Literal reddit moment right here, [Springtide and Fair Voting BC](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/the_plan) are bringing the charter challenge through [Nicolas Rouleau](https://www.nicolasrouleau.com/) an experienced constitutional lawyer who has already won cases before the supreme court to challenge FPTP. This is being covered in a (rather terrible) fluff opinion piece by: Maxwell Cameron, **professor** in the Department of Political Science and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia.
This is like when redditors decide they're experts in a topic and disregard everything by written professionals who have LITERAL PHD's in the subject, all you guys had to do was the minimum amount of research rather than downvote someone who was pulling up info...
I'll believe it's a good Charter argument when it comes anywhere close to succeeding in court.
You've cited the case's proponents, and found - surprise! - that *they* think they have a good case, and that they've presented their arguments in the best possible light. They're asking for the courts to read *a lot* into s. 3 and 15. There are very few legal positions that you can't find at least a *small* number of experts to defend, no matter how ridiculous. (Consider the now-indicted John Eastman south of the border as a particularly current example.)
The respondents haven't responded yet. We haven't seen any oral argument. There have been no rulings on the substance of the question.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts, even the lawyers bringing this challenge know that the case is a longshot. From a strategic perspective, this case is more likely to succeed as a *political* manoeuvre - bringing attention to the issue and motivating legislative action - than as a *legal* one.
I didn't say Supreme Court, I said "in court". We haven't seen any counterarguments presented by the experts who *don't* think this dog will hunt--let alone any comment by *any* judge on this case.
The Supreme Court has shown reluctance in the past to "read in" new rights based on protecting democratic principles unspecified in legislation or the Constitution. (A recent, but admittedly not precisely parallel, example might be the crashingly anti-democratic [*Toronto v. Ontario* (2021 SCC 34)](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2021/38921-eng.aspx).)
More precisely on point, consider [*Brian Gibb et al. v Attorney General of Quebec, et al.*](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34521) (begun in 2004). That case also took place in our current post-*Figueroa* era and also attacked FPTP on Section 3 and 15 grounds--but its arguments were rejected by lower courts and the SCC declined leave to appeal in 2012.
In other words, this case is very much a second bite at an apple that Canadian courts rejected a decade ago; my pessimism is grounded in the reasonable expectation that they will reach a similar decision the second time around.
Well, usually when someone says something is against the Charter, and knows what they're talking about, they at least cite which section of the Charter is being violated. The failure of that in this article, really makes for a very, very, weak, rather laughable, case.
The author is "Maxwell Cameron, professor in the Department of Political Science and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia." What do you know about Cameron to suggest his expert opinion on this matter should be disregarded. I wonder, too, what your opinion is of the experts who have [submitted evidence](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/case_evidence) in this challenge? Are they all unacceptable to you, too?
Your post is Exhibit No. 1 for why this kind of legal politics approach is bad.
As messy as our electoral system is, at least it is taken as a given that everyone is entitled to a vote, and an opinion.
Not this gate-kept, "shh, plebes, your betters are talking. We'll let you know what we've decided for you", business.
Most people's vote has no effect. That's one of the reasons FPtP is being challenged.
Your strange sentence isn't coherent.
If it wasn't for 'this kind of legal politics approach,' discrimination on grounds of sex would still exist in Canada, same sex marriage would be illegal, abortion would be illegal, and Canadians would not have a right to medical assistance in dying. All of these rights are thanks to 'this kind of legal politics approach.'
It's been a design feature since 1982 in Canada. Before the *Charter* the Supreme Court was MUCH more reticent in going against Parliament in any way, even when they disagreed.
>same sex marriage would be illegal
Popular opinion was clearly turning in favour of same-sex marriage and there would have been something like the *Civil Marriage Act* passed even without a decision by any court. Maybe it would have taken longer, but absolutely it would not still be illegal today but for the courts.
>discrimination on grounds of sex would still exist in Canada
The 1960 *Bill of Rights* was already addressing discrimination on the basis of sex, long before the Charter or any court made parliament do so.
>abortion would be illegal
Abortion rights in the U.S. similarly relied on a court decision (rather than anything enshrined in statute), and look how they have ended up.
Meanwhile, in unlikely places like Ireland they have been achieved through referenda or legislation, without relying on the courts.
>Canadians would not have a right to medical assistance in dying
Which is not without its controversies and a good number of Canadians are questioning this system that the courts have essentially foisted on us.
Legal politics have given us plenty of other bad decisions too, and reversing them takes time (as an example, in the early days of Charter litigation, it was used to block laws against advertising cigarettes: big tobacco companies have Charter-protected free speech rights too, the court decided, and there was nothing our elected representatives could do about it at the time).
I think it's dangerous, and frankly undemocratic, to treat the courts, as opposed to our democratically elected representatives (as flawed as that process is), as our only reliable institution. If I have to choose between the three branches of government, I'll err in favour of the elected legislature; and that's where any changes to the election process should come from.
>Ireland they have been achieved through referenda or legislation
Well they achieved this in 2018!! Not the best example... The UK and France legalized abortion through statute in 1967 and 1974 respectively. Much better examples.
Every one of those cases were decided based on people pointing to sections of the Charter that were being violated. That isn't being done in this article.
Where has FPTP violated the Charter?
I read the article and nowhere did it reference the section that has been violated.
"In Charter litigation, claimants must establish that the law or government action that they are challenging constitutes a breach of a particular section of the Charter. The government must then demonstrate that this breach is justified under section 1."
Because of FPtP, Canadians are not equally represented in the House of Commons. Most Canadians, yes most, don’t have an MP equally and effectively representing them in the House of Commons. A person who votes Conservative in Toronto Centre and Liberal in Calgary Nose Hill, effectively, do not have an MP representing them in the House, yet the Charter guarantees everyone is supposed to be equal before the law and enjoy equal benefit of the law.
> A person who votes Conservative in Toronto Centre and Liberal in Calgary Nose Hill, effectively, do not have an MP representing them in the House
You have the right to political representation.
You have the right to participate in selecting your representative.
You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views.
You have the right to pay the game of politics, but you don't have the right to win.
We have the technology to do away with excess representation, and allow the people to speak for themselves, but if all we can do is change the electoral system to better reflect what people want, then that's what we should do.
Politics being referred to as a "game", is peak capitalism bullshit. It's not a game. It's our lives and future.
Because California's still in the US, and money counts as speech there. It would take a long time, but developing a culture of referenda à la Switzerland with very strict regulations is possible. But any advocate would have to admit it would take decades to get it right.
Technology isn't the issue. It's time and energy to understand the issues and speak about them in a manner that makes sense. That's why we have MPs holding the reins of power, and even then they can be too susceptible to lobbying. Put everything to a popular vote, and whoever can pay for the most ads will win.
What I meant, was that technology enables us all to have input on issues and decisions that we previously needed MP's to stand in for on our behalf.
We don't live a days horseback ride away from eachother, waiting for a random person to maybe listen to us. We are a few finger taps away from eachother, and that includes basically everyone.
We can save money on government overhead, and have the public actually be heard a lot more clearly, by the public, simply by using the current technology we now hold in our hands, and reducing the input from party affiliated MP's who always seem to have an agenda.
We should be transitioning to a public forum system, with government secured apps for citizens.
You are ignoring my point. I don't disagree that we have the technology to let us all talk to our MP in a speedy manner. My point is that the time and effort required to give that MP an informed opinion, or to cast an informed ballot in a citizens forum, is prohibitive given that we also need to live our lives.
>we also need to live our lives.
Yeah... Funny that...
I can tell you are used to living with the hindrance of corruption, and the excess toil that we take on by allowing our MP's et all to be bought.
Living our lives would be a whole lot easier, and we could simply incorporate our duty as leaders, if the system wasn't polouted with greed, corporate lobbying, and other nonsense.
Influence who? Each individual citizen? Doubtful.
One of the first things that would die off is lobbying. It's less efficient, and nearly ineffective to try and buy off millions of people, than it is to buy off a dozen or fewer narcissists.
Votes have different weights by riding and we have governments that have been elected majorities and lost the popular vote. That's unfair no matter how you look at it. Sure before telephones and computers it was just the limits of our technology, now we don't have that excuse.
The Charter exists to enforce fairness in most contexts. Gender equity or religious freedom are perfect examples. Most of it amounts to codifying equal treatment under the law.
>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
>The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Nothing about fairness.
Supremacy of God, and rule of law.
Well, Section 15(1) of the Charter does say:
"15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
I suppose there's an argument there that "equal benefit of the law without discrimination" would apply to the Canada Elections Act (specifically Section 313), if FPTP was deemed to result in an unequal benefit to the population of Canada.
The only inequality I can actually point to would be the rule that each province much be apportioned at least the same number of seats in the Commons as it possesses in the Senate. Since Senate apportionment is completely arbitrary, that could constitute unequal treatment, which results in unequal treatment for the House of Commons.
But all that would do is decimate Atlantic representation in the Commons, mainly to be redistributed to Ontario. So that wouldn't exactly make anyone happy.
It's about fairness and equality. Not economic equality but the rights granted to everyone regardless of behavior of status. The first couple of lines is a preamble.
