MP Use Of Direct Democracy For Bill C-38

A couple of things about this.

First of all, I believe the Conservatives and Bloc have free votes on this, as do Liberal backbenchers; but meanwhile I believe that the Liberal cabinet must obviously vote with its own governments legislation and the NDP intends it to be whipped (everyone must vote with the party, although there is one NDP MP who may break with that--Bev Dejarlais). So not every MP will have the opportunity to vote as they please, and it doesn't make sense to ask every MP to send these kinds of questionnaires out.

Secondly, "free votes" are a bit disingenuous in that although MPs can technically vote however they want, it is still unlikely they will vote against their party because if they want to advance career-wise or maintain a high position it's obviously smarter to go along with the leadership. Hence whatever you answer to your MPs pamphlet, it is still more likely that your Conservative MP will vote against the bill, since it is very widely known that the Conservative party opposes it very strongly (and have proven so through their actions in the House). That makes it likely more of a public relations exercise to make you FEEL as though the Conservative party is listening to you than anything.

Third, a good thing to remember when dealing with politicians and their literature is that everything is politics and everything is part of the campaign, especially in the run-up to an election. Part of the reason this pamphlet was sent out was obviously to make voters aware of the legislation or keep it fresh in their minds. After all, if the government falls as the Conservatives want it to, the bill might have to be reintroduced later, and right now other legislation--most notably the revamped budget now proceeding to committee (which is widely popular and has boosted support for the NDP for example)-- is far more pressing. So why send this now? Because the Conservatives want to campaign on the gay marriage issue.

From your post I don't know what other issues your MP has sent pamplets about; but I would doubt that he sent any that haven't been regarding votes/issues that the Conservatives prefer to campaign on or that aren't pet Conservative issues, especially since there have only been four since 2001 and scads of legislation has been passed since then (and that raises the issue of whether your MP is sending them when he has a free vote only, although I don't know offhand of any other free votes on any issues in the past few years, meaning that again, the "choice" offered would be disingenous in those cases).

Without being inside the MP's campaign it's also difficult to know whether this was sent to every constituent in your riding or only to Conservative supporters or Conservative areas. And without seeing the text of the pamphlet it's also difficult to know whether it is completely fair or whether it is an example of "push polling" to any extent, ie whether the question itself is asked in such a way as to discredit opponents or strengthen support for the Conservative position--a commonly used campaign tactic.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, information gathering is everything in politics. If you reply by mail that you want the MP to vote "no" to the gay marriage bill, they know you are a likely supporter (esp when they campaign on that issue) and they also then have all of your contact info to send you more info on the Conservatives, try to sell you a membership, get a donation, or otherwise capture your vote and support.

And to put that into even more perspective, remember that a sitting MP has taxpayer money at his or her disposal, while anyone campaigning against him or her must raise campaign funds if they want to send out brochures or pamphlets of any kind, and they are quite expensive (the one brochure I sent to every household in my riding last year accounted for half of my entire campaign budget).

In other words, I highly doubt that this is really the honourable exercise in direct democracy that it appears to be on the surface, and there are a number of other factors to bear in mind when evaluating how useful an exercise in democracy this really is for Canadians.



---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

Perhaps I should have included more information.

The wording of the question is pretty much as I stated:

"Should Scott Reid, MP, vote FOR the Civil Marriage Act (Bill C-38)"

The MP indicates the 'referendum' is in accordance with his pledge to ask constituents to advise him how to vote on critical issues---particularly on issues of moral conscience. He indicates he voted 'No' in accordance with his conscience on the 2nd. reading however wants constituents to instruct him in accordance with their conscience and beliefs as to how he should vote for the 3rd, reading.

The MP indicates he will abide by the decision of constituents.

Previous referendums concerned the 'Species at Risk Act', with the majority of constituents indicating 'Yes' to vote for the bill, and the 'Anti-Terrorism Act, with the majority of constituents indicating 'No' to vote against the bill 'unless it has a sunset clause'.

This riding traditionally votes Conservative in fairly heavy numbers.

While I appreciate the points you raise, I'd prefer to believe this is a sincere attempt on the MP's part to obtain constituent views.

Frankly, I'm surprised he's doing this because he could simply have voted 'No' and would probably not have seen any significant consequences in doing so. By asking, he's risking having to vote against his conscience, as I believe may turn out to be the case.

Regardless, it is something that can be used as a precedent to pressure other MPs to start doing the same.

