Separation and Senate Reform.

Ede says he was "abandoned" by the P.C. & Reform/Alliance merger and has been conducting his writing and research projects "without any of that baggage - I don't feel obligated to oppose or support any existing idea or program, just because some former Party or its Leader did or didn't -- I consider each issue on its own, depending on whether it fits or is incompatible with my own overarching vision for Canada"

Quite gung-ho and positive about his prospects, Robert says London is the most-perfect setting possible because London Canada is thought of as the city most truly representative of cross-Canada sentiments and values - many large firms run their market-trial programs here.

"Perfect Storm" election conditions and timing
Ede calls the timing of these By-elections a "perfect storm", presenting the ideal conditions for his independent campaign, "We have (and will probably have next time) a Minority-government Parliament - no party will be significantly raised up or no government will fall, based on the results of the 2 by-elections. Further, in a minority Parliament, every MP's vote counts ... an independent member will have a significant role to play on every vote in the House."

"In addition, and best of all, there will be no Leaders Tour, no Leaders Debate, no national advertising campaign (with the 308 local elections just riding the coattails) - these By-election will solely be about what the individual Candidates represent and how the Voters of London North Centre and Repentigny react to those people and ideas".

Presenting a tightly-spaced 4 page platform, Ede says his campaign boils down "to finishing the Patriation-of-Sovereignty that was started by the 1982 Constitutional changes" and asking Canadians to consider 3 essential questions:

"Whose Dominion is the Dominion of Canada?"
"How shall we live?"
"Who will decide?"

Admitting that an intellectual campaign has never been tried before, he says "Londoners have a well-established pride and sophisticated knowledge about their city, its history and Canada and its history, I'm not concerned about anyone not understanding what I saying nor missing the point on why I'm saying it - the University is smack in the middle of the riding, many professors and staff live here"

Success & Victory
Ede counts "a partial victory every time a voter says to me, Really, I didn't know that or Thanks, nobody ever explained it to me like that" and suggests that with "several of those epiphanies each day, along with a little they tell two friends, who then tell two friends ... all things are possible."

Robert maintains that the campaign "will be a success, if only 9 or 6 or 3 of my 11 points become an integral part of this by-election and are introduced to the nation-wide political discussion ... even if I am not elected."

An End to 10+3 plus 31million solitudes warring the the bosom of a single state
As an example of his unique and outside-the-box approach to communicating his message, Ede is borrowing from and adapting two historic events, first by suggesting that this election could become know as the beginning of the "Great Peace of the Canadian Confederation" he alludes to the pledges of co-operation and unity the Six Nations made to each other when they established their Confederacy and its bi-cameral governance system. His " U.C.L. United Canadian Loyalist" designation is of course, a modern version of the honour bestowed on post-Revolutionary War, Crown subjects who fled the new republic and helped hurry the establishment of Canada.

Unrattled by nay-sayers who "wonder where he gets the energy to fight such an uphill battle" Robert Ede is ready willing and able to take on "the giants" even on unfamiliar turf.

"I know that if enough people get a chance to read what I've put in my handouts and on my blog or come to an All-Candidates meeting - they'll be convinced that I can win and that an independent MP is probably the best thing they can have represent them in Ottawa"

-- 30 --

Bio, Pictures, Platform on
http://robertede.blogspot.com/
London By-election Contact Info:Robert Ede25 Dersingham CresThornhill ONL3T 4P5Direct 416-819-7333London 519-282-8303
http://robertede.blogspot.com/http://stephenleacock.blogspot.com/

Cdn Party Names & History vis a vis "Liberal & Conservative" values

A reply to a friend - who sent me a link to a USA-based discussion on "Liberal" vs "Conservative" (appended to very end)

Dear I',

This US-based overview is quite good as an introduction

-esp the media bias (university professor bias) part

In Canada we enjoy/suffer Party Names that are (now)identical to these two main ideological categories, and therefore recommend that the categories need examination before application to any Party Name (i.e. define your terms)

FIRST the TWO CATEGORIES, then the CDN PARTY NAMES (w commentary) , then some issues that might need discussion-at-elections re: "conserving" or "liberalizing"

1) CATEGORIES

Conservative - conserve what? perserve what?

-The Status Quo? or a return to the essence of the original principles that Canada was founded upon?

Liberal - liberate/free-up what? re-form what?

