Proposed Models for a Canadian Constituent Assembly

Part of the discussion that took place at the Canada at the Forks Conference, Exploring a Constituent Assembly was how would the assembly be designed and what would be it's power, mandate, and role in our overall constitutional process?

 

The following are different models and designs proposed for the assembly. Your input and ideas are welcome.

[Canada at the Forks -- Post Mortem, and Directions for the Future] [Assembly of the 400 + 1][Elected Constituent Assembly "A Viable Alternative to Solve the Canadian Constitutional Stalemate][House of Nations][A Model for a Tiered Constituent Assembly]

 

---

CANADA AT THE FORKS --

Eva H. Lyman

INTRODUCTION

About 70 people from across Canada came to the conference on CANADA AT THE FORKS, held in Calgary October 25 -27, 1996, to ponder the topic of Constituent Assemblies.

Notable by their absence were Aboriginal People's representatives, and almost missing were Francophones from Quebec. Efforts had apparently been made to get participation from these groups. The lack of response is worrisome, but may be partly due to who was approached, especially in Aboriginal communities.

This participation bias raises an immediate concern about the representative nature of the meeting, and must be addressed in future gatherings.

As it is, one must ask whether a fairly homogeneous English speaking, largely Caucasian group of Canadians can speak for the whole country. Or should we ask, are Caucasian Anglophone Canadians the only people interested in Canada's survival?

This post mortem is a combination of the writer's personal insights, and a few brief comments on the conclusions as reported by various presenters.

There were five selected topics, of which this writer attended 4, and they are a major part of the following discussion. These topics were: what is a constituent assembly, how should it be set up, what should it achieve, and who should be on it.

1. WHAT IS A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY?

The general consensus was that a Constituent Assembly would have to be made up of Canadian citizens not representing any special interest groups, although they might come from different interest groups or peoples. One definition was:

"A constituent assembly is a meeting of the citizens of Canada set up to design a new Constitution to define how government will function".

At the same time, there was concern that the discussion should be broader, than just the constitution. For that reason it was proposed that the name might be changed to a "Citizens' Assembly".

2. HOW SHOULD THE ASSEMBLY BE SET UP?

This topic exposed concern about the role of governments in the Assembly. The question was posed: to what extent can the work of the assemblies be carried out without government interference? Will there be government support, or obstruction? Can there be an assembly without government financial support, and what role would Provincial governments play?

The feeling of the group seemed to be that government acquiescence would be required. Hopefully the Federal government would be willing to commit themselves to supporting and putting into operation whatever the Citizens Assembly proposed, and the people of the country ratified in a binding referendum.

Without such a commitment, a Citizen Assembly would be a waste of time, and money. Many shelved public hearings' documents and Royal commission reports attest to the lack of government commitment to the will of the citizens.

Nevertheless, if a large percentage of Canadians felt that renewal was needed, then few governments could ignore their wishes. Not if they desire reelection. There is, of course, the danger that approval will be promised to gain electoral support, and withdrawn after the election, if the findings become inconvenient to the power elites.

Given the poor Government record of acting on public initiatives, holding a Citizens' Assembly, and a Referendum without some form of a priori "teeth" guaranteed, would be futile. To achieve that, pressure will have to come from a large number of Canadians before a Citizens' Assembly, or series of assemblies are undertaken. It is quite likely that even once it is underway, attempts will be made to subvert its work and purpose through the use of the mainstream media. After all, it is probable that a Citizens' Assembly might find the current control of our media in so few hands a threat to democracy.

3. WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED?

Specifics were not discussed for obvious reasons. Some participants felt that a fairly narrow review of the present "constitution" should suffice via a constitutional amendment. More people felt that a broad approach should be taken, reconsidering all aspects of the way that Canadians govern themselves, or are governed.

Given the fact that our constitution is actually not a constitution but a statute drafted by, in the first place the British, and in 1982 patriated, and revised without public inputs, Canadians would be justified in wanting a totally new document.

4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

This writer's group opted for random selection. No consensus was reached by the other groups. Some other methods suggested were government appointments, selection by constituencies, selection of the brightest members of regional constituent assembly groups. A combined assembly of three or four different categories was another promising suggestion. In this last option there would be some randomly selected members, and some geographical, cultural, and elected representation.

CONCLUSION

Overall the conference was a very promising beginning of a promising initiative to renew Canada. No one left under any illusions about the massive work that lies ahead before a working Assembly becomes reality.

The organizers did a fantastic job, and must have our thanks.