<<So not every MP will have the opportunity to vote as they please, and it doesn't make sense to ask every MP to send these kinds of questionnaires out.>>

I obviously disagree. If it comes down to MPs 'not being able to vote as they please', this should be in accordance with citizen, not 'party' views.



---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Forgot to mention, I'm not a Conservative supporter and as the pamphlet was delivered unaddressed in the mail, I assume every constituent received one.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

This is a really good post, it's good to have some good news about direct democracy. Obviously the criticisms of the above all hold true, it COULD be all kinds of things. It, however, is what it is-a step in the democratic direction. Conservatives have always been more democratic as governments than liberals, it's not a coincidence that Trudeau's idea of democracy was to consult organizations and then do the constitution himself. It's said that Mulroney thought his constitution was a fait d'accompli, however many conservative members, notably Patrick Boyer convinced him to have a referendum.

People are quite right to be suspicious at first, since we have such little distrust of politicians. Every politician is different though, and as for me it could be crooked every which way but it's still good news. If we could get the story out there then perhaps more people would say 'why the hell don't they do this more often?'. It should not be up to the good will of a rep, since that good will is seldom there.

The other piece of information that would be helpful is whether it did require listing the name and address so that the vote was known. That would be bad policy, since its sort of an unofficial tally anyway it would be far better to avoid that info since one vote card is sent to each constituent anyway.

Personally, I think almost ALL votes should be done in such a way. They do it all the time in the states, it isn't difficult. That would do away with the idea of a 'representative' completely, which suits me fine. That would be the end of party politics, which also suits me fine. In the last year the government only voted on 22 resolutions, and if we were organized the votes on them could be fairly close together and we could include more than one vote on a single card. Boy this has me excited!

I have no doubt that this guy will get TONS of liberal and NDP votes as well as others. It will be interesting to see if more people vote for him next time as he continues, or discontinues the practise.

Hey calumny, how come you never mentioned this before?

<<Hey calumny, how come you never mentioned this before?>>

Damn it, I was hoping no one would pick up on that. Thanks a lot, Marcarc.

Embarassing and not so embarassing admission time.

The previous four occasions the MP posed questions of this nature to constituents occurred before or shortly after I moved into the riding (2002).

I wasn't really into politics at the time, so didn't pay much attention to the one 'referendum' that would have come my way and if I did notice it at the time, forgot about it. Not so embarassing.

On the embarassing side, we all have our little blindspots. I've had a sort of gut instinct revulsion towards Conservatives since Mulroney, which Harris did nothing to assuage, so never really looked into what this MP was doing simply because I assumed that being a Conservative, he'd be doing nothing I'd agree with anyway.

Obviously, I let my prejudice is this regard cloud my reasoning. What can I say?

Oh well, another lesson learned.

Names and addresses were requested. I agree that this isn't the most desirable state of affairs however, can understand the necessity in this instance. As I mentioned, the pamphlet was sent unaddressed by regular mail, so this information is required as a means of identifying possible abuse. Although not personally impacted by the question, I'll vote yes because I don't see any harm in same sex marriage and see no reason why people should be prevented from doing something that is meaningful to them and causes no harm to others, and I have no problem providing my name in doing so.

The method of obtaining feedback obviously isn't perfect however, I'm inclined to look at what are for me the more positive aspects.

I'd be interested in knowing whether any other federal politicians are doing this. If not, having one to use for an example could offer leverage in pushing others to do the same.

Perhaps someone better acquainted with the two Acts mentioned in my previous comment could indicate whether the results received are what most would anticipate for a largely Conservative riding.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Here's the list of other votes:
June 2001: Whether to opt out of the $21,000 MP pay raise or donate it to charity;
Sept. 2001: Whether to vote for or against the Species at Risk Act;
Nov. 2001: Whether to vote for or against the Anti-Terrorism Act if it failed to include a Sunset Clause;
Oct. 2002: What position to advocate to the Electoral Boundaries Commission

Since there are no real regulations I'd have to call these plebiscites rather than referenda simply because there's really no way to make sure that the votes add up in any certain way. It interesting to note that he was very much opposed to the MP's raise, so that definitely does give him more credibility in my books, although he should also have the votes available to be counted by anyone interested just to make sure.

One final point is that he actually got fewer votes in the last election than in the one where he ran as Alliance. I can't imagine canadians saying 'I"m not going to vote for him because he's having more democracy'-wait, actually yes I can.

I think he uses referendum in the sense that in his view the results are binding on him.

As indicated above, I agree the process could be refined however, I'm impressed he bothers at all.

Alliance was big on referendums, etc. Only difference between their view and our might be that the politicos decide what will be open to referendum, questions, etc.