2) PARTY NAMES & Parties

Now a word or two on our Parties

Conservative Party (nee Reform Party)

-a western, agrarian & oil/gas extraction +smallish town protest party based in BC & Alta

-the organisers wanted more clout (ie beyond their pop or economic contribution level) than they had had - capitalized on the innate hatred/envy of centralized power in Ontario/Quebec

-The original slogan (born in mid-80's when things were booming out there) "The west wants In ....or else"  NB they dropped the last part when they crossed the Man/Ont border.

-wanted electoral reform (House and Senate) and reform of equalization/subsidization formulae and ..... at least as much coddling as was going to Quebec

-in mid 1990's there was a merger of the Reform Party (with seats in the west but no national credibility) with the PC party (which had national credibility, but few seats)  which itself was a merger (1930's) of the Conservative/Tory/Status Quo Party and the Progressives (a western agrarian protest party)

Stephen Harper is a Leaside-born, Etobicoke-raised and transplanted-to-Calgary, thin-skinned, proud-of-himself-as-overachiever who hopes nobody finds out he's much-less than everybody thinks he is (much like you and me). He's university educated as an economist and never-really applied that knowledge, because the pap they were teaching then was so inimical to what he himself thought.

Stevie quit Reform, he merged the two parties (achievement), he proposed a coalition to replace a fallen Paul Martin Jr in 2004, he 'gave up' governing in 2008 and bamboozled the GG into giving him a new election (about 30 days before Lehman Bros blew-up - I guess he didn't want to try to get elected {under his own 2007 rules on fixed election dates} in 2009)

He overstepped with his post-2008 Economic Statement and had to a) back down in 5 seconds and then bamboozle the GG to prorogue Parliament to avoid falling into the identical 'coalition" trap that he himself advised/promoted in 2004.

THEN just before the Olympics he bamboozled the GG (dear sweet thing probably thought she'd get a term-extension out of the deal) into another (2nd annual?) prorogation ON THE PHONE, to avoid unpleasant questions while the world was watching Canada Own The Podium.

Now he's spent the last six months undermining/knifing Iggy on TV and on the internet and esrtwhile formulating an election-style "budget" that he'll never have to implement per se. This cream-puff "Budget" predicts revenue will go up 40+% in 5 yrs while programs go up a meagre 9.8% in same timeframe and as a result of faulty premises #1 &#2 ends up "balanced" a few yrs out - PREPOSTEROUS!

Oh yes and then he was surprised when the Lib's et al "forced" an election that he didn't want. Poor baby. Chess player ... maybe ... but the moves are too obvious.

Liberal Party

Since the modern era post WW2 this party is a mess/mass/morass of "wherever the wind blows" policy.

The Liberal Party of Canada stands for nothing permanently, but anything if you'll vote for it. Accompanied by a fingers-crossed probability to NOT fulfill any policy pledge if not ABSOLUTELY forced to do so, to stay in office.
Stand up for "something" or you'll Fall for anything. - Libertarian Hill Cox circa 1993
The Liberal Party stands for "nothing" ..... except Election.

After Wm L M King (who KNEW what he wanted for Canada) passed the torch to Louis St. Laurent they lost focus - while indeed they did very well in electoral popularity in 1950's (boom time), 1960's (albeit in in minority parliaments most of the time) 1970's (spending borrowed public money on vote-getting programs that stood no actuarial hope (post baby-boom) of ever being able to repay it)

They got complacent/arrogant in office and blew up in 1957 (Pipeline Scandal) 1979 (everyone was sick and tired of Trudeau by then) and then again in 2004-06 when the great-new leader Mr P Martin Jr turned out to have feet-of-clay and a ditherer (this is why Chretien held on so long ... he knew Martin was incompetent).

It is to be remembered that the unaffordable (once the Baby Boom ended) pay-as-you-go Great Cdn Cradle-to-Grave Social Safety Net programs (Universal Health, Can Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Unemployment Insurance) were CCF/UFA/UnioNDP policies that were pushed thru Minority Liberal Parliaments to placate the 3rd party and garner their support for the Liberal Minority.

Trudeau (1965-1968) enthralled the country with his flair, youth, decisiveness and sense of purpose (actually it was the predictable ego & hubris of a nouveaux-riche "rich-man's" son who felt himself unbound by natural laws)

His 'modern' thinking (rooted in Fabian-Socialism and the ?noblesse-oblige? of the Rationalist-intelligentsia towards the great unwashed) changed Canada.