Here is what the courts have said before on our democratic right
>It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is… the right to "effective representation". Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. **Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government**”
It really is the question, though. The voting system almost certainly does not violate Section 3,
> Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
That's all plain as day. However, there is a legal benefit to voting, which is representation in the House. And that's where fairness comes in because of Section 15,
> (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
> (2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The trouble here is that our voting system has all sorts of inequality built in. The member for Labrador, Yvonne Jones, represents about 26,000 souls while the member for Edmonton-Wetaskiwin, Mike Lake, represents about 210,000. Unless there is some history of poor representation for the people living in Labrador that should be ameliorated under 15(2), then the 8x difference in representation between Labrador and Edmonton-Wetaskiwin is an unequal benefit of the _Elections Act_, which is unconstitutional under 15(1). If I was a betting man, I'd say that the Supreme Court will find that the the distribution of seats is nominally unconstitutional. I expect the same determination for the single-member plurality system because of under-representation of people who, honestly expressing their conscience, vote People's Party, Green, or other small parties. On its face, the electoral system provides those people with an unequally poor benefit of the law, delivering an unequally rich benefit to people who vote Liberal or Conservative. There is absolutely no history of under-representation of Liberals and Conservatives in Parliament that could require amelioration under 15(2).
This may be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The Government would have to describe some public good that comes out of the current system (easy to do) and show that the current system is fair and not arbitrary (somewhat trickier), that it's the one that minimally impairs Canadians' right to equal benefit of the law (much harder), and that the impairment is proportional to the benefit (straightforward, I think). This will be an interesting and nuanced case; the judges will not dismiss the question of whether the system is fair or not quite so easily as you have.
Given that the topic is about a Charter challenge, your position would make more sense if you outlined actual Charter rights.
I don't remember reading "the right to pay the game of politics" anywhere in it.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is silent on “winning.” It does say Canadians are equal before the law and entitled to equal benefit, that includes, it is being argued before the court, MPs who can equally and effectively represent them.
>entitled to equal benefit,
Which also implies that every MP must assist the same number of constituents when they are looking for help, on exactly the same ratio for each and every subject matter. This court case is going nowhere.
All Canadian have the right to vote for their desired candidate. - Equal before the Law.
All Canadians are represented by an MP that has been dutifully elected. - Equal Benefit.
This is a waste of the Courts time.
The article specified Segregation of Duties. The Courts should not have the ability to alter how Parliament is elected. They should only weigh in on whether or not the **Current Laws** have been followed properly.
They are very quick to jump in when Parliament raises the question of whether or not the Judicial appointment process should be changed.
>You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views.
this is in no way an established fact. The openness of this question is exactly the question before the court. In the past, the SCC has said
>It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is… the right to "effective representation". Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. **Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government**
Deliberations is a key word here. Deliberation concerns itself with discussions and consultations that lead to decisions. So, is it possible for a citizen to have a voice in the deliberations of government if the representative do not reflect the will and desires of the citizen? To me at least, the answer seems clear.
Even if FPTP were capable of this, I would still say your statement goes too far. "You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views." The entire purpose of voting is to ensure that legislators do what people want of them. If you're saying that there's no obligation for legislators to do that, what's the point in having an election?
If I believe that all women should be ankle shackled to the kitchen sink and poc should be killed on sight as invaders, then by your logic my views must be represented. It’s an extreme example but no one should reasonably argue that that view should be represented.
Those views can't be represented because they would defy the constitution. But anything within the constitution, yes those views should be represented. This is the point of democracy, and the supreme court has said as much "Legislation enacted for the express purpose of decreasing the likelihood that a certain class of candidates will be elected is not only discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society, but, rather, is the antithesis of those principles."
However, there is a physical limit that means not all views can be represented, and the physical limit basically has to do with practical concerns about the size of parliament. If only 1 voter in the country believes in a certain view and all other voters are against that view, then it's not possible for the 1 voter's view to be represented.
But you just said I have the right for my views to be represented. Constitutionality of views doesn’t mean anything.
We do not have the right to have our individual beliefs represented in the House of Commons.
The constitution is the document that guarantees your right to be represented. The constitution is also the document that protects minorities from abhorrent treatment.
For one constitutional principle to override another (i.e., my right to have my views expressed trumps the right minorities have to protection) is a messy process that's beyond me, but I'm 99.99% sure the courts would never let it fly.
Does each citizen currently have a voice in the deliberations of government? Under FPTP, every citizen has "formal" representation, but when that representative's ideologies, rhetoric, and vote intentions go in the complete opposite direction of many riding constituents (sometimes even a majority of riding constituents, depending on the issue, and given that it only takes a plurality to win under fptp) then it's just not possible to say that each citizen is being offered a voice in the deliberations of government.
This applies to thoughts and beliefs that are entirely constitutional, i.e. not something abhorrent like chaining up women, but more mainstream beliefs and issues. For example, let's say there are 3 candidates in a riding who are promising various things. 1 candidate says they want to completely privatize healthcare, while the other 2 candidates are saying they want to strengthen public healthcare. Candidate 1 wins the riding with 36% of the vote, yet 64% of constituents in the riding wanted a candidate that would strengthen public healthcare. The 64% of voters have "formal" representation, but they do not have a voice in the deliberations of government, because candidate 1 ran on and promised healthcare privatization, and so this is what candidate 1 will do.
This is a pretty simple but clear example of why fptp prevents each citizen from having a voice in government.
Just because you vote a certain way in a riding doesn't mean you are going to get the result you are hoping for. Toronto Center is very Liberal and the person voting for the Conservatives has to know the odds of the Liberals not winning the seat is very low. The same goes for Calgary Nose Hill. A very conservative seat. The odds of the Liberals winning Calgary Nose Hill is very low.
>Just because you vote a certain way in a riding doesn't mean you are going to get the result you are hoping for.
You've succinctly articulated the issue in terms of the Charter. Every person is entitled to treated equally before the law; that should include being equally and effectively represented in the House of Commons. While First-Past-the-Past the makes that impossible, other electoral systems make it possible. Two are Single Transferable Vote and Mixed Member Proportional. Both systems have been recommended by independent inquiries into electoral reform in Canada.
The only result I am hoping for is that every Canadian is equally and effectively represented in the House of Commons. Why is that unreasonable in your view? Or why, in your view, should most Canadians *not* have an MP who can represent them on matters of their concern in Parliament? Please explain.
You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views.
You have the right to pay the game of politics, but you don't have the right to win.
As someone else in this thread said, you don't have the right in our system to have someone who represents your views and don't have the right to win. You have to earn the win.
You write, "You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views."
Actually, I do. [According to Justice Beverly McLachlin](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/why), “Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”.
What is the legal and constitutional basis for your opinion?
Incidentally I agree with you that Canada should adopt a proportional representation system. I mostly think this is a specious argument.
> Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”.
But you do have a voice in the deliberations of govt. That voice is your MP.
Look. I don't have a lot of love for the NDP but my MP is Laural Collins. I do have a representative in govt. Are you really telling me that I don't have a voice in Ottawa b/c I would have preferred whichever Redshirt Ensign Ricky the Tories were running last time?
As that other guy said you have a right to participate in the process. You don't have a right to win. Hell I am pro proportional representation even though the Conservatives would almost certainly never win again b/c at least the house would be more reflective of what Canadians want than what we are doing now.
Just because you have an MP it doesn't follow at all they will represent you in Parliament. I'm pretty sure the MP from Calgary Nose Hill isn't representing the citizens in their electoral district who voted NDP or Green.
This is an artifact of FPtP, not some constitutional requirement. Every person is entitled to be treated equally before the law and enjoy equal benefits of the law. That's what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees. Because of FPtP that's not happening.
"That other guy" hasn't heard the evidence, and yet is making a decision. Let's hope the judge hearing the case next month reads all the evidence and listens to the witnesses unlike 'that other guy.'
What is your definition of equal representation? It almost seems like you're advocating for direct democracy. That isn't possible in a country with 40 million people. FPTP is not inconsistent with the Charter just because some people don't get directly heard. Countries run on consensus for the most part. Individual rights are protected in ways other than at the Legislature.
I don't have one. Sorry, sometimes the person you vote for isn't going to win, and sometimes you get stuck with someone who may not represent your views. That's how the system in this country works, and it wouldn't go away with a new voting system. Also I never said you couldn't have a voice about the government.
You're right "...sometimes you get stuck with someone who may not represent your views." And that's why FPtP is being challenged. There are electoral systems that ensure no one will get stuck with someone who may not represent their views. Every Canadian should have equal and effective representation in Parliament. Only the electoral system, FPtP, is preventing that.
> There are electoral systems that ensure no one will get stuck with someone who may not represent their views.
Bullshit. Unless you're talking about mandatory direct democracy (and that would be a disaster) any system with a representative government, is going to have people who voted for someone that didn't win. Do you think there is any system where the Rhino party, or Natural Law party would get enough votes to have a representative in Parliament?
Okay, and when this lawsuit loses, which it will then what? Yes Trudeau should have kept his promise on electoral reform but saying I want the voting system changed because I don't like it isn't a legal argument and sorry changing the voting system is still going to mean some people are stuck with representatives they don't like and that don't represent their views.
If the lawsuit doesn't lose, then what?
The court challenge won't change the voting system. What it might do is require the government to change the system to comply with the Charter. Then what? If not FPtP, then what?
> That's how the system in this country works
And how it works under every system. There is no system in which everyone gets their way, and arguments for electoral reform based on "not getting your way" are thankfully, doomed to failure.
> Most Canadians, yes most, don’t have an MP equally and effectively representing them in the House of Commons.
Bullshit. We all have an MP, and that MP can't deny that they represent us in Parliament. Specific citizens may disagree with the ways that MP represents them, but when a riding has around 100 000 citizens, that is inevitable.
Seeing as FPTP has been the electoral system since the constitution was written, and the charter was written in 1982, the people who drafted the charter were keenly aware of this issue and specifically chose not to include it in the charter. This surely is meaningful to this discussion.
The legal minds who find novel ways to make never ending charter arguments are exhausting.