If I recall from Boyer's DD book, the NDP were pretty much dead set against DD. In some respects odd, in others not.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

That's the whole reason I'm not NDP, in fact I generally agree with them, but I do realize that not all canadians agree with me. You should check out Scott Reid's website, there's some interesting stuff there. Unfortunately there is no information on the specifics, but I"ll probably email him to see how the votes stacked up. What is also interesting is that like Patrick Boyer Scott also is active within the conservative party in attempting to get them to change their own constitution to make the party more democratic.

Yes, there are some interesting items.

Odd we haven't heard from anyone else. I thought this would be of more interest to those looking for 'new and exciting' times here in Canada. Seems to me a good opportunity to participate in the 'excitement'.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

I'm not really surprised, even reading the othere threads indicates that many canadians idea of 'exciting times' is simply the drama that's unfolding in Ottawa. To me the idea of proportional representation is far from exciting unless its being voted on. I don't think it's any coincidence that virtually none of the national media covered BC's referenda in any serious way. PR doesn't have the thrust of direct democracy since it still gives all power to representatives, and any jaded canadian will simply say 'big deal, just different crooks', and they will often be right. The worst thing about PR is also that many people ASSUME that their local rep represents THEM which means that they want to be able to blame them come election time. Under PR (in NB anyway) 20 representatives will not be accountable to any particular riding, which will really turn people off. The exciting time is to get the Scott's message out and try to get more politicians to function in this way. If enough would, then some real challenges to the status quo could result. The problem, as mentioned above, is when government selects which issues to choose from. If I run federally I would simply expand the program and have votes on everything, there were only 22 votes to consider per year and most of them wouldn't interest most people anyway.

<<Under PR (in NB anyway) 20 representatives will not be accountable to any particular riding, which will really turn people off.>>

Sounds like NZ and the 'party list' as described in the documentary on CPAC a few weeks back. This was one aspect ofthe NZ PR system that I didn't find appealing.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

First, I was wrong to state that the same sex marriage bill isn't pressing--it is, and the Conservatives have been doing things like filibustering to delay it from coming to Parliament. However I stand by my assertion that they want to campaign on the issue.

But what I really wanted to say is the following. Marcarc and Calumny, one thing that troubles me is that these discussions on direct democracy of yours so narrowly define "democracy". Essentially, you are defining democracy only as direct democracy. And you are then very narrowly defining what direct democracy is and where and how it should be used. That narrow definition in turn allows you to imply you rate the Conservatives more highly than the NDP based on one (or at most four) examples of an individual Conservative MP asking his constituents a question directly; and one of you stated above you don't support the NDP because it is not concerned enough with DD even as you laud this Conservative's actions.

Now, I am not saying the NDP couldn't improve and become more democratic. I'm sure there are ways that it could, and perhaps incorporating more DD into the party structure itself is one possibility.

But there are any number of examples that should give you pause for thought before defining the Conservatives as champions of democracy, or even vaguely interested in it.

First, you are discussing PR, but you haven't mentioned that it was the NDP that introduced and therefore had the House vote on whether or not to hold a referendum on the question of whether Canada should change its voting system or not (ie to some form of proportional representation). Unsurprisingly the Libs and Conservatives voted against that. You didn't get a questionnaire on it from your MP, did you Calumny? So how supportive of democracy is he really? And you still rate the NDP poorly on DD and on democracy in general? Shouldn't you both have relished and praised the potential opportunity to have all Canadians vote on whether or not to change the voting system, whatever your personal views on PR, since that would be a form of direct democracy itself??? To me that referendum would have been far more significant than the one constituency "referendum" you are discussing. But perhaps your definition of democracy so narrow you can't allow even that?

There are other examples as well, such as most obviously the Conservatives recently filibustering committees INCLUDING the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and therefore a resolution that would lead to electoral reform.

But something I feel truly needs to be included here is the fact that the Conservative party and the Liberal party both accept corporate donations, and in fact prior to the campaign finance changes brought in under Chretien (when he was leaving and wanted to add a "legacy") took large and significant corporate donations (and likely still do thanks to loopholes). The NDP, conversely, has always refused to take campaign donations from corporations, and still does, even though legally we could accept up to the new limits. The end result is that those parties are beholden to corporate interests while the NDP is not.