He however recognised that post-baby boom, Canada needed more people; that the USA was our neighbour but NOT our trust-able friend; that the Constitutional History & Law of Canada was always going to side with the Aboriginal Peoples; that Keynes was right only if a war came along to kick-start production AND curtail consumption WHILE changing the public attitude towards higher taxation ..... and .... if a war didn't come along, that  the inflation/currency devaluation was the only way "out" of the debt; that placating the domestic public and enduring the House of Commoners games (particularly in minority) was boring and better suited to underlings.
Further he saw that with control of the PCO (thanks to Wm L M King's 1940 emergency, temporary usurpation of the Privy Council) he could centralize all decision making to his inner circle .... and delegate everything mundane to political operators who would get future votes in exchange for "little favours" doled out along the way.

Chretien was an old-school patronage pro (Trudeau was his school, but Chretien skipped "elan" classes). A no holds barred street-fighter you had to admire for his sheer chutzpah but hate for his objectives, strategies, tactics and bald-faced glibness.

Paul Martin Jr, is the son of a successful and respected parliamentarian (it's just too bad that the dad was a social-engineering, central-interventionist). Mentored (some say bought) by Paul Desmarais (the only job Jr ever had) and 'given' the no-money down opportunity to re-organize (under Liberian et al flags) Canada Steamship Lines  - from which Jr made some money to entitle himself to join the country-club set (I can only guess whether or not PowerCorp / Desmarais ever asked any favours of Jr in return)

Iggy - was fooled into thinking he could become CDN PM in a yr or two. Currently being hustled off the stage by Bob Rae (sorry not til after this disastrous defeat) with Trudeau Jr nipping at Rae's heels (a son of a nouveau-riche, well-loved parliamentarian  ... sheesh - I'm sure this kid's being "tutored" by someone a la Obama ... just wish I knew who)

Next Lib leader Bob Rae. Then merger of Lib's and NDP under first Layton succeeded by Rae, then by Justin-baby.

unioNDP

-the New (Democratic) Party grew out of the CCF UFA and the Unions - then industrial/agrarian unions NOW civil service unions AND THEIR pension funds (which must soon be broken up into manageable competitors and not mono-lithic "pay-too-much' realty/bond monopolies

-Party stands firmly for Social Democratic "transformation" like Obama (i.e gov't control of the "means of production" and property" etc etc based on Marx's ideas for the proud, tenacious and energetic people of GERMANY, but instead applied to Russia and China instead)

This phrase Social Democracy is code for socialism but slowly and step by step (ie by gradually penetrating the mindset of the proletarian idiot/drone/workers, election by election) The People's Democratic Republic of ....fill in the blank ... - a top-down, military-enforced, police-state, bureaucracy of party insiders + mostly poor illiterate people)

- this was the gradual approach of the Mensheviks(minority) - but the Bolsheviks (majority) 'victory at-any-cost' approach prevailed in Russia

-UNION dues (and of course the Quarterly Electoral subsidy) finances their operations and Unions dominate the control of the party (again, once industrial/agrarian, now civil service, unions)

-stand for EXACTLY the same thing as the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois -sans sovereignty-association/separation of the Belle Province

-NDP success in Quebec (if polls are to be believed) indicates that Quebec leans heavily socialist (France, Europe etc) but sees less hope/desire/applicability/practicality in separating from Canada - Hooray!

-as above, soon to merge with the Liberals (just as Reform merged with the PC's)

Green Party

-Former Leader, Jim Harris, figured out that by running a paper (no campaign, just on paper) candidate in every riding, they'll get enough votes (from none-of-the-above & protest voters, tree-hugger, animal-rights, pollution, Carbon DiOxide, Carbon MonOxide folks ...  heck we'll take a vote for any reason) that they'll qualify for permanent electoral financing .... now nearly $1.9million/yr to run the office and pay the top leaders a good salary .... even if they NEVER get elected.

Elizabeth May ran to the head of this gravy-train

3) Issues to Conserve/Liberalize?

Examples:

-Continue pillaging the land and forests and waters for immediate employment and tax revenue? or a 'cost-of replenishment' system of licensing, stumpage fees and production royalties that will allow the ultimate owner (the Crown on behalf of the populace) to share in the immediate harvest(non renewables) and permit the replenishment of renewables.

-Continue to have no law on whether "the state" can sanction the "taking of a life"? or realize that the next step from legalized abortion is legalized euthanasia.

