Here's a history question.
How did Canada
change from one of the most democratic countries in the developed
world to one of the least?
In the early
1800s, almost every adult male in our country had a vote. Anyone who
owned a plot of land (and almost everyone did) had a say in electing
the local representative.
The United States
didn't adopt universal male franchise until 1845 (except for slaves).
Britain didn't catch up to us until the late 1800s. Most of Europe
was way behind.
But in the British
colonies of Canada, every red-blooded male with a forty-shilling
freehold could show up and be counted in broad daylight at the public
polls, where fist-fights were a common form of electoral debate.
In this robust,
backwoods environment, MPs and MLAs had minds of their own. Leaders
had to plead with them to follow the party line, and often failed.
MPs elected their own party leaders, and kicked them out too. Then
they returned to tell the folks back home in the bush, most of whom
they knew by name.
But look at us now.
News media and
politicians are afraid of sounding "extreme" or
"intolerant." Government MPs are too afraid of their own
party bosses to vote against the cabinet.
The Prime
Minister, guided by a PCO bureaucracy he does not control, names to
office every cabinet minister, every deputy minister, every senator,
every senior judge, every crown corporation head, all the broadcast
commissioners, the chief of national security, the chief commissioner
of the RCMP, the head of the armed forces, the entire governing board
of the Bank of Canada, and the entire human rights commission.
Appointed flunkies all.
Finally, lest
anything slip past into the dirty democratic clutches of the people,
we have the Charter of Rights. It works this way. Upon request by the
Prime Minister, the judges appointed by the Prime Minister dictate
whether the Parliament run by the Prime Minister may decide a matter
the Prime Minister does not want anyone to talk about.
To this melancholy
state are we reduced.
How did this
happen? And what, if anything, can be done about it?
Well, I have a
suggestion. If we can't democratize Parliament (and we can't) let's
at least democratize the Charter of Rights.
When judges change
the constitution by inventing new personal rights out of their heads,
there should be a referendum vote on whether Parliament (or the
affected provincial legislatures) should set their decision aside.
Section 33 of the Charter allows this, but (except in Quebec) it
almost never happens.
The idea of making
decisions by a public vote absolutely horrifies our governing class,
just as it horrified our British colonial masters in the early 1800s.
For example,
Toronto historian Michael Bliss writes that under our system the
courts alone may decide the meaning of the constitution. "To
have a referendum would be such an affront to the constitution of
Canada and the liberties of Canadians," he frets, "that the
idea is effectively a non-starter."
He's right that
this has become our system. But it's a lousy one. A free democracy
remains stable by maintaining checks and balances. If the courts can
over-rule the legislatures, the people should be free to over-rule
the courts.
And if Michael
Bliss had tried telling our pioneer ancestors what he's telling us,
he'd have gone home with a broken jaw.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is
chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.
"Just
Between Us" is a feature service of the Citizens Centre for
Freedom and Democracy. The purpose of the Citizens Centre is to
improve the quality of life for all Canadians by promoting policies
that foster individual initiative and personal responsibility.
