Previous  1  2

Why does it have to be a dream? The only way that change happens is on the ground when it comes to something as big as this.

Just remember, though: people in power do not want to give up power. You either have to force or coax them. History will tell you this all over again. If you hold a massive protest in Ottawa over a few weeks, and the crowd at Parliament Hill keeps getting bigger, then I think your federal government would get the message. This isn't China where the Tianamen Square massacre would occur. It would make Canada look horrendous and Canadians around the world are known for their resolute ability to compromise above anything else.

I'm sorry for generalising and I hate doing it but I had to say it ...

   

It doesn't have to be a dream, but I know it is. Not enough people feel the same way I do (the system is broken)... and for some reason, the media does not criticize the government for it's shortcomings, let alone suggest that the system needs to be modified. The biggest political movements based on dissatisfaction with the Federal government are focused on separatism, not fixing the system we have.

The Reform Party of Canada, whose main mandate was to challenge the Ottawa power structure status quo, is now a distant memory, and a publicly ridiculed one too (at least in the national media it is...).

Basically, challenging the Ottawa power structure is not going to get any attention on a large scale, and when it does, it warps into something immensely impractical (separatism). Our constitutional laws are very difficult to change, and the needed fixes would require a modified constitution.

   

The suggestion here is Elected "Regional Representation, Independent of population" but your saying "weighting as determined by current system".

Here is the current system is this taken from Cory David Schreyer's alternate proposal on senate reform:

(Snip)
The Constitution Act of 1791 gave Upper and Lower Canada a Legislative Council with members that the Governor appointed for life. In 1856, some of the Councillors began to serve elected terms, but the British North America Act in 1867 restored patronage appointments to the Senate. Canada did not have another elected Senator until 1990, when Stan Waters was chosen as a Senator for Alberta; he passed away in 1991, and we have not seen an elected Senator since that time. However, now that Canadians have had a taste of democracy, they will hunger for more of it.

So, how do we get an elected Senate? The following text on this web page is my proposal for Senate reform. You will see comparisons between the current Senate and my proposed Senate along with a Microsoft Word document that contains the necessary changes to the Constitution Act. Let's fix the chamber of "sober second thought"!



(Snip)

Source:
http://www.geocities.com/coryds77/senate.html

* added to original chart

(snip)

Federal government revenue and expenditures



.. : not available for a specific period of time.
Fiscal year ending March 31.
Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 385-0001.
Last Modified: 2005-06-16.

(snip)

Source:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt49a.htm

(snip)

Equalization is the Government of Canada's most important program for reducing fiscal disparities among provinces. Equalization payments enable less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

* Equalization payments are unconditional – receiving provinces are free to spend the funds on public services according to their own priorities.

* The Equalization program transferred on average almost $10 billion a year to receiving provinces over the period 1999-2000 to 2003-04.

* Including the measures announced at the October First Ministers' Meeting, Equalization entitlements for 2005-06 are set at $10.9 billion from the Government of Canada. Currently, eight provinces qualify for Equalization:



(snip)

Source:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

The Total budget for the federal government as of march 31st 2005, $216,718,000,000.00 (shown as complete number)

The total equalization payment to the provinces are $10,900,000,000.00 (shown as complete number)

The equalization payments are 5.3 percent of the total federal budget

The total taxation income for the federal government is $180,481,000,000.00 (shown as complete number)

Tax dollars shown as per provincial population by percentage:



This chart displays the taxation dollars earned in each province by popluation figures actual amounts may vary slightly.

The above chart shows the taxation spread the provinces could receive if they collect the total taxation themselves and it was not paid to the federal government.

The equalization payment program becomes redundant when you look at what is paid out as compared to what is earned.

(snip)

The Fiscal Balance in Canada:

The Facts

January 2004

The argument by provincial governments that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in the provinces does not withstand the test of facts, or take into account the reality that sound fiscal management by the federal government through balanced budgets or better benefits all Canadians.

The fiscal balance debate is not new. In the early 1980s there was considerable debate as to whether an imbalance in favour of the provinces existed. Eventually, the claims were dismissed, largely due to provincial arguments against the existence of a fiscal imbalance. To make this point, Ontario’s 1982 budget quoted a study by the Economic Council of Canada, which stated:

"In order to say that there is a "structural" economic problem relating to fiscal imbalance, it must be argued that one of the levels of government does not have access to the revenues required to fulfill its obligations…The mere existence of deficits at one level of government does not indicate the existence of such a structural imbalance nor does it mean that such deficits have to be rectified at the expense of another level of government."