-Continue making backroom purchases and acquisitions without true tender (or for future consideration) or be open about who's getting what contract, why and for what reason & based on what criteria?

-Continue not-following the as-written BNA/Constitution re: the Executive Power of Canadian governance or return to the original power-sharing hierarchy (checks and balance within Legislative & Executive power-sharing)?

-Continue to allow helter-shelter immigration (and family reunification) without enforcing any means-test or sponsorship-pledges? or risk offending multi-cult constituencies by 'changing the rules' in the middle of 'the game' THEY are playing with gov't against the middle-class?

-Continue allowing the existing trade/professional guilds to deny/decide on whose credentials THEY will accept? or establish certification tests/exams/practicums that can be passed BEFORE arriving?

Link to about 17 more Election issues you'll never hear about:

36 Days leading to your 55 seconds of Power ( ~time from receiving to returning your ballot)

Elections are much more than the "Leader's Tour" and slogan book

-but who'da thunk it?

 rce

FROM my friend 'I'

Now the election time is coming, and I found very interesting information

about the beliefs of two main parties the conservatives and liberals.
I would like to send this site to U; please read it.

After reading that important information I have no doubt that

Christians should vote for conservatives.

Please pay your attention to section "Religion and Government","Same sex marriages"and

"War on Terror". I always was for conservatives, but I did not have written facts to protect my believe in that party. Now I have these strong arguments and I bravely can say that conservatives are for God and liberals are going against God.

---

Dear friends,

Please read it.http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

More on PR - the cotton candy of Parliamentary Reform

Dear Editors Opinion Canada,

I wish to refute the premise, arguments and conclusions of the article "Electoral system reform - still on the radar"on your Opinion Canada website.

Introducing PR as the 'be all and end all solution' to the 'democratic deficit' is like cutting spending and raising taxes enough to run annual operating budgets in the black WITHOUT addressing the principal of the debt or looking at how that principal is financed.

If you want real solutions, address the root problems!


The reason that voters are dissatisfied with the government system IS not the system or the government, it is the Parties that i) don't stand for anything (except election), ii) don't honestly declare their vested interest (and or ownership), iii) don't do what they campaigned on iv) have gerry-rigged the electoral financing system to favour incumbents & v) have gerry-rigged the 1867 written constitutional governance system to concentrate power that SHOULD be distributed and therefore 'checked & balanced'.

Therefore to suggest more parties (and more smaller parties) no matter (how well-represented in the assembly) as the solution is imperfect and off the point.

The 'problem' needing solving is not majority vs. minority vs. coalition parliaments it is the concentration of power in the Prime Ministers Office (This Federal problem has been "shared" by example with the various provinces, but I'll stick to Federal here).

The assemblies in Canada were granted "Responsible Government" in 1791-1840's, meaning the arbitrary and absolute power of each colony's Governor was checked - the Assembly had to pass the measures the Governor wishes implement.

Canada never moved past this point.

No matter what the non-history buffs in the media and politics say, Canada has never been proclaimed a 'democracy' (i.e. sovereignty flowing from the people), it was and is a limited-by-constitution Monarchy.

Nothing changed in 1982 - all we got then was a condition-ridden Charter, a polyglot of inter-related, impossible to utilize, amending formulae and oh yes, an end to the influence of the British Cabinet, House of Commons & House of Lords. The Queen is still the source of all Canadian sovereignty, the "owner" of all Canadian land and the "final veto-holder" on all legislation. Any Canadian office-holder is a mere "steward" of the Monarch's assets and power.

If you think this is guff, stop reading - you'll be too flabbergasted at the abuse the "real system" has suffered at the hands of the "stewards".

Bringing this back to Proportional Representation, the 'problem' the PR advocates 'solve' is in getting 'their' little party a seat or two in the assembly. Any of the PR models will do nothing to increase the efficacy of governing, nor anything to establish a government that holds an overarching set of principles and policies that is designed to benefit everyone i.e. for the governed vs. for the governors.

In short, Britain never entrusted us locals with much power. The Spnsorship scandal (and all the Mulroney/ Trudeau/ Pearson/St Laurent ones too) show us they were correct.

Power corrupts, absolute power ... often gets the better of just about anyone.