One minor comment on the panel of Saturday morning, which was made up entirely of political science professors. Academics have a certain perspective that is often not shared by the citizens at large. Since Universities have a tendency to be sheltered from the winds of reality, and financed by Governments and corporate donations they might be suspect of a certain bias. CAN should be wary of this bias in future selections, and opt for panelists with a broader range of backgrounds.

IMPRESSIONS:

We have a long way to go before we change the Constitution, and renew this country. Although the work will be monumental, we must not be deterred, because there is no other hope.

A few circumferential observations:

IN CLOSING

We do need to set goals, and principles very clearly, and firmly. Once we set the goals, the tools can be found. The political infrastructure should serve the people, not vice versa. This must be reflected in the new Constitution.

The group decided to make plans for the next session in 1997, hopefully to be held in Montreal. Much work needs to be done prior to that date.

Part of that work is networking between the 1,500 groups interested in the renewal of Confederation.

A working group should get onto this networking project in each region as quickly as possible. That means contact persons should be designated regionally for that purpose.

Planning an agenda that would move us forward when we meet next year must get under way soon. Every participant should try to speak to half a dozen people who might be interested in coming to the next meeting. We need greater numbers, because without very broad support this idea will not get off the ground.

Author: Eva H. Lyman, MA, MLArch (Harvard)

---

Assembly of the 400 + 1

(number can be changed)

presented by

Robert Johnston

 

The Assembly will be made up of two distinct groups; declared(200 seats) and undeclared(200 seats) delegates.

 

The Assembly:

 

The National Constituent Assembly will be called at such a time as the need arises for debate and resolution of a constitutional amendment or the writing of a new amendment or constitution.

 

The purpose of the Assembly is to give all Canadians a place at the table and a equal say in our nation building process.

 

Assembly's will last as long as necessary to resolve the issue.

 

The Assembly will be dissolved upon completion of the task.

 

Subsequent Assembly's when called will have new elections.

 

Declared Constituent Assembly Person:

 

The declared Constituent Assembly person will be made up from groups having a declared proprietary interest; e.g. political parties, province's, territories, first people etc.. They can be either elected or appointed depending how their organization chooses to do it.

 

To falsely represent themselves will be punishable by a prison term and fine(see Penalties).

 

Undeclared Constituent Assembly Person:

 

The undeclared Constituent Assembly person will be elected from each province and territory based upon a system of equal distribution. This system will be decided by computer at 12:01 am July 1 st. of the first year that a Assembly is called. A computer will randomly select the geographical boundaries in each jurisdiction in a similar manner as to how jigsaw puzzles are designed. It will take the given area of the province or territory and divide it by 20(or whatever the equal distribution is) thus deciding the area of each constituent assembly person's representation. Nomination and elections will follow in each constituency. This process is designed to arrive at consensus based on the issue and how it effects that constituency.

 

All candidates must declare themselves undeclared. To falsely represent themselves will be punishable by a prison term and fine(see Penalties). They can not hold any affiliation with any organization that is a recognized as declared.

 

The Assembly President:

 

The Assembly President will be elected by the House of Commons at the same time as the Speaker of the House. He or she will serve the constituent assembly whether it is sitting or not until such a time as a Federal election is called, their resignation, or dismissal.

 

When an assembly is in session the President will be the chairperson. For all intents fulfilling a role similar to the Speaker of the House. In the event of a tie vote this person will cast the deciding vote. The President can be either a declared or undeclared Constituent Assembly person but must state either/or. The candidate for this post need not come from the House of Commons, as the speaker does, but can be nominated from any jurisdiction that the nominator wants. The only requirements being that they are a Canadian citizen and at the time of the nomination they declare their status(declared/undeclared).

 

Penalties:

 

If a constituent assembly person falsifies their declared /undeclared status they can be held punishable by law to ten years in prison and a fine of $150,000.

 

Legislation:

In order to make the above possible, the necessary legislation and constitutional amendments will be made.

Author: Robert Johnston - Co - Founder/Spokesperson, Constituent Assembly NOW!, Canada at the Forks Conference Organizer.

---

ednavidea.pdf - ELECTED CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO SOLVE THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL STALEMATE - Prepared by: Eduardo D. Navarro

 

---

 

House of Nations

Unity, liberty, dignity

 

On the issue of Canadian Unity, there is a way out and this is it. Let's give each other something. Let's be generous.

 

Give back the protection to Native Canada and the dignity to French Canada.

 

Give to English speaking Canada a solution to an age old problem. Ensure to the multicultural Canadians that they are true Canadians at an equal level to all other Canadian.