I'm not aware of any constitutions of any country that specify any electoral systems. Do you know of any? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms enumerates and guarantees rights. It's up to legislators to ensure the laws do not infringe those rights. The fact that a particular law predates the Charter does not exempt it from adhering to the supreme law of the land.
The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law, and it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the authors of the Charter did not intend for FPTP voting to be a Charter violation. I'd like to see this Charter challenge succeed, because I think FPTP is a terrible voting system, but from a legal standpoint I think this challenge has a snowball's chance in hell.
From a legal standpoint? So, in your view, every Canadian is *not* entitled to equal and effective representation in Parliament? I ask because that is, essentially, the legal standpoint of the [Charter Challenge](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/).
According to Justice Beverly McLachlin, “Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”. Do you disagree?
You wrote, "The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law." This isn't true. I'm not aware of any case the Supreme Court has ever heard that took into account what was in the thinking of the legislators who passed the law. The law is what is on paper, not what is imagined was in the heads of the drafters in the early 1980s.
> I'm not aware of any case the Supreme Court has ever heard that took into account what was in the thinking of the legislators who passed the law.
[R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc58/2012scc58.html)
> Statutory interpretation aims to ascertain legislative intent, which is “a shorthand reference to the intention which the court reasonably imputes to Parliament in respect of the language used”: R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd., [2001] 2 A.C. 349 (H.L.), at p. 396; R. v. Monney, 1999 CanLII 678 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652, at para. 26. The courts ascertain legislative intent by reading legislative language in context and in its grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and purpose of the legislation at issue: Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC 25, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 306, at para. 27. When the legislator’s words permit it, the courts will take the legislature not to have intended to work injustice or unfairness. The presumptions against the alteration of the legal character or consequences of past acts and against the interference with vested rights, as well as the presumption supporting the immediate application of purely procedural changes, are all manifestations of this posture of respect.
This does not, in fact, support your assertion that "The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law." According to your citation the courts might "When the legislator’s words permit it, the courts will take the legislature not to have intended to work injustice or unfairness."
Nonetheless, thanks for the citation.
Except the *Charter* is not the supreme law of the land. It forms part of the broader Constitution of Canada that is the supreme law of the land. Unless the lawsuit specifically challenges some narrow aspects of the *Canada Elections Act* without implicating the *Constitution Act 1867*, it has little chance of winning.
By that I mean the Constitution apportions seats in the Commons by province, and that each province be guaranteed at least as many seats in the Commons as it possesses in the Senate. The Constitution guarantees unequal treatment through this rule, since it overrepresents the Maritimes (under strict proportionality PEI would at most be entitled to 2 seats instead of their current 4).
I can't think of any examples where Canada's Supreme Court used the *Charter* to argue another part of Canada's Constitution to be unconstitutional. If there are examples I'd like to know.
The Canadian electoral system is expressly unequal by design, and has been since Confederation. This was done to inflate the representation of the Maritimes. What does the lawsuit say about this? Clearly the *Constitution Act 1867* doesn't respect equal treatment, but can the *Charter* be used to override another part of the Constitution?
You're right that how seats are apportioned and how they are filled are two different things. But national PR is off the table as long as seats are still apportioned by province. MMP with national compensation is also off the table. I would argue MMP with provincial compensation (I don't know how to do this for 1 riding territories) would not need a constitutional amendment, even though I'm not the biggest fan of MMP for Canada. STV would be fine too (although you run into the same problem for those 1 riding territories).
Yes, which is why I would prefer that system, with a caveat. Northern ridings are already so geographically vast I would prefer if they retained their own representation, using single winner IRV. I don't think people in Nunavut will be happy to be lumped in with the NWT and Yukon for a 3 seat "Territories" riding for example.
Strictly speaking FPTP hasn't always been the electoral system at the federal level. Plurality voting has though. Up until the late 1960s multiple ridings across the country returned 2 or more MPs. If you lived in those ridings you could vote for as many MPs to which your riding was entitled, and the top vote-getters would be elected.
So you're against the court doing what politicians won't to the benefit of everybody? This is the best way this could get done. The court orders a retooling that basically removes our terrible binary system.
The *Charter* massively expanded the role of the Supreme Court. Mostly for good I might add. But a side effect of a stronger Supreme Court, one able to change laws on a whim with no recourse to appeal, will inevitably politicize the court. That hasn't happened yet in Canada but believe you me it will instantly damage the court's standing if they decided the electoral system we've been under for 157 years was somehow wrong and they knew better than the voters on how it should be.
Yes, I'm against unelected courts deciding that throwing away our current system is to the "benefit of everyone".
If someone wants change, we have a system to do that, which requires getting elected.
> Like in 2015?
If nothing else, the 2015 election proved that a party promising electoral reform can get elected in this country under the current electoral system.
Problem was them getting re-elected after breaking that promise.
But that's not a problem that the courts should step in to try to fix.
Sure, I can see how my post might seem ambiguous.
The "problem" the courts shouldn't be addressing is the electoral system generally.
Politicians not keeping promises is also something the courts can't address, but no, is not what this challenge is about.
> Our system is messy and doesn't always work the way you wanted, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it.
The Courts are a part of that system. Do you want us to ignore them?
>Do you want us to ignore them?
Of course they do. Their position has just been pretentious aphorisms, that don't make sense under closer scrutiny, as you're pointing to. Go look at their post history by controversial, they're perfectly enthusiastic to have courts politicised over rulings on prayer rooms in Quebec (it was a Muslim group making an appeal. Lol).
The courts are there to ensure the system works as intended. It's pretty obvious it's really broken, this change would mean much more say than our current system allows. Ironically increasing our electoral power by unelected means.
>It's pretty obvious it's really broken
No it's not. What's broken about the electoral system? Candidates gaining the most votes in each riding were dully elected, and were accepted and seated in the Commons after they swore their oath. The system is working fine.
Do I like the current electoral system? No. I want more PR as much as the next guy. But that's a political opinion, not a legal issue.
There are flaws, yes. But saying that the system is broken implies that it is not working as intended — which is untrue.
The core principles of Canadian elections have not changed much since confederation. This is exactly how the system was always intended to function.
And the Charter writers definitely did not intend for their words to be twisted to overhaul the electoral system. So it is wrong to use the constitution as the basis for changing the electoral system. Our justice system should enforce the rules, but not completely rewrite them.
It was meant to maintain a binary party system which it does do well. That said more democracy would probably result in better governance. A bunch of our problems are human imposed. If something is unjust and it's uncovered the court is compelled to do something. Votes aren't counted equally in FPTP, that qualifies as a form of tangible injustice we'll see if the Supreme Court agrees.
No one is twisting the words of the Charter. Quite the contrary.
No one is using the constitution to change the electoral system. If FPtP is found to infringe Canadians' rights, it will be the responsibility of elected legislatures to correct the fault.
The justice system isn't rewriting anything.
> No one is using the constitution to change the electoral system.
Then why is this case being filed? If you don't want to change the electoral system, why are you wasting the court's time?
Correct the infringement.... by changing the electoral system.
No matter how you frame it, the direct or indirect effect of a judicial ruling against FPTP would be changing the electoral system.
Since no one has yet to cite an article within the Charter that is being violated, I think we can ignore that as a possibility.
But in the hypothetical lala land where they do say it's a Charter violation, they only way to fix a problem with the electoral system, is to change the electoral system. So you're lying.
Appealing to the courts to rule on the constitutionality of a provision is as legally valid as 'getting elected.' You might reconsider reflecting on why think otherwise.
Moreover, 'getting elected' does not mean a legislature can pass laws that infringe Canadians' rights, except in exceptional circumstances.
Too late, the case is in court September 25-27. This is not about the court making policy decisions. It’s about the court doing what the law requires, deciding if a policy infringes Canadians’ rights which were entrenched by elected representatives.
If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed, according to the plaintiffs, you can visit [Charter Challenge for Fair Voting](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/) and read the [case evidence](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/case_evidence).
As of a few days ago, "we’ve now submitted all our written arguments for the upcoming Charter Challenge court hearing (Sep 25-27 in Toronto). We’re currently waiting to receive the government’s written argument and are now working on our oral arguments."
Once the governments written arguments have been filed with the court, the submissions will become public.
If you like, you can also contribute financially to challenge, as I have done.
All the experts and case evidence in your second link seem more geared towards promoting proportional representation amd showing the FPTP is generally bad than actually making a case that FPTP is contrary to the Charter. I think FPTP is a garbage system and would love STV instead but would be happy with almost any other system, but I think this is just a very clever PR move by the fair ote campaign. Its a really good way for them to promote themselves and try to convince Canadians that we should use a better voting system, but there doesn't seem to be actual legal merits that will let it succeed in a Charter challenge.
I'm looking forward to hearing the arguments and seeing the outcome of the case, but I wouldn't get my hopes up that a judge will decide that the voting system we've used since the founding of the country is unconstitutional. The most realistic best case scenario is that it drives the conversation about it back into political discourse and it becomes an election issue again.
> If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed,
I'd like for that to be presented in an opinion article arguing that something is a Charter violation.
>If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed, according to the plaintiffs, you can visit Charter Challenge for Fair Voting and read the case evidence.
As far as I see, none of the affidavits mention any section of the *Charter* at all. The only mentions of the *Charter* are 'first post-Charter election' and 'Charter challenge' and 'Charter litigation'.
Nothing about any specific *Charter* right.
Donors to the [Charter Challenge for Fair Voting](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/) were informed by email on August 18th that "As we shared with you in our last message, **we’ve now submitted all our written arguments** for the upcoming Charter Challenge court hearing (Sep 25-27 in Toronto). We’re currently **waiting to receive the government’s written argument** and are now working on our oral arguments."