Here's the hierarchical system NOW in place but not followed:

1867
(s.17) There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Monarch-in-Council - Queen obligated to accept advice of Cabinet
- Can Disallow any Canadian Bill within 2 yrs


Governor General - (s. 55-57) assents/withholds assent/reserves all Bills in Monarch's name
- (s12) not obliged to accept Cabinet advice (except where term 'Governor-in- Council' is used in Constitution (s.13)
- can disallow "in Council" any provincial bill within 1 year (s.90)

Privy Council - (s.11)independent advisors to GovGen (some as ex officio members)
-ex officio (by right of their office) members have sworn loyalty and secrecy upon accepting cabinet post but non-cabinet members may also be chosen by GovGen as Privy Councillors
-sub-committees (treasury board etc) supervise and manage the Cabinet's
activities

Upper House(Senate) -must satisfy property ownership & net worth qualifications
- lose office if they lose property or net worth
-chosen to balance population inequality in lower house
-chosen to represent the 'regional' interests
-chosen to represent the propertied class ('oppose the democratic element')
-appointed to be free of "buy-em with their own money" crassness
-must approve all bills
-may initiate any bill except a money bill

Lower House (Commons)-any voter can be elected
-selects a Speaker to Chair the meetings
-selects a member (who commands the respect of the assembly or a portion
thereof) to form a 'government', (aka. a ministry, aka a governing council
or aka a Cabinet) and to become First Minister aka Prime Minister of that
Cabinet and to be spokesman of the Assembly when requesting
assent to a Bill from the GovGen as Crown.





Wm Lyon Mackenzie was refused a dissolution of Parliament in 1926 and set out to 'fix that' problem.

In 1940 he merged the office of Clerk of the Privy Council with the Secretary to the Cabinet's post, thereby merging the Privy Council Office with the Cabinet and usurping the "advisory & supervisory" power of the Privy Council and its committees.


King led a campaign to have "a Canadian" appointed as GovGen, once accomplished the Prime Minister's office had usurped the powers of the Governor General, and kept it that way by subsequently placing drones as GG, who would dare not defy the Prime Minister again

1982

Queen (& Canada) - no longer bound by decisions of British Cabinet, Commons and Lords (Canada Act UK 1982)


GovGen - powers a la 1867 restated in Letter Patent of 1947

Senate - inflation has undermined property & net worth qualification
- $4,000 no longer denotes "wealth"
- PM installs party drones to pre-determine results in Upper House,
- supervisory nature & "higher" order of gov't essence is lost
- all other rules the same except appointed til age 75 not for life

House of Commons
- a person in charge of a party (i.e. a privately-held, tax-subsidized organization in the fool- enough-of-the-people business) who with as little as 37-40% of popular votes, but managing to squeak out 50%+1 members in this house, is in charge of the country with no meaningful opposition or check or balance.
- this is true in practice, but not in the constitution.



Twas never meant this way.

But to try to address the usurpation of the checks and balances power by the PM, by introducing PR as the 'be all and end all solution' to the democratic deficit, is like cutting spending and raising taxes enough to run annual operating budgets in the black, WITHOUT addressing the principal of the debt or looking at how that principal is financed.


Oh, I see that's where we are on that file too .... no wonder so many scholars are wasting time on PR.

Whose Dominion is it?

As I think Laurier's 'twas great-grandson (or his friend) that said "We weren't quite up and running for the 19th Century, too bad we blew it this past one ... despite what what G-E thought ... perhaps though, with a little determination and forethought, this new Century might just be Canada's?"

Canada, 2003, still operates under foundational laws that suited the stewards of the British Crown’s management of a pesky, far-away colony in 1867.

These stewards (the British government) kept all of the ultimate ownership rights (lands, property, final appeal of court decisions & legislative veto) and set up a system for local participation in day-to-day affairs.

Then through a series of part-measures - expansion of territory to Pacific & Arctic Oceans, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Governor General’s Act 1947, the diminution of British world influence and the 1982 Constitutional changes – Canada “became independent”.

Bravo, wonderful for us … except we never changed the basic foundational parts – we just fluffed up the edges, added a condition-ridden charter and impossible-to-use amending formula and put a bow on top.

Canada remains “owned by” and “operated in the name of” the Monarch and there’s the rub. If the British Parliament’s Canada Act of 1982 declared all laws of Great Britain of no effect in Canada, but left all references to “The King/Queen” as sovereign and head of the executive intact, ... who’s the boss?

Who owns the Crown's Assets here? ... the people? the Canadian government? the Queen?

To Whom are all Canadian ministers-of-the-crown accountable? the people? themselves? the Queen?