 

If you want to permanently solve this problem "and get on to other things", the solution can only reside in the following principle: Unity is true unity only through liberty and dignity.

 

But for this to work, you must ensure that English Canada is not "losing anything". Well, that can be achieved.

 

But there is another problem. How do you apply such principles within the context of the Canadian reality without de-institutionalizing the government structure? And how can you do it "fast" with the government that we now have?

 

Well, whatever solution there is, the right one must take in consideration the expressions and aspirations of Canadians everywhere, including the West.

 

Consider this.

 

Let's make the Senate the House of Nations. Let's make it triple "E".

 

House of Commons - democracy, liberty

House of Nations - unity, dignity, equality

 

The triple "E" comes in this way. The Senators in HoN (The Senate) would be elected either at the same time the House is or to ensure more stability, it could be done every 7 years (lets say). Canada as a whole would be represented in 100 districts. These districts will represent linguistic and cultural realities in Canada. The fluency of this system changes as the population changes. The Senate must represent the Canada that is. And that Canada is Aboriginals, French speaking Canadians, English speaking Canadians and Multiculturalists. The districts are divided according to the population's linguistic and cultural realities. Four districts, four vetos.

 

These dinstinctions ensure the dignity in liberty of the peoples. Peoples as collectivities would be free from each other and united with each other to form one world Nation - Canada. The multiculturalist element is fundamental. By incorporating all citizens of the world, you protect yourself from the ethnic principle of old Germany. Canada therefore becomes what it has always been, the destination of the whole world as a place where all peoples are equal but also recognizing our historical past and defining both that past with our future. If our future changes, well, HoN changes. HoN is the expression of the peoples of Canada the way history has defined us in the past and the way it will define us in the future.

 

The Senate would be elected (every 7 years).

 

The Senate would be effective (it would ensure cultural equality according to the way Canada defines itself and would continue to review and amend bills from the House).

The Senate would be equal :

25 Senators Aboriginals and Inuit

25 Senators French speaking Canadians

25 Senators English speaking Canadians

25 Senators Multiculturalism

As a fundamental individual right, Canadians would not need to prove their affiliation. They would simply vote for their respective districtorial Senator.

 

HoN would therefore require a Constitutioanl change. That would be effected through a National Referendum before the next Québec referendum.

 

Philippe René Paquette

---

A Model for a Tiered Constituent Assembly

· The first decision to be made in constructing a constituent assembly is how to choose the members. Various methods present themselves: choosing prominent citizens (elders, so to speak), holding some sort of election, having interest groups send representatives, etc. However, random selection, or sortition (selection by lot), is the only one that ensures that the assembly accurately represents the people.

 

· Sortition is an ancient method of democratic selection. The Athenian Assembly chose its Council of 500 this way. The Council served as a sort of combined executive/administration, managing the business of the Assembly, ensuring that decrees were carried out, supervising and funding officials, administering pensions, etc. Athenians relied very little on election.

 

· Sortition not only ensures that the assembly is, in effect, the people, but it ensures that all constituencies in society are represented in accordance with their proportion of the population. For example, fifty per cent of an assembly will be women.

 

· Any other method of choosing members will introduce bias. Choosing prominent citizens, for example, will create an elite. The elites of government, business and labour all supported the Chalottetown Accord - the people didn't.

 

Electing representatives is what we do now. If we adopt this approach, we might just as well leave the decision-making up to our politicians, but that is what we are trying to avoid.

 

The suggestion that we accept members specifically as representatives of constituencies arises from some groups' fear that they will not be adequately represented. We can appreciate this concern, but we must recognize that, aside from the question of bias, this approach creates at least two additional problems. First, an assembly where members act as representatives of special interests can be divisive. Very little mischief has ever been caused by treating people as individual human beings, but treating people as members of groups has created some of the greatest horror in the history of our species. The twentieth century is living testimony to that. Second, attempting to satisfy every interest group may in the end fail to satisfy the people. Again, remember Charlottetown.

 

· Nonetheless, there is a model for a constituent assembly that could include representations from various constituencies without these risks. First, construct an assembly by sortition. Then, as part of its deliberations, have the assembly hear petitions from interest groups. Petitioners would be a second tier of the assembly. Groups could receive accreditation from an independent third party, and assemblies would be obliged to hear petitions from all accredited groups.

 

· This model allows constituencies a double hearing. First, they have members included proportionately within the assembly who, if they wish, may act as representatives of their constituencies. Second, they may petition the assembly as an accredited group. At the same time, the model maintains its integrity as the true voice of the people - the public in microcosm.

 

Bill Longstaff

30 June 1997

---