Therefore, the key issue in this debate is whether both orders of government have access to revenue sources so that they can fulfill their responsibilities. A study by Norrie and Wilson1 makes the point that the distribution of taxation powers in Canada is unique – both orders of government do in fact have full access to all current major revenue sources, and therefore the traditional concept of a vertical fiscal imbalance does not apply to Canada.
Is the money in Ottawa?

Fact: Both orders of government have access to the same major revenue bases.

* Both the federal and provincial governments have access to all the major tax bases – personal and corporate income taxes, sales taxes and payroll taxes – and both can set their own tax rates (see Table 1).



(snip)

*(added to original document for comparison purposes)

Source:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts/fbcfacts7_e.html

Although the above argument is taken from a much longer article that attempts to justify federal taxation and the uses for that income it does point out some interesting features of our taxation system.

The chart above shows which taxation income sources go to which governing bodies at the current time. We see that the Provinces are already collecting a great deal of income from their populations from many sources. In the restructuring proposal we are presenting here all tax income with a few exceptions goes to the province in which it is earned. The amount of provincial personal income tax would increase becasue there would no longer be a personal federal income tax the same with corporations, sales tax and payroll taxes. The reasoning behind the shift in placement of taxation dollars is to allow the provinces greater flexability in alloting their own incomes and having the the house of Commons present an operating budget to pay for their realm of responsibility.



The five year term is set in the constitution and that would be a good number.



This is the way it works now senators also conduct studies, legislation review and legislation research. Senators also go on fact finding missions to other countries. The real work that our politicians do would not change to any extent the focus may but that would be it.



This is the way it would work.



This would happen.



This is a good Idea. Our snails pace judicial system is totaly ineffective at dealing with governmental issues.



Yes. If I am understanding you correctly here?



That is Exactly correct.



This is certainly one way it could be done possibly this would be a good application for an STV system.



The position of Governor General should be mostly ceremonial in nature.
GIven what is happening in the U.S. do we want our PM to be Commander and Chief? Mabey with a bit more restraint.



Here your concept may be diving right back into a partisan political nightmare again. It is asking a supposidly non-partisan Prime Minister to form a cabinate out of a number of political parties. That could be problamatical as it becomes an appointment issue yet again with having to consider population levels and regional concerns.
as you mentioned in your next point below.



I see no problem with this idea.



Again the five year limit would be fine.



This is good idea to add.



This should work fine because the position would be independantly elected.



This is the way it works now. The Prime Minister does sign the bills that are passed into law.



Changing the constitution to suit a reorganized governmental system is not that large an issue.

Seating the House of Commons totaly with independants accomplishes the same result as what I am proposing and that is a matter of the elected candidate per riding no change in the consitiuton is required.

The reorganization proposal I am makng does not change the fact the the House of Commons would still be seated by its current riding system which is a representaton by population system giving the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the majority of power for electing members to the House and since the House of Commons is to focus on international affairs and truly national affairs the concept holds in terms of requesting funds from the (Primiers Senate) via an annual budget.

The Concept you proposed for nationaly electing our Prime Minister to fulfill the role as an un-biased and neutral position is excellent that is the way I would like to see it done as well.

Seating the Senate with elected members changes little in terms of the constitution as we have already had elected members in the Senate. How the Senate is seated and where it is seated from is not actually that critical in terms of the constitution. and as many have already agreed it would turn the senate into a much more useful governing body....................

((edit-june 20th 2005-reduce chart size))

   

Your correct , it does not have to be a dream and again your correct that it will take coaxing, probably a lot of coaxing but that has to come from the population of the country and they have to have an idea to get excited about. All I am trying to do is get an idea rolling, good or bad it has to start somewhere. we have to formulate a basic concept for real change to grow on. That is the overall objective of my proposals and the comments, suggestion and criticism all of which is acceptable and understandable because it is not going to be easy................

   

You have stated some of the real issues in our attempts to bring about governmental reform. I think attacking it using a political party was a mistake for we have a lot of mistrust for political parties and thier so called platforms. It has to come from the people of Canada itself. Politicians are elected and to get elected and remain in favour they have to please at least some percentage of the population. We have to get people thinking about this and the reasons we are so upset. At that point then the beginnings of change will occur................

   

You missed this part of the quote: "or through constitutional negotiations with the provinces (main focus being regional representation, independent of population density)."