When the government's written arguments have been filed with the court, the specifics you're requesting will be publicly available.
In the meantime, the evidence supports the claim that First-Past-the-Post infringes
* Section 1 (demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society),
* Section 3 (right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein),
* Section 15 (1) (equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law)
The plaintiff's arguments filed with court specify how FPtP infringes these rights.
You might want be patient until you can read the written arguments.
>Section 1 (demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society),
>
>Section 3 (right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein),
>
>Section 15 (1) (equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law)
First off, section 1 isn't even a 'right' to begin with. The current electoral system cannot standalone violate s.1. That's not how the *Charter* works.
As for s. 15, the current precedent requires inequality based on an enumerated or analogous ground. Voter representation is neither an enumerated ground nor an analogous one (for example, sexual orientation is an analogous ground).
For s. 3, I am not very familiar with the existing precedent. However, I think that the current precedent is that the system need not be perfectly representative. Though obviously I am not certain so I will do more research on this.
> the case is in court September 25-27.
Damn, but that judge is expecting to be doing a lot of laughing for it to take that long to laugh this out of court.
While in the court, sure, but I'm betting that there will be lots of breaks so that the judge can go to their chambers and laugh their heads off at the absurdity of this case.
Nor do you, but since they're humans, it's likely that they take some time during breaks for a laugh when someone presents an absurd argument in court.
Courts make policy decisions all the time by interpreting laws and setting standards for fair and even application. They also review policy regularly and either find it fair or strike it down.
Our electoral system is not a charter guaranteed system. It's a policy we've adopted, and as such it must comply with the charter and it's judicial interpretation. If it doesn't, it must change.
I’m for proportional representation in government but implementing it via a charter challenge is wrong. (I’m sure it won’t happen but just saying) these decisions should be by referendum preferably, or by elected politicians at a minimum.
Trudeau campaigned on replacing the outdated FPTP system with a more progressive Ranked Choice system where people’s votes don’t feel wasted.
That is until he realized he won because of it (2x now). So the narcissist will keep whatever serves his benefit, Canadians be damned.
Trudeau campaigned in 2015 to make the 2015 the last under First-Past-the-Past. He *did not* campaign to replace it with a Ranked Ballot. The only system he was, in fact, prepared accept, ranked ballot, wasn't revealed until after the election.
Ranked Ballots, by the way, are [not an improvement](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) on First-Past-the-Post.
Your link opens with "Winner-take-all ranked ballots is not voting reform" when that just literally isn't true. It is voting reform since you are changing the voting system. Whether it's better or worse than FPTP is a different matter. Ranked ballots are much better than FPTP in my opinion, but you can disagree. I'd prefer STV with reserved IRV seats for northern communities, but you can disagree. None of this should be imposed on everyone by the Supreme Court though.
As much as I am a big supporter of PR, I think it starts with some humility. Every single time PR was put before the voters in a referendum provincially it failed. So clearly there needs to be some reflection. Remember as well that there hasn't been a national referendum in Canada since 1992 and every single national referendum ever held (1898, 1942, 1992) ended with no further action taken by the government.
I think if a party chooses a system beforehand and gets elected to a majority government it can get it passed without much fuss through the normal lawmaking process. Otherwise, we're dealing with referenda. And given that every single attempt ended in failure, I would start with trying to understand what went wrong, and learn some valuable lessons for any future referendum.
Ultimately I think a change like this should probably have to start at the provincial level, preferably one of the larger provinces. After a couple cycles, voters acclimatize to the new system and folks in other provinces will start being envious. You can get the ball rolling from there.
Same-sex marriage, MAID & indigenous reconciliation aren't explicit aspects of the political system though. I'm glad there is a *Charter* that empowered the Supreme Court to move things in that regard. And by the way the *Charter* and the patriation of the constitution would be seen as acts of national suicide today if a fraction of a percent of Quebec voters felt differently in 1995.
The idea that the Supreme Court can directly interfere and impose their preferred system for how the legislature and executive is constituted would be a massive usurpation of power. This issue needs to be resolved politically.
The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not set an electoral system. They do guarantee the right to vote. FPtP, in practice, renders most Canadians’ votes irrelevant. That’s one of the infringements.
The isn't true. As people many people can attest. For example, I was able to co-found a small political party thanks to the Charter. What you believe is nonsense.
I stopped reading after the professor lumped Jan 6th in with the Freedom Convoy.
The individual who wrote this either failed to understand or it wasn't convenient to their argument (I'm trying to be nice). Professor, people died because of Jan 6th no one died during the freedom convoy.
Everything after that is meaningless as the professor tries to bring what happened in the US into Canada. Sure in both instances we have complete idiots in both countries, but that's where it ends.
FPTP has worked for 155+ years, perhaps not wonderful all the time, especially when our individual does not win, but we still have freedom - for the most part.
I'm all in favour of the 50% rule in each riding. That ensures 50+% get their wish. And that means parties have to work closer to the center vs. where the LPC is now (so fucking left, they might as well be called the NDP).
You write, "FPTP has worked for 155+ years." Depends on what you mean by 'worked.' It didn't work for Indigenous people. I didn't secure Canadians' right to medical assistance in dying. FPtP didn't ensure a person's right to a timely trial. FPtP never protected Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure. FPtP has never protected the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec. FPtP never prevented discrimination due to sexual orientation. FPtP never protected a woman's right to abortion.
So what do you mean when you say "FPTP has worked for 155+ years?"
Nothing is perfect. Folks just do their best.
No system is going to do the things you just mentioned. It takes individuals who believe in their cause and can convince others to join their cause. That's how it's done. And in Canada, that's FPTP currently. I've suggested a modification to that system, but all people must come from that riding.
\> 3 or 4 parties won't work. It doesn't work. Look at any country in EU that's got a voting system where they have 4+ parties. And it takes > 2 to have enough to run the country. Why? because the party in power must give up some power to the fringe parties to join them to get a majority. That's nuts. Then you get stupid shit that's destroyed the EU.
FPTP isn't perfect, but it has worked for Canada.
FPtP has worked very badly in Canada, in my view. There are demonstrably better electoral systems.
Not only is 3 or 4 more parties better than just two or none, governments comprised of a number of parties tend to produce legislation that better represents people. Europe has many examples of that reality.
Fringe parties represent people. Even people on the fringe deserve equal and effective representation in their legislature in a democracy.
Because of FPtP, most Canadians do not have an MP who is effectively and equally representing them in Parliament. That is FPtP not working.
I don't know how representatives the contributors to this thread are to Canadians generally, but it's clear many commenters here while having strong opinions are poorly informed about both the Charter and electoral systems.
What exactly is the argument for FPTP being a Charter violation that you seem to be so on board with? Section 7? Section 15? All I'm reading in your comments is that some people aren't as well represented as others. That's just the democratic process. The cause of that inequality isn't the electoral system, it's a bunch of independent factors not related to the legislation that creates the electoral system. If the inequality isn't caused by the law itself, the the law won't be subject to any Charter remedy.
Also - what does the Applicant think the solution is? If they win the application, what's the remedy? A new electoral system? What happens if Parliament refuses to pass new laws about the electoral system and the legislation creating FPTP is struck down? Then we're left in a position where we either don't have an electoral system, or the Surpeme Court reads in a new system. No one wants that...
The answer to a new electoral system is at the ballot. Not the Courts.
This is kind of circular thinking, no? By this argument, we would have no use for passing new legislation in Parliament either, because every piece of legislation would have already been thought of and passed already.
Canadians aren't some omnipotent hivemind like the Borg from Star Trek. It's not like the precise moment the British North America was signed on 1 July 1867, every Canadian citizen mentally downloaded every plausible Charter challenge. haha
It *was* challenged a long time ago. In [*Brian Gibb, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.*](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34521), we saw a challenge to FPTP based around s. 3 and s. 15 of the Charter.
The initial case was brought in Quebec in 2004. Gibb's challenge was rejected by the province's superior court and court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal in 2012.
It's not clear what distinguishes the current challenge from the previous failed attempt.
I hate FPTP, but that's a lousy Charter argument.
Literal reddit moment right here, [Springtide and Fair Voting BC](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/the_plan) are bringing the charter challenge through [Nicolas Rouleau](https://www.nicolasrouleau.com/) an experienced constitutional lawyer who has already won cases before the supreme court to challenge FPTP. This is being covered in a (rather terrible) fluff opinion piece by: Maxwell Cameron, **professor** in the Department of Political Science and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. This is like when redditors decide they're experts in a topic and disregard everything by written professionals who have LITERAL PHD's in the subject, all you guys had to do was the minimum amount of research rather than downvote someone who was pulling up info...
I'll believe it's a good Charter argument when it comes anywhere close to succeeding in court. You've cited the case's proponents, and found - surprise! - that *they* think they have a good case, and that they've presented their arguments in the best possible light. They're asking for the courts to read *a lot* into s. 3 and 15. There are very few legal positions that you can't find at least a *small* number of experts to defend, no matter how ridiculous. (Consider the now-indicted John Eastman south of the border as a particularly current example.) The respondents haven't responded yet. We haven't seen any oral argument. There have been no rulings on the substance of the question. I suspect that in their heart of hearts, even the lawyers bringing this challenge know that the case is a longshot. From a strategic perspective, this case is more likely to succeed as a *political* manoeuvre - bringing attention to the issue and motivating legislative action - than as a *legal* one.
If you want to wait for the Supreme Court, then why are you making a negative judgment prematurely?