In Whose name and for whose benefit are our Governments acting? the people? themselves? the Queen?

According to the 1867 (unchanged) rule book the Queen/King IS the absolute Boss/ Source of Sovereignty and Owner of Everything – and with more power NOW in Canada than S/He has controlled since the Glorious Revolution days of England.

Now, even more than in 1867, The Monarch is at the top of the power totem AS AN INDIVIDUAL. Unfettered by the British Cabinet, Queen Elizabeth IS the supreme Head of Canadian governance ... EXCEPT she gave operating rights to the Governor General.

Notwithstanding how we poorly-schooled-in-civics Canadians THINK our government operates, the Governor General IS ultra-important, IS the holder of tremendous Royal-granted powers and IS absolutely KEY to any progress in governance-reform.

Amaze yourself and re-read Sections 12&13 of BNA 1867. The Governor General CAN ACT ALONE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL (ie without advice or advice & consent) in granting, denying or ‘withholding' for consultation royal assent (ss 55-57). S/He cannot initiate legislation, but S/He can stop dead-in-its-track any Bill across the land and nobody can say “boo” about it.

Is this right? The constitution says so. Is this opposite to what everybody thinks? Absolutely.

Do you remember the GST Senator appointments? Same deal – it was written in 1867 and remains in effect to this day – nobody could say “boo”, once they read the ‘rule book’.

Royal privileges or prerogatives DO NOT “go away”, no matter how infrequently they are used. They are never “spent” and never die through lack of use.

Methinks the selection of Governors General and Lieutenant Governors (who possess similar powers outlined in Sections 65,66 & 90) should be much more carefully studied by both the government-of-the-day and the public.

Next surprise ... the Senate IS important.

The Upper House represents, yes the regions, but more importantly, they represent the PROPERTIED class (why else do ONLY SENATORS have ‘net wealth’ and ‘property’ qualifications?). The Senate was intended as a "bulwark against the caprices of the mob".

The Chamber that everyone jokes about and wants to abolish was intended to prudently balance any wild ideas coming from the Commons (the bottom rung on the totem pole), Because Senators were expressly appointed to represent THE INTERESTS of THE FOLKS THAT HAD TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.

So what’s gone wrong? Since the Prime Minister of the Commons has been granted authority to ‘recommend without question’ the selection of Crown appointees to both the Senate and office of Governor General, both institutions have become subservient (in practice, not by design) to the very Prime Minister and his/her puisne pals of the Lower House that they were designed to oversee.

Only in Canada, you say ... pity.

Responsible Gov't vs 'democracy' --Top Down or Bottom Up?

more Proportional Representation, Party Lists & Mixed-Voting systems
- the diversionary pablum of Governance Reform in Canada


Go ahead, have Proportional Representation if you want, fiddle with the terms of office or fix them on given dates or ban parties or ban party discipline or have 25 parties in the House or raise the decisional-majority in the House to 66.66% or .... anything you think makes the Commons, the vital but tertiary, order of governance an "assembly of the popular will".

But first (and nothing will change until this is done), inculcate within the general public a knowledge of, and a respect for the as-written governance system, re-instate the vice-regal nobility of the Governor General, re-instate the property-class mandate of the Senate (adjust-for-inflation the $4,000 qualification) and sever the Privy Council from the PMO.

In other words, go back to First Principles.

I only wish the Queen would disallow a Bill, just to get the ball rolling.

My only advice to a nescient Canada - READ THE RULE BOOK, and decide for yourself from knowledge, not assumption or popular mis/dis-conception.




My Bias:

-I believe Canada's 1867 Constitutional set-up is perfect for Canada then & now. We're just NOT following the written provisions.

-1867 had a democratic 'element' the House of Commons with 3 'higher order' checks & balances built in to prevent 'bad ideas from the plebeians' from becoming law.(i.a Senate representing the propertied class, ii. a local Governor General who can deny assent (s.12), or reserve assent (s.55) and iii. the Mother government's Monarch-in-Council that can disallow any bill within 2yrs (s.56) or allow a reserved bill to expire (s.57) without assent.)

-No aspect of these written aspects of 1867 has changed except the Monarch of Canada no longer needs to be bound by the recommendations of Her/His British 'in-Counsellors' (Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 -see footnote #79.




This said, I believe the House of Commons was designed to be of vital, but tertiary importance in governing Canada, and was never designed to be THE Authoritative Chamber of governance (i.e. the inmates were not intentionally placed in charge of the asylum), albeit IT WAS the chamber that the Governor had to be 'responsible to' in money matters (no tax measures can be passed by order-in-council).