And that's not to mention the Conservative --and Liberal-- commitment to policies that expand the power of corporations even further--ie, free trade, free markets, and harmonization of Canada and U.S. While I'd prefer to see the NDP champion abrogating NAFTA, at least the party is advocating renegotiating it, keeping excluded things like water and power off the table, and otherwise staunchly questioning unfettered corporate power and opposing it in its platform. Nor has it taken steps as the Liberals have to integrate with the U.S. (ie the Waco summit and the Security and Prosperity agreement etc etc). As much as you both claim to champion democracy, you seem blind to the fact that such policies do and will do more to harm democracy in Canada than anything else, and are far more important than which MP sends questionnaires to which constituents on a 4 votes or any other stated commitments to democratic reform. What will it matter if your Conservative MP sends you a question like that if he is bound and shackled to do what he is told by international trade tribunals and multinational organizations?? To me, THAT is the most pressing matter threatening democracy today both here and across the world, and I am simply amazed that while posting to a site like this--a site that is specifically concerned with these issues --you could so easily ignore that bigger picture.





---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I'll clarify my purpose in posting this article. <br><br> I didn't post the article to get into a bickering match re: the pros/cons of the various federal parties or to endorse a political party. <br><br> I posted this article solely to make people aware of the fact that at least one MP in Canada has made attempts to consult with all constituents on some issues. <br><br> Given my views re: direct democracy, this is the type of action I believe all MPs should be taking. I suggested that other people contact their own MPs to request/demand that they start doing the same, preferably on every issue, because I believe that motivating MPs in this regard might facilitate Canadian DD and in doing so start to create the nation most citizens, rather than political parties, bureaucrats and corporations, believe it should be. <br><br> <blockquote>But what I really wanted to say is the following. Marcarc and Calumny, one thing that troubles me is that these discussions on direct democracy of yours so narrowly define "democracy". Essentially, you are defining democracy only as direct democracy.</blockquote> <br><br> Speaking for myself, the above is substantially true. The definition of 'democracy' I prefer is the literal translation, i.e., 'rule of the people'. <br><br> It comes down to what you view 'rule of the people' to mean, the manner in which 'rule of the people' should be implemented and the extent to which 'rule of the people' should be true in a society, e.g., citizens directly participating in 'government' decision making processes; citizen participation limited to empowering another to make the decisions 'on their behalf'; citizens being led to believe they have some democratic power when in fact they have none, etc. <br><br> Based on the literal translation of the word, 'direct democracy' is in fact democracy. Anything other than this is can, regardless of whatever nice little name it's given, e.g., 'Constitutional Monarchy, Republic, etc., can at best be defined as limited democracy. If people choose to ignore this distinction and/or are fine with the status quo and/or believe 'the nice little name' represents the most preferable choice and/or 'democracy', that's fine with me. <br><br> From Wikipedia: <br><br> <blockquote>Direct versus representative democracy or 'democracy' versus 'republic' <br><br> The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. <br><br> There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. conservative and Libertarian debate.</blockquote> <br><br> Don't be thrown off by the 'Conservative' and 'Libertarian' references. Various schools of political thought advocate direct democracy however, the way it plays out will accord to the values held by most citizens, rather than being beneficial to any particular political persuasion. If the values held by most are those generally typified as 'left', than these are the values that will generally be reflected in the decision making process. <br><br> <blockquote>And you are then very narrowly defining what direct democracy is and where and how it should be used. </blockquote> <br><br> I'm not sure where this has been done. I don't believe either Marcarc or myself have indicated that there is any single or only way that DD can be implemented. Basically DD will involve participation by citizens in 'government' decision making processes and there are common DD tools, i.e., referendum, initiative, to support this participation. However, the manner in which these could best be utilized in Canada is open to (much) discussion. <br><br> <blockquote>That narrow definition in turn allows you to imply you rate the Conservatives more highly than the NDP based on one (or at most four) examples of an individual Conservative MP asking his constituents a question directly; and one of you stated above you don't support the NDP because it is not concerned enough with DD even as you laud this Conservative's actions.</blockquote> <br><br> It was not my intention to 'rate' any party. I was simply making others aware of an action performed by a MP, who happened to be a Conservative, solely for the purpose mentioned in the original article. I would have posted the same article had the MP been Liberal, NDP, Bloc or other. <br><br> I wasn't lauding the MP's actions on the basis of their being Conservative. I was impressed simply because this is the first time I've been aware of any MP asking their overall constituency for an opinion on a legislative matter, and as I haven't see other contributors posting comments indicating their representatives do the same, I'm assuming this MP's actions are at least fairly unique. The important point from my perspective is that having one do it, regardless of their political stripe, gives people an opening to push other MPs to do the same. That's it, that's all. <br><br> <blockquote>But there are any number of examples that should give you pause for thought before defining the Conservatives as champions of democracy, or even vaguely interested in it.