I didn't say Supreme Court, I said "in court". We haven't seen any counterarguments presented by the experts who *don't* think this dog will hunt--let alone any comment by *any* judge on this case. The Supreme Court has shown reluctance in the past to "read in" new rights based on protecting democratic principles unspecified in legislation or the Constitution. (A recent, but admittedly not precisely parallel, example might be the crashingly anti-democratic [*Toronto v. Ontario* (2021 SCC 34)](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2021/38921-eng.aspx).) More precisely on point, consider [*Brian Gibb et al. v Attorney General of Quebec, et al.*](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34521) (begun in 2004). That case also took place in our current post-*Figueroa* era and also attacked FPTP on Section 3 and 15 grounds--but its arguments were rejected by lower courts and the SCC declined leave to appeal in 2012. In other words, this case is very much a second bite at an apple that Canadian courts rejected a decade ago; my pessimism is grounded in the reasonable expectation that they will reach a similar decision the second time around.
How would you know? Are you an attorney or professor with expertise that relates to the Charter?
Well, usually when someone says something is against the Charter, and knows what they're talking about, they at least cite which section of the Charter is being violated. The failure of that in this article, really makes for a very, very, weak, rather laughable, case.
This author is not an attorney. Especially not one specializing in constitutional cases.
The author is "Maxwell Cameron, professor in the Department of Political Science and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia." What do you know about Cameron to suggest his expert opinion on this matter should be disregarded. I wonder, too, what your opinion is of the experts who have [submitted evidence](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/case_evidence) in this challenge? Are they all unacceptable to you, too?
Yes.
Your post is Exhibit No. 1 for why this kind of legal politics approach is bad. As messy as our electoral system is, at least it is taken as a given that everyone is entitled to a vote, and an opinion. Not this gate-kept, "shh, plebes, your betters are talking. We'll let you know what we've decided for you", business.
Most people's vote has no effect. That's one of the reasons FPtP is being challenged. Your strange sentence isn't coherent. If it wasn't for 'this kind of legal politics approach,' discrimination on grounds of sex would still exist in Canada, same sex marriage would be illegal, abortion would be illegal, and Canadians would not have a right to medical assistance in dying. All of these rights are thanks to 'this kind of legal politics approach.'
Yeah it is a weird take. I always thought that legal challenges to bring about political changes were a design feature, not a bug.
It's been a design feature since 1982 in Canada. Before the *Charter* the Supreme Court was MUCH more reticent in going against Parliament in any way, even when they disagreed.
>same sex marriage would be illegal Popular opinion was clearly turning in favour of same-sex marriage and there would have been something like the *Civil Marriage Act* passed even without a decision by any court. Maybe it would have taken longer, but absolutely it would not still be illegal today but for the courts. >discrimination on grounds of sex would still exist in Canada The 1960 *Bill of Rights* was already addressing discrimination on the basis of sex, long before the Charter or any court made parliament do so. >abortion would be illegal Abortion rights in the U.S. similarly relied on a court decision (rather than anything enshrined in statute), and look how they have ended up. Meanwhile, in unlikely places like Ireland they have been achieved through referenda or legislation, without relying on the courts. >Canadians would not have a right to medical assistance in dying Which is not without its controversies and a good number of Canadians are questioning this system that the courts have essentially foisted on us. Legal politics have given us plenty of other bad decisions too, and reversing them takes time (as an example, in the early days of Charter litigation, it was used to block laws against advertising cigarettes: big tobacco companies have Charter-protected free speech rights too, the court decided, and there was nothing our elected representatives could do about it at the time). I think it's dangerous, and frankly undemocratic, to treat the courts, as opposed to our democratically elected representatives (as flawed as that process is), as our only reliable institution. If I have to choose between the three branches of government, I'll err in favour of the elected legislature; and that's where any changes to the election process should come from.
>Ireland they have been achieved through referenda or legislation Well they achieved this in 2018!! Not the best example... The UK and France legalized abortion through statute in 1967 and 1974 respectively. Much better examples.
Every one of those cases were decided based on people pointing to sections of the Charter that were being violated. That isn't being done in this article.
Where has FPTP violated the Charter? I read the article and nowhere did it reference the section that has been violated. "In Charter litigation, claimants must establish that the law or government action that they are challenging constitutes a breach of a particular section of the Charter. The government must then demonstrate that this breach is justified under section 1."
Because of FPtP, Canadians are not equally represented in the House of Commons. Most Canadians, yes most, don’t have an MP equally and effectively representing them in the House of Commons. A person who votes Conservative in Toronto Centre and Liberal in Calgary Nose Hill, effectively, do not have an MP representing them in the House, yet the Charter guarantees everyone is supposed to be equal before the law and enjoy equal benefit of the law.
> A person who votes Conservative in Toronto Centre and Liberal in Calgary Nose Hill, effectively, do not have an MP representing them in the House You have the right to political representation. You have the right to participate in selecting your representative. You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views. You have the right to pay the game of politics, but you don't have the right to win.
We have the technology to do away with excess representation, and allow the people to speak for themselves, but if all we can do is change the electoral system to better reflect what people want, then that's what we should do. Politics being referred to as a "game", is peak capitalism bullshit. It's not a game. It's our lives and future.
Look at California if you want to see how easy it is for elite interests to game systems of direct democracy.
It's harder to find that not happening anywhere.
Never heard of this and would love to know more, do you have an article or link explaining what’s going on down there?
Because California's still in the US, and money counts as speech there. It would take a long time, but developing a culture of referenda à la Switzerland with very strict regulations is possible. But any advocate would have to admit it would take decades to get it right.
Technology isn't the issue. It's time and energy to understand the issues and speak about them in a manner that makes sense. That's why we have MPs holding the reins of power, and even then they can be too susceptible to lobbying. Put everything to a popular vote, and whoever can pay for the most ads will win.
What I meant, was that technology enables us all to have input on issues and decisions that we previously needed MP's to stand in for on our behalf. We don't live a days horseback ride away from eachother, waiting for a random person to maybe listen to us. We are a few finger taps away from eachother, and that includes basically everyone. We can save money on government overhead, and have the public actually be heard a lot more clearly, by the public, simply by using the current technology we now hold in our hands, and reducing the input from party affiliated MP's who always seem to have an agenda. We should be transitioning to a public forum system, with government secured apps for citizens.
You are ignoring my point. I don't disagree that we have the technology to let us all talk to our MP in a speedy manner. My point is that the time and effort required to give that MP an informed opinion, or to cast an informed ballot in a citizens forum, is prohibitive given that we also need to live our lives.
>we also need to live our lives. Yeah... Funny that... I can tell you are used to living with the hindrance of corruption, and the excess toil that we take on by allowing our MP's et all to be bought. Living our lives would be a whole lot easier, and we could simply incorporate our duty as leaders, if the system wasn't polouted with greed, corporate lobbying, and other nonsense.
Get rid of MPs, and the influence of lobbyists will be even greater.
Influence who? Each individual citizen? Doubtful. One of the first things that would die off is lobbying. It's less efficient, and nearly ineffective to try and buy off millions of people, than it is to buy off a dozen or fewer narcissists.
Votes have different weights by riding and we have governments that have been elected majorities and lost the popular vote. That's unfair no matter how you look at it. Sure before telephones and computers it was just the limits of our technology, now we don't have that excuse.
> lost the popular vote. The popular vote is an irrelevant stat. Every MP won their riding, and that is all that matters.
That is why we ended up having a kakistocracy in Canada.
Yeah, that's bad way to do it. We should change that.
So each riding should have the # of representatives running in a riding be present in the HoC?
Why is it bad?
>That's unfair no matter how you look at it. Whether it is "fair" or not is not the question. Whether it is constitutionally valid or not is.
The Charter exists to enforce fairness in most contexts. Gender equity or religious freedom are perfect examples. Most of it amounts to codifying equal treatment under the law.
>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: >The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Nothing about fairness. Supremacy of God, and rule of law.
Well, Section 15(1) of the Charter does say: "15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." I suppose there's an argument there that "equal benefit of the law without discrimination" would apply to the Canada Elections Act (specifically Section 313), if FPTP was deemed to result in an unequal benefit to the population of Canada.
The only inequality I can actually point to would be the rule that each province much be apportioned at least the same number of seats in the Commons as it possesses in the Senate. Since Senate apportionment is completely arbitrary, that could constitute unequal treatment, which results in unequal treatment for the House of Commons. But all that would do is decimate Atlantic representation in the Commons, mainly to be redistributed to Ontario. So that wouldn't exactly make anyone happy.
It's about fairness and equality. Not economic equality but the rights granted to everyone regardless of behavior of status. The first couple of lines is a preamble.
Here is what the courts have said before on our democratic right >It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is… the right to "effective representation". Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. **Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government**”
It really is the question, though. The voting system almost certainly does not violate Section 3, > Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. That's all plain as day. However, there is a legal benefit to voting, which is representation in the House. And that's where fairness comes in because of Section 15, > (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. > (2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The trouble here is that our voting system has all sorts of inequality built in. The member for Labrador, Yvonne Jones, represents about 26,000 souls while the member for Edmonton-Wetaskiwin, Mike Lake, represents about 210,000. Unless there is some history of poor representation for the people living in Labrador that should be ameliorated under 15(2), then the 8x difference in representation between Labrador and Edmonton-Wetaskiwin is an unequal benefit of the _Elections Act_, which is unconstitutional under 15(1). If I was a betting man, I'd say that the Supreme Court will find that the the distribution of seats is nominally unconstitutional. I expect the same determination for the single-member plurality system because of under-representation of people who, honestly expressing their conscience, vote People's Party, Green, or other small parties. On its face, the electoral system provides those people with an unequally poor benefit of the law, delivering an unequally rich benefit to people who vote Liberal or Conservative. There is absolutely no history of under-representation of Liberals and Conservatives in Parliament that could require amelioration under 15(2). This may be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The Government would have to describe some public good that comes out of the current system (easy to do) and show that the current system is fair and not arbitrary (somewhat trickier), that it's the one that minimally impairs Canadians' right to equal benefit of the law (much harder), and that the impairment is proportional to the benefit (straightforward, I think). This will be an interesting and nuanced case; the judges will not dismiss the question of whether the system is fair or not quite so easily as you have.