I believe 'the key' to explaining my position is in understanding:

1)the s.11 role of the Privy Council (and its committees - Treasury Board et al) as independent advisors to the Governor General;

2)the s.12 'independent' of 'advice' or 'advice and consent', Executive Powers of the Governor General vis a vis s.13, (similarly s.65 vis a vis s.66 provincially) ;

3)the significance of the property ownership & net worth qualifications/disqualifications (s.23(3)(4) and 31(3)(5) of the Upper House members (sadly lost to inflation).

4)the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council was only subsumed by the Prime Minister's Office in 1940. Prior to that the Privy Council's committees oversaw the operations of the Cabinet with key Cabinet members being ON the committees - but not totally in charge as now, running these committees as an 'inner cabinet'.



If this makes no sense to you - take heart, the sly usurpation of the Governor General's powers, the Privy Council's powers and the Senate's rightful place BY the PMO, IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY took place gradually, under cover of war urgency (WW2), in times of reconstruction (1950's) and plenty (1960's), with the benign neglect of the Crown, the British Crown-in-Council and the Canadian people.

Everybody was too busy living their own life (and trusting that 'the government' was dutifully and earnestly doing the 'right thing') to notice, that the owners of the Party that controlled the Commons were taking over the country.

They weren't overtly evil people - they just saw a 'business opportunity' and took advantage of it (being in government then, meant lots of Public service jobs and contracts for 'the faithful')


If Canada was to BE a democracy (it wasn't) ruled by the vagaries of popular will (it wasn't, isn't and should not be, IMHO) the 1867 set-up would never have been devised with so many senior powers to be a "bulwark against the clamour and caprice of the mob" -Sir James Lougheed.

Remember this set-up was devised AFTER the Glorious Revolution of 1688, AFTER the French & American revolutions, AFTER the second (and now current) American constitution had been in place for 80 years, AFTER the "Responsible Government" liberties of 1791 were extended to British North America, and AFTER the 1840 Act of Union shambles in Canada East & West.

All these events and constitutional models were much more top-of-mind in 1867. The division of powers is almost word for word from the USA's constitution, the Governor General, GG's independent advisors, appointed Upper House & elected Lower House are all parts of 1791-1840 colonial governance - just another like-minded layer atop the existing provincial models.

Canada was intended to be governed from Top Down.


Wm.L.M.King knew this. But he didn't like it - so he changed it, to eliminate any viable opposition/ overseer.

Now though, so much of this is 'before our time' and totally opposite to how 'business is conducted' in Ottawa, that we don't think in these terms.

The question is - what's best for now & the future?

A return to first principles or continuing to patch and fix and add and squabble over the botched-up, derivative, not-as-written way that we're doing things now?

Dear Ol' Minority PM Harper is just following the botched-up rules (apparently with the Rt.Hon. B.Mulroney helping). How can the Liberals complain - they made the mess.

Strange thing is, Canada has such plentiful wealth and such 'forgiving' people that we always muddle through ... but is that the best we can do?

So have Proportional Representation if you want, fiddle with the terms of office or fix them or ban parties or ban party discipline or have 25 parties in the House or raise the decisional-majority in the House to 66.66% or .... anything you think makes the vital, but tertiary order of governance an "assembly of the popular will".

BUT FIRST, inculcate within the general public a knowledge of, and a respect for the as-written governance system, re-instate the vice-regal nobility of the Governor General, re-instate the property-class mandate of the Senate (adjust-for-inflation the $4,000 qualification) and sever the Privy Council from the PMO.

I only wish the Queen would disallow a Bill, just to get the ball rolling.

My only advice - READ THE RULE BOOK, and decide for yourself from knowledge, not assumption or popular mis/dis-conception.

Neo-Con? Neo-Reform? Neo-Suckers -- Same anti-legal system, same result.

Executive Summary

...don't blame the Rt Hon Mr Harper, he's just blithely following the anti-legal footsteps in the snow of Messers King, Trudeau, Mulroney & Chretien.

If the government is not following the Constitution .... what rules ARE they following?

Mr Stinson & Editors,

Good stuff in Harper plays Canadians for suckers!

I will be a little bit gentler on dear ol' Firewall Steve, more akin to the approach taken by Mr Corcoran in The government is too big, not the Cabinet - don't damn the sinner, damn the sin!  