</blockquote> <br><br> I don't think anyone has portrayed the Conservative party as being 'champions of democracy'. However, historically a number of Conservatives, and Reform/Alliance for that matter, have championed certain DD concepts, although none has ever been implemented. Stating this fact doesn't indicate overall approval of the party platform or policies, it simply is what it is. <br><br> <blockquote>First, you are discussing PR, but you haven't mentioned that it was the NDP that introduced and therefore had the House vote on whether or not to hold a referendum on the question of whether Canada should change its voting system or not (ie to some form of proportional representation). Unsurprisingly the Libs and Conservatives voted against that. You didn't get a questionnaire on it from your MP, did you Calumny? So how supportive of democracy is he really? And you still rate the NDP poorly on DD and on democracy in general? Shouldn't you both have relished and praised the potential opportunity to have all Canadians vote on whether or not to change the voting system, whatever your personal views on PR, since that would be a form of direct democracy itself??? To me that referendum would have been far more significant than the one constituency "referendum" you are discussing. But perhaps your definition of democracy so narrow you can't allow even that?</blockquote> <br><br> I'm sure to which PR discussion you're referring. <br><br> Those who wish to believe PR would somehow make Canada more democratic are welcome to do so. I don't believe this would be the case in terms of the definition of democracy I mentioned above. Obviously, that's the only definition of concern to me. <br><br> I am unaware of the NDP ever championing anything that would result in greater decision making power being placed in the hands of citizens on an ongoing basis, i.e., the definition of democracy I use. The NDP have obviously championed the use of referendum for a proposal that may have placed more NDP members in Parliament however, again this doesn't in the long-term make the system any more 'democratic' in my eyes than is the current. Stating this fact isn't an overall condemnation of the NDP, it is again just what it is. <br><br> <blockquote>And that's not to mention the Conservative --and Liberal-- commitment to policies that expand the power of corporations even further--ie, free trade, free markets, and harmonization of Canada and U.S. While I'd prefer to see the NDP champion abrogating NAFTA, at least the party is advocating renegotiating it, keeping excluded things like water and power off the table, and otherwise staunchly questioning unfettered corporate power and opposing it in its platform. Nor has it taken steps as the Liberals have to integrate with the U.S. (ie the Waco summit and the Security and Prosperity agreement etc etc). As much as you both claim to champion democracy, you seem blind to the fact that such policies do and will do more to harm democracy in Canada than anything else, and are far more important than which MP sends questionnaires to which constituents on a 4 votes or any other stated commitments to democratic reform. What will it matter if your Conservative MP sends you a question like that if he is bound and shackled to do what he is told by international trade tribunals and multinational organizations?? To me, THAT is the most pressing matter threatening democracy today both here and across the world, and I am simply amazed that while posting to a site like this--a site that is specifically concerned with these issues --you could so easily ignore that bigger picture.</blockquote> <br><br> I agree re: the threat to democracy you mention above. I've discussed the same on a number of occasions. <br><br> The remainder of your comment is somewhat baffling, in that it seems to indicate you completely misread my intent in posting this article and/or have not read a substantial number of my Vive comments. <br><br> As I've indicated elsewhere, my initial interest in DD arose from the obvious reality that Canadian political parties have been unsuccessful, if not outright disinterested, in defending what most Canadians would see as their or their nation's interests for many years and in resolving many of the nation's on-going issues. <br><br> So, if political parties either can not, or will not, defend the interests of most Canadians and Canada, who will? <br><br> I tend to think the most suitable person to decide what my best interest may be is me. I really don't need those of one political stripe or another, be that Conservative, Liberal, NDP or other, telling me what my and my nation's best interests are, nor do I need to be in a position where I'm forced to vote for a particular party to represent my interests in one area and then live with additional baggage they bring with which I may not agree. <br><br> To my mind, either people start pushing the idea that their 'representatives' need to be representing their, as opposed to the party, view or they continue to live with an unsatisfactory status quo, hoping for the best and living in whatever circumstance party policy dictates. <br><br> Hence, DD, and this article. <p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />

Bill C-38 contains the text: "NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:".<br />
<br />
Do you believe "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?<br />
<br />
According to the Christian faith, marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) whereas homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable. Also, "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please wife" and "she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please husband" (1 Corinthians 7:33-34). <br />
<br />
By enacting Bill C-38, Queen Elizabeth II will have broken her coronation promise to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.<br />
<br />
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada <br />
<a href="http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm">http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm</a><br />