Also, you are forgetting two other things as well:
1. The provinces existed as independent entities prior to becoming a part of Canada, and they have certain constitutional powers within Canada. This is fact. In order to change senate seat weighting would mean that a constitutional change would be necessary, and the way the constitution is now, at least one of Ontario and Quebec would be needed on the "yes. let's make the change" side. Since your proposed senate structure involves neutering both Ontario's and Quebec's power within the senate, you can bet that neither province will agree to the change. We do live in the real world, and proposals mean nothing if they will never be enacted.
2. You seem to think that a regionally diverse senate would not be politically partisan, and I disagree. What you are proposing would be an unequal balance between the have-not provinces and the have-provinces (Ontario & Alberta). Your system is basically designed around the ease of access to money for the poorer provinces. Politicians fighting over money (and therefore public opinion / popularity) is necessarily partisan, and your senate would actually make things worse for Canadians. There would be less public accountability for fiscal responsibility than there is now. The "have-not" provinces would cheer about spending increases, while the coffers of Alberta and Ontario run dry. I'm sorry, but an all powerful senate is not the answer. (more on political partisanship further below)


Again, I'll repeat that you are missing a huge part of the puzzle: federal spending and where the federal $'s come from. If the provinces were so great as stand-alone economic entities and tax revenue sources then Canada wouldn't exist. The federal government's control over federal revenues and services are a vital part of Canada, and you want to sweep the federal government under a rug, while holding the provinces up as saviours of responsible representation and political accountability... I'm sorry, but this is a rather naive philosophy. We need to fix the federal system and make it more accountable and effective, not hand over control to an unbalanced / non-representative government structure biased towards fiscal irresponsibility.


Are you sure? I am talking about parliamentary committees which I believe are exclusively composed of MP's, not senators. A large amount of governmental power is in these committees (which decide what bills get debated in the House, when votes are scheduled, rewrite legislation after debates...).


Proportional representation is the election of a group of public representatives, based on a relative vote weighting system (there are many models), not the "first past the post" method we use now. If Canada is to have some kind of proportional representation, then an elected senate is an excellent place for it.


I would rather the CINC be a directly politically accountable position rather than an arms length appointed diplomat... but yes, controls to prevent political abuse of our military would be necessary.


The difference is that the two most popular parties would be encouraged to compromise within cabinet, instead of bicker in Question Period. You will never be able to get the partisanship out of politics, but you can try to structure the system to promote co-operation between the most popular opinions instead of the confrontational "government vs. official opposition" system we have now. My method would also go a long way towards preventing wide spread corruption at the higher levels of government because the competing parties would both be sitting around the Cabinet table. The beauty of my system is that the Prime Minister is assumed to be partisan, and will try to weight the system towards his/her agenda, but in order to make government work, compromise is still necessary within Cabinet. Otherwise the PM could be impeached. A manner of control over political bias is built into the system. Even better, the two-party cabinet would be necessary within a majority government too... no more completely out-of-control dictatorships shrouded in secrecy.


Since the PM calls elections of MP's and the PM is voted on separately, fixed election dates for the PM would be necessary. Otherwise the position would become far too politically motivated to manipulate public opinion, and call a snap PM election when the polls are leaning in the correct direction.


Are you sure? I thought that the Governor General still signed bills into law. The doesn't mean the GG has the power to block legislation though, because the PM currently can just appoint a new GG.


Are you kidding me? You can't be serious. Really. Wake up. Opening the constitution is a huge deal... and completely reorganizing our federal government's power structure would be far beyond huge.


Sure, if all the political parties just agreed to disappear, and all MP's and MP candidates voluntarily gave up all party allegiances. Yeah, that will happen...

But seriously, even this voluntary system would not work. Our country relies on the party system to determine necessary positions such as Prime Minister... The GG would never be able to form government (choose who is PM, determine who chooses cabinet, define who is the official opposition) without the party system.


But your senate would be a horrendously regionally biased and partisan institution, holding an enormous amount of power over the federal government.


I never said the PM would be un-biased and neutral... My system just changes things enough so that co-operation between the top parties is encouraged instead of conflict being encouraged. My changed PM role is a part of the modified power structure, and voted for directly (not determined by party allegiance). I expect that the PM will be biased and work towards the furthering of his/her political philosophy by structuring Cabinet and committees accordingly, but the PM's power would be quite restricted when it comes to creating legislation or directly influencing government policy. There would also be two checks on the PM's power: possible empeachment, and direct accountability to Canadians in the next election.