The as-written Constitution has been raped and pillaged (right under our noses) and the whole as-written system of checks and balances has become bastardized into non-effect - just read the "in-Council Community's" bafflegab blatherings on Ministerial Responsibility as a sample of self-serving dis-information.

So don't blame the Rt Hon Mr Harper, he's just blithely following the anti-legal footsteps in the snow of Messers King, Trudeau, Mulroney & Chretien. 

Our hugely-overweight governance system is a function of two things - that every "ordinary Canadian" takes as given:

1) the government-in-the-Commons, created by an election, has a mandate to "manage" the Canadian economy, its industries, assets, treasury, its people, its currency, its communications & transportation systems ....in anyway it (an incumbent-seeking-re-election) sees fit;

2) the government-in-the-commons, created by an election, soon becomes as self-serving and arrogrant as "da bums" we just "threw out" for the same bad behaviour.

The quintessential fact that is widely-unknown (or purposely ignored) is that this same government-in-the-commons, created by an election is but the lowest "link" in a hierarchical 4-level, "chain of command" with elegant checks and balances, that is eminently suitable for today's Canada. (NB 3 small non-constitutional changes ARE required see below)

Huh?

Canada now & forever has been a constitutionally-limited Monarchy .... not a democracy - although we have a "democratic element" at the bottom of our foundational "power-sharing agreement".

Every official and elected representative is a "steward" of the Crown, who swears loyalty to the Crown, whose authority flows from the Crown, and who is ONLY accountable to the Crown (except when they need their 'contract' renewed by Jean/Carol Canuck and they pretend otherwise, in the oft-successful game of fooling enough of us to stay on the pension/power trip).

So the real question becomes -in 2011, what/who is the "Crown"?

Surely .... after all the fiddling with the Statute of Westminster of 1931, Letters Patent in 1947, Canadian Citizenship, partial-Patriation in 1982 (see EndNote 80), Charter of conditional-Rights and limits-to-Freedoms ... that the "Crown" has been "re-defined" or "re-formed" or modernized or "something"? .... or is the Crown still "legally" what it was in 1867?

Well, if HRH is the Boss ... why doesn't She stop some of the stupid stuff our trying-to-stay-in-office buffoons do? Why doesn't She exercise the still-existing Disallowance power (ss.56 + 90) that Mr Trudeau was complaining about in his opposition to Charlottetown speeches in 1992?

And if the Governor General is the "delegate/representation" of the Monarch's Canadian "sovereignty" why doesn't s/he Reserve a Bill or two, or Withhold Assent on a particularly odious patronage/payoff program when it's legislated into being?

Mr Trudeau challenged Mr Mulroney to also address this power of Reservation (ss. 55& 57 +90) at the same time!

And if the GG is the "legal" top of the totem pole, why has the GG's institutional-memory of independent advisors (s.11) been stripped from its place in the (superior) Executive Power and been allowed to continue (only since 1940 --see pdf at bottom of link) in the control of the (constitutionally-inferior) Legislative Power's kingpin-of-the day?

Never mind that the Kingpin is wielding all this power with as little as a 50%+1 majority in a House whose 'confidence' s/he controls with a mandate from ~40% of the electorate!

Further, the Upper House, styled "the Senate" is superior to the "Lower" House. It's the only office in Canada with a Property-ownership & Net Worth qualifications/disqualifications ss28+31 AND a special Oath Schedule 5 specifically banning 'collusively or colourably' obtaining those qualifications, but blatant patronage appointments & inflation ($4000 qualification has never been adjusted-for-inflation s/be ~$240-$320,000) have allowed the Plebes'-representatives to paint the Patricians-representatives into a corner via (social)"democratic demagoguery".

Where is this all "written down"? The BNA/Constitution Acts 1867-as amended (annotated Plain Language Version)

Yes, the Constitution --it's NOT about Quebec, it's about you!!

No need to take my word for it --read it!

There, in plain text, you discover "what's gone wrong that you can't quite put your finger on" and with a little poking around, you can discover how "your sovereignty" has been "kidnapped and locked in a tower" by the behind-the-barricades 'dogs of war' who want to keep "your inheritance" for themselves.

If the government is not following the Constitution .... what rules ARE they following?

Oh yes, the 3 small changes .... Rescind Order in Council P.C. 1940-1121, adjust the Senate's $4,000 qualifications for inflation & select our recommendation for GG by at-large election.