Canada's Bizarre Democracy: My Closing Argument

In earlier posts, I discussed how the Prime Minister and Supreme Court Justices are chosen in Canada. In this post, I will briefly discuss how Senators, the Governor General, and Cabinet Ministers are chosen.

I can be brief because the answer is simple: they are all chosen by the Prime Minister. No confirmation required.

In terms of the Governor General, in theory Canada's Head of State, it is not important who is actually chosen. Although she wields enormous theoretical power, in actual fact the Governor General does whatever she is told to do by the Prime Minister. Thus in our latest Canadian melodrama, the Governor General saved the Prime Minister's skin, by suspending Parliament when he her asked to do so. Although some experts felt that she should not have obeyed, she did so anyway, and like good soldiers, none of the rest of us complained too loudly.

Senators fall into about the same boat. They have theoretical importance, but in reality can do little other than delay or obstruct the elected members of Parliament. They are all appointed by the Prime Minister ( do you detect a common theme developing here) - no consultation or confirmation required of course. Again we can look to recent events as illustrative of how this works. The Prime Minister got the Governor General to suspend Parliament, and then during this period of suspension appointed 18 friendlies to the Senate. What makes this especially odd is that the Prime Minister is opposed to the way Senators are appointed and thinks they should be elected. Oh well.

Do you know how Cabinet Ministers are chosen in Canada? Guess. That's right; the Prime Minister appoints, removes and "shuffles" them around at will. They do have real power but of course must do what the Prime Minister wants, or they are out the door.

Now, I know that what I have written in the last three posts is not new stuff. It is an oversimplified description of British parliamentary democracy. It is the way the system works. It is interesting however to compare this system with what we have watched transpire in the U.S. over the past year or so. The US was crazy with democracy. The primary contests lasted for months, involved numerous debates, interviews, town houses, and millions of Americans voters ultimately had their says. And that was just the beginning. The election was yet to come, with more debates, interviews, and speeches. Then the millions of voters again had their say, choosing their new President elect. And what went on north of the border? A new Parliament was elected, while Canadians snoozed. We had an incredibly low turnout at the polls. Soon after that, the Liberal party, which is now part of the opposition but will govern again (and maybe soon), chose their new leader who will be (no doubt about it) a future Canadian Prime Minister. How was he chosen? Well no one other than he ran, and he was chosen by the "national executive" of the Liberal party. Who is on this "executive", how are they chosen, and how long do they serve? Sorry, I don't have a clue.

Yes, I am experiencing democracy envy. But I am hopeful over time it will pass, and I will some day again think that we in Canada have a nice democracy, one which matches our personality.

The Appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

In my earlier posting concerning the bizarre state of Canada's democracy, I discussed the way Canadians participate, or to be more accurate, do not really participate, in the selection of our Prime Minister. As I noted, whoever is the leader of the political party which wins the most seats in the House of Commons, is the Prime Minister - the most powerful person in Canada. This person is exclusively chosen and removed by his/her party, by whatever process that party has. Unless you happen to be a paid-up, registered member of that party, you have absolutely no say in who that person will be.

Provinces have the same system with respect to the election of their Premiers. Thus, in places like Alberta, where the same political party has been in power for literally decades, and other parties have had virtually no chance of gaining power for a long time now, the only way to have a say in who the Premier of Alberta will be is to join the governing party (the Conservative party). That process costs about $5.00 Cdn, and can be done in a matter of minutes.

The Supreme Court of Canada has enormous judicial power in Canada. It is the final Court of Appeal for all of the Provinces and Territories. Its importance to the social, political and economic life of Canadians is enormous, made even more so by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows the courts to strike down provincial and federal laws if they infringe upon an individual's charter rights.

So how are members of this body chosen? In a nut shell, they are chosen by the Prime Minister. No confirmation by Canada's Parliament is necessary or even sought. Although in recent years a process involving consultation with an "advisory committee" has been instituted, which involves some questioning of the candidate chosen by the Prime Minister, when all is said and done it is still the Prime Minister who chooses who the newest Supreme Court of Canada justice will be. (See http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-appointment-process for discussion of this consultative process, how a list of candidates is developed, how a short list is drawn up etc.)