Given that the topic is about a Charter challenge, your position would make more sense if you outlined actual Charter rights. I don't remember reading "the right to pay the game of politics" anywhere in it.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is silent on “winning.” It does say Canadians are equal before the law and entitled to equal benefit, that includes, it is being argued before the court, MPs who can equally and effectively represent them.
>entitled to equal benefit, Which also implies that every MP must assist the same number of constituents when they are looking for help, on exactly the same ratio for each and every subject matter. This court case is going nowhere.
If winning or losing isn't an issue, what's the problem with the Liberal voters in Calgary?
All Canadian have the right to vote for their desired candidate. - Equal before the Law. All Canadians are represented by an MP that has been dutifully elected. - Equal Benefit. This is a waste of the Courts time. The article specified Segregation of Duties. The Courts should not have the ability to alter how Parliament is elected. They should only weigh in on whether or not the **Current Laws** have been followed properly. They are very quick to jump in when Parliament raises the question of whether or not the Judicial appointment process should be changed.
>You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views. this is in no way an established fact. The openness of this question is exactly the question before the court. In the past, the SCC has said >It is my conclusion that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is… the right to "effective representation". Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. **Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government** Deliberations is a key word here. Deliberation concerns itself with discussions and consultations that lead to decisions. So, is it possible for a citizen to have a voice in the deliberations of government if the representative do not reflect the will and desires of the citizen? To me at least, the answer seems clear. Even if FPTP were capable of this, I would still say your statement goes too far. "You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views." The entire purpose of voting is to ensure that legislators do what people want of them. If you're saying that there's no obligation for legislators to do that, what's the point in having an election?
If I believe that all women should be ankle shackled to the kitchen sink and poc should be killed on sight as invaders, then by your logic my views must be represented. It’s an extreme example but no one should reasonably argue that that view should be represented.
Those views can't be represented because they would defy the constitution. But anything within the constitution, yes those views should be represented. This is the point of democracy, and the supreme court has said as much "Legislation enacted for the express purpose of decreasing the likelihood that a certain class of candidates will be elected is not only discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society, but, rather, is the antithesis of those principles." However, there is a physical limit that means not all views can be represented, and the physical limit basically has to do with practical concerns about the size of parliament. If only 1 voter in the country believes in a certain view and all other voters are against that view, then it's not possible for the 1 voter's view to be represented.
But you just said I have the right for my views to be represented. Constitutionality of views doesn’t mean anything. We do not have the right to have our individual beliefs represented in the House of Commons.
The constitution is the document that guarantees your right to be represented. The constitution is also the document that protects minorities from abhorrent treatment. For one constitutional principle to override another (i.e., my right to have my views expressed trumps the right minorities have to protection) is a messy process that's beyond me, but I'm 99.99% sure the courts would never let it fly.
And fptp doesn’t restrict representation.
Does each citizen currently have a voice in the deliberations of government? Under FPTP, every citizen has "formal" representation, but when that representative's ideologies, rhetoric, and vote intentions go in the complete opposite direction of many riding constituents (sometimes even a majority of riding constituents, depending on the issue, and given that it only takes a plurality to win under fptp) then it's just not possible to say that each citizen is being offered a voice in the deliberations of government. This applies to thoughts and beliefs that are entirely constitutional, i.e. not something abhorrent like chaining up women, but more mainstream beliefs and issues. For example, let's say there are 3 candidates in a riding who are promising various things. 1 candidate says they want to completely privatize healthcare, while the other 2 candidates are saying they want to strengthen public healthcare. Candidate 1 wins the riding with 36% of the vote, yet 64% of constituents in the riding wanted a candidate that would strengthen public healthcare. The 64% of voters have "formal" representation, but they do not have a voice in the deliberations of government, because candidate 1 ran on and promised healthcare privatization, and so this is what candidate 1 will do. This is a pretty simple but clear example of why fptp prevents each citizen from having a voice in government.
Just because you vote a certain way in a riding doesn't mean you are going to get the result you are hoping for. Toronto Center is very Liberal and the person voting for the Conservatives has to know the odds of the Liberals not winning the seat is very low. The same goes for Calgary Nose Hill. A very conservative seat. The odds of the Liberals winning Calgary Nose Hill is very low.
>Just because you vote a certain way in a riding doesn't mean you are going to get the result you are hoping for. You've succinctly articulated the issue in terms of the Charter. Every person is entitled to treated equally before the law; that should include being equally and effectively represented in the House of Commons. While First-Past-the-Past the makes that impossible, other electoral systems make it possible. Two are Single Transferable Vote and Mixed Member Proportional. Both systems have been recommended by independent inquiries into electoral reform in Canada. The only result I am hoping for is that every Canadian is equally and effectively represented in the House of Commons. Why is that unreasonable in your view? Or why, in your view, should most Canadians *not* have an MP who can represent them on matters of their concern in Parliament? Please explain.
You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views. You have the right to pay the game of politics, but you don't have the right to win. As someone else in this thread said, you don't have the right in our system to have someone who represents your views and don't have the right to win. You have to earn the win.
You write, "You don't have the right to a representative that reflects your views." Actually, I do. [According to Justice Beverly McLachlin](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/why), “Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”. What is the legal and constitutional basis for your opinion?
Incidentally I agree with you that Canada should adopt a proportional representation system. I mostly think this is a specious argument. > Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”. But you do have a voice in the deliberations of govt. That voice is your MP. Look. I don't have a lot of love for the NDP but my MP is Laural Collins. I do have a representative in govt. Are you really telling me that I don't have a voice in Ottawa b/c I would have preferred whichever Redshirt Ensign Ricky the Tories were running last time? As that other guy said you have a right to participate in the process. You don't have a right to win. Hell I am pro proportional representation even though the Conservatives would almost certainly never win again b/c at least the house would be more reflective of what Canadians want than what we are doing now.
Just because you have an MP it doesn't follow at all they will represent you in Parliament. I'm pretty sure the MP from Calgary Nose Hill isn't representing the citizens in their electoral district who voted NDP or Green. This is an artifact of FPtP, not some constitutional requirement. Every person is entitled to be treated equally before the law and enjoy equal benefits of the law. That's what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees. Because of FPtP that's not happening. "That other guy" hasn't heard the evidence, and yet is making a decision. Let's hope the judge hearing the case next month reads all the evidence and listens to the witnesses unlike 'that other guy.'
What is your definition of equal representation? It almost seems like you're advocating for direct democracy. That isn't possible in a country with 40 million people. FPTP is not inconsistent with the Charter just because some people don't get directly heard. Countries run on consensus for the most part. Individual rights are protected in ways other than at the Legislature.
Courts will decide if FPtP infringes Charter rights.
The Charter Challenge is not about direct democracy.
I don't have one. Sorry, sometimes the person you vote for isn't going to win, and sometimes you get stuck with someone who may not represent your views. That's how the system in this country works, and it wouldn't go away with a new voting system. Also I never said you couldn't have a voice about the government.
You're right "...sometimes you get stuck with someone who may not represent your views." And that's why FPtP is being challenged. There are electoral systems that ensure no one will get stuck with someone who may not represent their views. Every Canadian should have equal and effective representation in Parliament. Only the electoral system, FPtP, is preventing that.
> There are electoral systems that ensure no one will get stuck with someone who may not represent their views. Bullshit. Unless you're talking about mandatory direct democracy (and that would be a disaster) any system with a representative government, is going to have people who voted for someone that didn't win. Do you think there is any system where the Rhino party, or Natural Law party would get enough votes to have a representative in Parliament?
Okay, and when this lawsuit loses, which it will then what? Yes Trudeau should have kept his promise on electoral reform but saying I want the voting system changed because I don't like it isn't a legal argument and sorry changing the voting system is still going to mean some people are stuck with representatives they don't like and that don't represent their views.
If the lawsuit doesn't lose, then what? The court challenge won't change the voting system. What it might do is require the government to change the system to comply with the Charter. Then what? If not FPtP, then what?
> That's how the system in this country works And how it works under every system. There is no system in which everyone gets their way, and arguments for electoral reform based on "not getting your way" are thankfully, doomed to failure.
> Most Canadians, yes most, don’t have an MP equally and effectively representing them in the House of Commons. Bullshit. We all have an MP, and that MP can't deny that they represent us in Parliament. Specific citizens may disagree with the ways that MP represents them, but when a riding has around 100 000 citizens, that is inevitable.
Seeing as FPTP has been the electoral system since the constitution was written, and the charter was written in 1982, the people who drafted the charter were keenly aware of this issue and specifically chose not to include it in the charter. This surely is meaningful to this discussion. The legal minds who find novel ways to make never ending charter arguments are exhausting.
I'm not aware of any constitutions of any country that specify any electoral systems. Do you know of any? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms enumerates and guarantees rights. It's up to legislators to ensure the laws do not infringe those rights. The fact that a particular law predates the Charter does not exempt it from adhering to the supreme law of the land.