True, elected senators can happen now, but only if the PM chooses to appoint those who have been elected. A truly elected senate would not have to be "confirmed" by a PM, and this change would require constitutional tinkering.

I don't know what you mean about not being critical. They are critical to your plans (not mine), so I assume that's not what you're talking about. If your intention is to imply that changing senate seat distribution would be an easy thing to do in the real world, then I think that is a rather naieve position. Why would Ontario / Quebec agree to give up two thirds of their Senate seats? Generosity? Come on... get real.

Again, these are just dreams, because they will never happen in the real world... at least not in the foreseeable future.

   

Everyone,

My entries are usually long so I want to make this one short so that I don't spend a fortune on internet costs and so that I can get to Stanley Park in some sort of reasonable time and start taking touristy photos. Yes my friends, right now I'm in Vancouver (which I've referred to in my LiveJournal as YVR - it's much easier to write airport codes rather than whole city names! ).

YVR is beautiful. It reminds me so much of a slower-paced Australian city such as Melbourne or Brisbane. YVR though has two things different: the English accent, and the amount of French spoken everywhere. For a group of people who proclaim "Je me souviens" that they want their own country - I'm referring to the violent seperatists Quebec seperatists here and ONLY to them - they seem to have claimed Jericho Beach as their own. The amount of "Je me souviens" numberplates which Quebec seems reticent to change around my HI-Hostel is staggering.

Anyway, should you guys want to see how a) an elected senate does work and b) how the provincially-delivered/federally-funded proposition fucks up everything, look at good old Australia.

I wish Australia did some of the things you guys are suggesting. It would actually fix up the many problems with the current feudal-like collaborative federalism that we have to put up with.

Just remember, power is taken from those if a majority see it is wrong. And therein lies your challenge CanadaKAers How about forming a Bloc Canadienne and challenging the status quo?

   

Easier said than done...

Actually some western Canadians started a reform movement over ten years ago... One restructuring and then one party merger later, there is now a viable alternative to the status quo which has promised to make some changes. It won't be anything radical like we're discussing in this thread, but every little bit helps. I'm just crossing my fingers that they can win power, and then that they will actually do what they've promised to do.

   

The problem with any new political party attempting to affect change is they are simply yet another political party working for recognition and votes and in the world of big politics that takes a lot of time and effort making it very tough to succeed.

I am actually surprised that our current federal government is actually managing to accomplish some things at this point, nice to see really.

Good ole' Paul was wearing his plaid suit every day and that may be a good thing because we live in a very plaid country. Let us see how things go when they come back from summer break.

Canadians are very good at the "forgive and forget" and that is a bad thing. We have to keep up the search for effective change, explore some new ideas. It is not that the people we elect are totally incapable or incompetent but I believe they simply have to much to deal with and it may help greatly if our structure could narrow the focus so these politicians could be more effective in their roles.

I set up a little website just to keep track of the good ideas that come out of these discussions. lets keep working on it and maybe we will get closer to an answer............

   

A couple of problems with our current system. The current governing party can call an election whenever they want in thier term. So now year 3 of a term rolls around, oh wait we are up on the polls right now, lets have an election for another 4 years of waggin the dog. Nice.

How about: - a standard term of office that is not altered, when your time is up it is time to vote.

- you are fined if you do not vote or provide a medical reason for not voting.

- Dalton Maginty shot for being a lying bastard.

   

I'd settle for a good ole tar and feathering job for Dalton.

As for terms, I would propose something like this:
Majority governments - 4 years
Minority governments - 2 years, or when a non-confidence motion is passed (any member can call for a non-confidence vote at any time, to be voted upon within 24 hours of the motion... with no restrictions other than only allowing one of these motions per week).

   

We in Oz also have compulsory voting. And believe you me, they FIND you when you're overseas. My friend who is teaching English in regional China out of all places got a AUD$400.00 fine for not voting in our last Federal election in 2004. That still hangs over her head if she ever wants to get a new 18+ ID card, or a new passport, or anything. State and Federal debts don't increase over time unless they choose to do something more to enforce their payment. In this case, this AUD$400.00 is a Federal debt. It affects everything done that is at Federal control which directly affects your life.

It's why I always unequivocably listen to one Aussie argue with another on political issues - we all vote and therefore we all know something about what is happening in Canberra.

   

Previous  1  2