The absolute power of the Prime Minister to make the appointment without the necessity of consultation or questioning was illustrated in the most recent appointment of Justice Thomas Cromwell. Prime Minister Harper, who recall suspended Parliament in order to avoid being overtaken by the "coalition", and during this suspension period, appointed Justice Cromwell, thereby by-passing the consultation and questioning process, which he himself brought in, because he felt it was urgent to make the appointment now. While most commentators, including myself I should add, think that Justice Cromwell will make an excellent new Justice, this of course is not the point of this blog. (see http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jLeU3de1UZ2-oVg_H1BGBe0Pdsyw for just a peek of the discussion on this matter). The newest appointment reaffirms, if reaffirmation were even necessary, that in Canada it is the Prime Minister who decides who the Supreme Court of Justices will be.. full stop. This is real power, exercised by a person whose own position of power is only bizarrely democratic.

The bizarre state of Canada's democracy

I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Governors of Illinois and New York can simply appoint the senatorial replacements for President Elect Obama and future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not very democratic, I thought. But compared to Canada, that is small potatoes.

Readers south of the border might be surprised to discover the following interesting aspects of Canadian democratic institutions. Let's start at the top - the appointment of the Canadian Prime Minister ( the head honcho). Canadians do not actually elect their Prime Minister. All that Canadians get to do is to vote for a member of Parliament who generally runs as a member of a political party. If that party ends up with the most seats in the House of Commons, the leader of that party automatically becomes the Prime Minister. Usually we know who that person will be before the election. However, if the party wishes to change its leader at any time, it can do so, and voila we have a new Prime Minister.

Take our recent political brou-ha!-ha!. The three opposition parties were determined to gang up on the governing party, and then ask the Governor General (more about that office later) to let their new coalition take over power in Canada. This new governing group would be led by the then leader of one of these coalition partners. The bizarre thing about this is that this person ( Stephane Dion) had already announced that he would soon be quitting as leader, his party having been drubbed in the recent election by the Canadian voter, and his party no longer wanting to have anything to do with him. Sooo.. Canada would have had a new Prime Minister, Mr. Dion, from a party which had been roundly defeated in the last election, who did not even have the support of his own party, and who moreover would be quitting a few months later. Had the coalition still be in power when he quit, a new leader of that party would have had to be chosen, by members of that party alone ( not even the coalition partners would have had a say in this), and that new leader would have become our new Prime Minister.

The whole scheme was foiled when our existing Prime Minister asked the Governor General to suspend Parliament so that the "ganging up" could not occur, frustrating the coalition. The Governor General agreed, and Parliament was suspended. The person who would have become Prime Minister (had the coalition scheme succeeded) and who had already agreed to quit in a few months, was summarily given the bum's rush by his own party, and tossed out the door pronto. He was replaced by a new leader (Michael Ignatieff) without even a vote by the party membership, but by a decision of "caucus"; i.e. the elected Members of Parliament from that party. If Ignatieff should become Prime Minister in the next few months ( lets say the existing government falls and is replaced by the coalition .. unlikely scenario I agree), we will then be led by a person who was voted in by a tiny group of Canadians.

Confused? I do not blame you. Wait until you hear how we choose our Supreme Court of Canada justices, our Cabinet members, and our Senators. Stay tuned ( if you are still awake ), for future posting on Canadian democracy.

Same Sex Marriage: So Why The Big Deal?

Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for quite some time now (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada). Despite some initial grumblings from conservatives and traditionalists, the issue has become a major non issue here in Canada. No Canadian political party would dare run on a platform which would seek to change that position of equality rights for gays and lesbians. Curiously, however, no American politician, even liberal President elect Obama, will publicly support same sex marriage. The Rick Warren fiasco demonstrates that despite our similarities there is a huge difference in attitudes towards this issue between our two countries. I wonder why? We seem to share so many cultural, moral, and religious views, but on this issue of gay marriage our political leaders, and maybe the public, are miles apart. Any ideas out there which explains this?