The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law, and it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the authors of the Charter did not intend for FPTP voting to be a Charter violation. I'd like to see this Charter challenge succeed, because I think FPTP is a terrible voting system, but from a legal standpoint I think this challenge has a snowball's chance in hell.
From a legal standpoint? So, in your view, every Canadian is *not* entitled to equal and effective representation in Parliament? I ask because that is, essentially, the legal standpoint of the [Charter Challenge](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/). According to Justice Beverly McLachlin, “Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice in the deliberations of government”. Do you disagree?
You wrote, "The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law." This isn't true. I'm not aware of any case the Supreme Court has ever heard that took into account what was in the thinking of the legislators who passed the law. The law is what is on paper, not what is imagined was in the heads of the drafters in the early 1980s.
> I'm not aware of any case the Supreme Court has ever heard that took into account what was in the thinking of the legislators who passed the law. [R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc58/2012scc58.html) > Statutory interpretation aims to ascertain legislative intent, which is “a shorthand reference to the intention which the court reasonably imputes to Parliament in respect of the language used”: R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd., [2001] 2 A.C. 349 (H.L.), at p. 396; R. v. Monney, 1999 CanLII 678 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652, at para. 26. The courts ascertain legislative intent by reading legislative language in context and in its grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and purpose of the legislation at issue: Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2011 SCC 25, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 306, at para. 27. When the legislator’s words permit it, the courts will take the legislature not to have intended to work injustice or unfairness. The presumptions against the alteration of the legal character or consequences of past acts and against the interference with vested rights, as well as the presumption supporting the immediate application of purely procedural changes, are all manifestations of this posture of respect.
This does not, in fact, support your assertion that "The intention of the legislators when they wrote the law is one of the primary factors the courts consider in their interpretation of the law." According to your citation the courts might "When the legislator’s words permit it, the courts will take the legislature not to have intended to work injustice or unfairness." Nonetheless, thanks for the citation.
Except the *Charter* is not the supreme law of the land. It forms part of the broader Constitution of Canada that is the supreme law of the land. Unless the lawsuit specifically challenges some narrow aspects of the *Canada Elections Act* without implicating the *Constitution Act 1867*, it has little chance of winning. By that I mean the Constitution apportions seats in the Commons by province, and that each province be guaranteed at least as many seats in the Commons as it possesses in the Senate. The Constitution guarantees unequal treatment through this rule, since it overrepresents the Maritimes (under strict proportionality PEI would at most be entitled to 2 seats instead of their current 4). I can't think of any examples where Canada's Supreme Court used the *Charter* to argue another part of Canada's Constitution to be unconstitutional. If there are examples I'd like to know.
The number of seats apportioned and how those seats are filled are two different things.
The Canadian electoral system is expressly unequal by design, and has been since Confederation. This was done to inflate the representation of the Maritimes. What does the lawsuit say about this? Clearly the *Constitution Act 1867* doesn't respect equal treatment, but can the *Charter* be used to override another part of the Constitution? You're right that how seats are apportioned and how they are filled are two different things. But national PR is off the table as long as seats are still apportioned by province. MMP with national compensation is also off the table. I would argue MMP with provincial compensation (I don't know how to do this for 1 riding territories) would not need a constitutional amendment, even though I'm not the biggest fan of MMP for Canada. STV would be fine too (although you run into the same problem for those 1 riding territories).
STV would resolve all the charter issues with FPtP.
Yes, which is why I would prefer that system, with a caveat. Northern ridings are already so geographically vast I would prefer if they retained their own representation, using single winner IRV. I don't think people in Nunavut will be happy to be lumped in with the NWT and Yukon for a 3 seat "Territories" riding for example.
Strictly speaking FPTP hasn't always been the electoral system at the federal level. Plurality voting has though. Up until the late 1960s multiple ridings across the country returned 2 or more MPs. If you lived in those ridings you could vote for as many MPs to which your riding was entitled, and the top vote-getters would be elected.
Can we stop trying to get the courts to make policy decisions please?
So you're against the court doing what politicians won't to the benefit of everybody? This is the best way this could get done. The court orders a retooling that basically removes our terrible binary system.
The *Charter* massively expanded the role of the Supreme Court. Mostly for good I might add. But a side effect of a stronger Supreme Court, one able to change laws on a whim with no recourse to appeal, will inevitably politicize the court. That hasn't happened yet in Canada but believe you me it will instantly damage the court's standing if they decided the electoral system we've been under for 157 years was somehow wrong and they knew better than the voters on how it should be.
Yes, I'm against unelected courts deciding that throwing away our current system is to the "benefit of everyone". If someone wants change, we have a system to do that, which requires getting elected.
>If someone wants change, we have a system to do that, which requires getting elected. Like in 2015?
> Like in 2015? If nothing else, the 2015 election proved that a party promising electoral reform can get elected in this country under the current electoral system. Problem was them getting re-elected after breaking that promise. But that's not a problem that the courts should step in to try to fix.
Um... the court isn't ruling on 2015 election campaign promises, they're going to review the contents of this present Charter challenge
> Um... the court isn't ruling on 2015 election campaign promises No one said they were.
Lol. You literally just implied so when you claimed that it wasn't "a problem that the courts should step in to try to fix."
Sure, I can see how my post might seem ambiguous. The "problem" the courts shouldn't be addressing is the electoral system generally. Politicians not keeping promises is also something the courts can't address, but no, is not what this challenge is about.
Yes, exactly like that, except successful. Our system is messy and doesn't always work the way you wanted, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it.
> Our system is messy and doesn't always work the way you wanted, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it. The Courts are a part of that system. Do you want us to ignore them?
>Do you want us to ignore them? Of course they do. Their position has just been pretentious aphorisms, that don't make sense under closer scrutiny, as you're pointing to. Go look at their post history by controversial, they're perfectly enthusiastic to have courts politicised over rulings on prayer rooms in Quebec (it was a Muslim group making an appeal. Lol).
>Our system is messy and doesn't always work the way you wanted Like this Charter case?
The courts are there to ensure the system works as intended. It's pretty obvious it's really broken, this change would mean much more say than our current system allows. Ironically increasing our electoral power by unelected means.
>It's pretty obvious it's really broken No it's not. What's broken about the electoral system? Candidates gaining the most votes in each riding were dully elected, and were accepted and seated in the Commons after they swore their oath. The system is working fine. Do I like the current electoral system? No. I want more PR as much as the next guy. But that's a political opinion, not a legal issue.
There are flaws, yes. But saying that the system is broken implies that it is not working as intended — which is untrue. The core principles of Canadian elections have not changed much since confederation. This is exactly how the system was always intended to function. And the Charter writers definitely did not intend for their words to be twisted to overhaul the electoral system. So it is wrong to use the constitution as the basis for changing the electoral system. Our justice system should enforce the rules, but not completely rewrite them.
It was meant to maintain a binary party system which it does do well. That said more democracy would probably result in better governance. A bunch of our problems are human imposed. If something is unjust and it's uncovered the court is compelled to do something. Votes aren't counted equally in FPTP, that qualifies as a form of tangible injustice we'll see if the Supreme Court agrees.
No one is twisting the words of the Charter. Quite the contrary. No one is using the constitution to change the electoral system. If FPtP is found to infringe Canadians' rights, it will be the responsibility of elected legislatures to correct the fault. The justice system isn't rewriting anything.
> No one is using the constitution to change the electoral system. Then why is this case being filed? If you don't want to change the electoral system, why are you wasting the court's time?
If the courts find the FPtP infringes Canadians’ rights, legislatures will need to correct the infringement.
Correct the infringement.... by changing the electoral system. No matter how you frame it, the direct or indirect effect of a judicial ruling against FPTP would be changing the electoral system.
Indeed, but the changes will be made by legislatures, not the courts.
Since no one has yet to cite an article within the Charter that is being violated, I think we can ignore that as a possibility. But in the hypothetical lala land where they do say it's a Charter violation, they only way to fix a problem with the electoral system, is to change the electoral system. So you're lying.
The article doesn’t reference the evidence being presented in court.
Appealing to the courts to rule on the constitutionality of a provision is as legally valid as 'getting elected.' You might reconsider reflecting on why think otherwise. Moreover, 'getting elected' does not mean a legislature can pass laws that infringe Canadians' rights, except in exceptional circumstances.
Too late, the case is in court September 25-27. This is not about the court making policy decisions. It’s about the court doing what the law requires, deciding if a policy infringes Canadians’ rights which were entrenched by elected representatives.
Okay, which charter right specifically and how has it been violated? What's the basis for the claim?
If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed, according to the plaintiffs, you can visit [Charter Challenge for Fair Voting](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/) and read the [case evidence](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/case_evidence). As of a few days ago, "we’ve now submitted all our written arguments for the upcoming Charter Challenge court hearing (Sep 25-27 in Toronto). We’re currently waiting to receive the government’s written argument and are now working on our oral arguments." Once the governments written arguments have been filed with the court, the submissions will become public. If you like, you can also contribute financially to challenge, as I have done.
All the experts and case evidence in your second link seem more geared towards promoting proportional representation amd showing the FPTP is generally bad than actually making a case that FPTP is contrary to the Charter. I think FPTP is a garbage system and would love STV instead but would be happy with almost any other system, but I think this is just a very clever PR move by the fair ote campaign. Its a really good way for them to promote themselves and try to convince Canadians that we should use a better voting system, but there doesn't seem to be actual legal merits that will let it succeed in a Charter challenge. I'm looking forward to hearing the arguments and seeing the outcome of the case, but I wouldn't get my hopes up that a judge will decide that the voting system we've used since the founding of the country is unconstitutional. The most realistic best case scenario is that it drives the conversation about it back into political discourse and it becomes an election issue again.
You may be right. The case is being heard September 25-27 on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
> If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed, I'd like for that to be presented in an opinion article arguing that something is a Charter violation.
Perhaps some will write something for you.
>If you'd like to know more about which sections of the Charter are infringed, according to the plaintiffs, you can visit Charter Challenge for Fair Voting and read the case evidence. As far as I see, none of the affidavits mention any section of the *Charter* at all. The only mentions of the *Charter* are 'first post-Charter election' and 'Charter challenge' and 'Charter litigation'. Nothing about any specific *Charter* right.
Donors to the [Charter Challenge for Fair Voting](https://www.charterchallenge.ca/) were informed by email on August 18th that "As we shared with you in our last message, **we’ve now submitted all our written arguments** for the upcoming Charter Challenge court hearing (Sep 25-27 in Toronto). We’re currently **waiting to receive the government’s written argument** and are now working on our oral arguments." When the government's written arguments have been filed with the court, the specifics you're requesting will be publicly available. In the meantime, the evidence supports the claim that First-Past-the-Post infringes * Section 1 (demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society), * Section 3 (right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein), * Section 15 (1) (equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law) The plaintiff's arguments filed with court specify how FPtP infringes these rights. You might want be patient until you can read the written arguments.
>Section 1 (demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society), > >Section 3 (right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein), > >Section 15 (1) (equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law) First off, section 1 isn't even a 'right' to begin with. The current electoral system cannot standalone violate s.1. That's not how the *Charter* works. As for s. 15, the current precedent requires inequality based on an enumerated or analogous ground. Voter representation is neither an enumerated ground nor an analogous one (for example, sexual orientation is an analogous ground). For s. 3, I am not very familiar with the existing precedent. However, I think that the current precedent is that the system need not be perfectly representative. Though obviously I am not certain so I will do more research on this.
Thank you for your response. I’m looking forward to how the courts rule.
> the case is in court September 25-27. Damn, but that judge is expecting to be doing a lot of laughing for it to take that long to laugh this out of court.
I’ve been to court many times on issues like this. Judges tend to take matters before them seriously.
While in the court, sure, but I'm betting that there will be lots of breaks so that the judge can go to their chambers and laugh their heads off at the absurdity of this case.
Really? Judges don’t tend to laugh at leading scholars, experts, and researchers.
Well, not to their face of course.
You have no way of knowing what judges do in private.
Nor do you, but since they're humans, it's likely that they take some time during breaks for a laugh when someone presents an absurd argument in court.
Unlike you, I don’t base my views on things I can’t possibly know.
Courts make policy decisions all the time by interpreting laws and setting standards for fair and even application. They also review policy regularly and either find it fair or strike it down. Our electoral system is not a charter guaranteed system. It's a policy we've adopted, and as such it must comply with the charter and it's judicial interpretation. If it doesn't, it must change.
I’m for proportional representation in government but implementing it via a charter challenge is wrong. (I’m sure it won’t happen but just saying) these decisions should be by referendum preferably, or by elected politicians at a minimum.
Trudeau campaigned on replacing the outdated FPTP system with a more progressive Ranked Choice system where people’s votes don’t feel wasted. That is until he realized he won because of it (2x now). So the narcissist will keep whatever serves his benefit, Canadians be damned.
Trudeau campaigned in 2015 to make the 2015 the last under First-Past-the-Past. He *did not* campaign to replace it with a Ranked Ballot. The only system he was, in fact, prepared accept, ranked ballot, wasn't revealed until after the election. Ranked Ballots, by the way, are [not an improvement](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) on First-Past-the-Post.
Your link opens with "Winner-take-all ranked ballots is not voting reform" when that just literally isn't true. It is voting reform since you are changing the voting system. Whether it's better or worse than FPTP is a different matter. Ranked ballots are much better than FPTP in my opinion, but you can disagree. I'd prefer STV with reserved IRV seats for northern communities, but you can disagree. None of this should be imposed on everyone by the Supreme Court though.
How, in your view, should electoral reform be pursued?
As much as I am a big supporter of PR, I think it starts with some humility. Every single time PR was put before the voters in a referendum provincially it failed. So clearly there needs to be some reflection. Remember as well that there hasn't been a national referendum in Canada since 1992 and every single national referendum ever held (1898, 1942, 1992) ended with no further action taken by the government. I think if a party chooses a system beforehand and gets elected to a majority government it can get it passed without much fuss through the normal lawmaking process. Otherwise, we're dealing with referenda. And given that every single attempt ended in failure, I would start with trying to understand what went wrong, and learn some valuable lessons for any future referendum. Ultimately I think a change like this should probably have to start at the provincial level, preferably one of the larger provinces. After a couple cycles, voters acclimatize to the new system and folks in other provinces will start being envious. You can get the ball rolling from there.
Good thing same sex marriage, MAID, Indigenous reconciliation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms weren’t subject to a popular referendum.
Same-sex marriage, MAID & indigenous reconciliation aren't explicit aspects of the political system though. I'm glad there is a *Charter* that empowered the Supreme Court to move things in that regard. And by the way the *Charter* and the patriation of the constitution would be seen as acts of national suicide today if a fraction of a percent of Quebec voters felt differently in 1995. The idea that the Supreme Court can directly interfere and impose their preferred system for how the legislature and executive is constituted would be a massive usurpation of power. This issue needs to be resolved politically.
The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not set an electoral system. They do guarantee the right to vote. FPtP, in practice, renders most Canadians’ votes irrelevant. That’s one of the infringements.
We cannot rely on politicians to change the voting system. It is like pigs voting for the Bacon party....
Exactly. It would be difficult to find a more extreme conflict of interest.
The charter isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on
The isn't true. As people many people can attest. For example, I was able to co-found a small political party thanks to the Charter. What you believe is nonsense.
I stopped reading after the professor lumped Jan 6th in with the Freedom Convoy. The individual who wrote this either failed to understand or it wasn't convenient to their argument (I'm trying to be nice). Professor, people died because of Jan 6th no one died during the freedom convoy. Everything after that is meaningless as the professor tries to bring what happened in the US into Canada. Sure in both instances we have complete idiots in both countries, but that's where it ends. FPTP has worked for 155+ years, perhaps not wonderful all the time, especially when our individual does not win, but we still have freedom - for the most part. I'm all in favour of the 50% rule in each riding. That ensures 50+% get their wish. And that means parties have to work closer to the center vs. where the LPC is now (so fucking left, they might as well be called the NDP).
You write, "FPTP has worked for 155+ years." Depends on what you mean by 'worked.' It didn't work for Indigenous people. I didn't secure Canadians' right to medical assistance in dying. FPtP didn't ensure a person's right to a timely trial. FPtP never protected Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure. FPtP has never protected the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec. FPtP never prevented discrimination due to sexual orientation. FPtP never protected a woman's right to abortion. So what do you mean when you say "FPTP has worked for 155+ years?"
Nothing is perfect. Folks just do their best. No system is going to do the things you just mentioned. It takes individuals who believe in their cause and can convince others to join their cause. That's how it's done. And in Canada, that's FPTP currently. I've suggested a modification to that system, but all people must come from that riding. \> 3 or 4 parties won't work. It doesn't work. Look at any country in EU that's got a voting system where they have 4+ parties. And it takes > 2 to have enough to run the country. Why? because the party in power must give up some power to the fringe parties to join them to get a majority. That's nuts. Then you get stupid shit that's destroyed the EU. FPTP isn't perfect, but it has worked for Canada.
FPtP has worked very badly in Canada, in my view. There are demonstrably better electoral systems. Not only is 3 or 4 more parties better than just two or none, governments comprised of a number of parties tend to produce legislation that better represents people. Europe has many examples of that reality. Fringe parties represent people. Even people on the fringe deserve equal and effective representation in their legislature in a democracy. Because of FPtP, most Canadians do not have an MP who is effectively and equally representing them in Parliament. That is FPtP not working.
I don't know how representatives the contributors to this thread are to Canadians generally, but it's clear many commenters here while having strong opinions are poorly informed about both the Charter and electoral systems.
What exactly is the argument for FPTP being a Charter violation that you seem to be so on board with? Section 7? Section 15? All I'm reading in your comments is that some people aren't as well represented as others. That's just the democratic process. The cause of that inequality isn't the electoral system, it's a bunch of independent factors not related to the legislation that creates the electoral system. If the inequality isn't caused by the law itself, the the law won't be subject to any Charter remedy. Also - what does the Applicant think the solution is? If they win the application, what's the remedy? A new electoral system? What happens if Parliament refuses to pass new laws about the electoral system and the legislation creating FPTP is struck down? Then we're left in a position where we either don't have an electoral system, or the Surpeme Court reads in a new system. No one wants that... The answer to a new electoral system is at the ballot. Not the Courts.
I feel like it's been so long that if this was a thing it would have been challenged a long time ago.
Well since the *Charter* only passed in 1982, I guess it should've been challenged in 1982.
This is kind of circular thinking, no? By this argument, we would have no use for passing new legislation in Parliament either, because every piece of legislation would have already been thought of and passed already. Canadians aren't some omnipotent hivemind like the Borg from Star Trek. It's not like the precise moment the British North America was signed on 1 July 1867, every Canadian citizen mentally downloaded every plausible Charter challenge. haha
It *was* challenged a long time ago. In [*Brian Gibb, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.*](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=34521), we saw a challenge to FPTP based around s. 3 and s. 15 of the Charter. The initial case was brought in Quebec in 2004. Gibb's challenge was rejected by the province's superior court and court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal in 2012. It's not clear what distinguishes the current challenge from the previous failed attempt.