• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

What do you want to see?


  • Total voters
    194
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our senate, as currently constituted, is an anachronism.  If we pride ourselves in being a modern democracy, our senate should be a national embarrassment and a scandal.

Having said that, I believe that we would be worse off without an Upper Chamber.

All modern democracies, except for New Zealand, have two houses of parliament/congress.  A properly constituted Upper Chamber provides a regional balance to the mob rule of the popularly elected Lower Chamber.  Without a properly constituted Upper Chamber, we have the current situation where the population centres can ram legislation through the Lower House, and the lesser populated provinces/states have to live with the policy wishes of the higher populated provinces/states.

As far as I'm concerned, both the status quo and dissolving the Senate are unacceptable.  If we wish to be in a modern democracy, the Senate must be reformed to check the power of the House of Commons.
 
A bicameral legislature is, in my opinion essential for a federal state. (New Zealand, being a unitary state doesn't really need one.)

The nature of a federal legislature requires that two interests be balanced:

1. Those of ALL the people, on a pretty close to equal basis - a situation in which Canada seriously lags most modern democracies. Votes in PEI have more than three times as much weight (value) as votes in, say, downtown Calgary or Toronto; and

2. Those of the constitutional partners in the federation - the provinces and states which should also be equal, regardless of size, population or wealth. Thus Ontario and PEI are equals while PEI is superior to Toronto because, constitutionally, PEI is a higher order of government.
 
Edward has it right.  Disposing of the Senate would save a relative pittance of money.  As a body the Senate needs reform, not removal.  If you wish to save money, shear about 50% of the federal government's agencies and programs and taxation points and transfer all associated responsibilities to the provinces.  Let the provinces decide which courses to pursue, and see what happens when there are ten governments exploring best practices rather than one.
 
I agree with you that reforming it may be better overall than just disbanding it.

However, I disagree about downloading things to the provinces.  It may save money at the federal level, but at the end of the day now you have 13 agencies duplicating effort and that will cost us more in the big picture.

Don't get me wrong, I know Ottawa can't make the right decisions about everywhere in Canada, but if a particular service can be centralized then it should be.
 
The federal governmemtn has certain powers and responsibilites, the provinces have others, and municipalities have their own as well. Our governments are in the messes that they are in part because higher levels of government have butted into the affairs of lower ones, generally in order to gain votes. This has caused confusion and much duplication. Each level should stay within its assigned lanes.

Duplication of effort means waste.

Regardless of which level "pays" for what now, there is still only one level of taxpayer funding all three levels of government.

I'd rather have some honesty and efficiency in the system.

This would mean that some things in which the federal government dabbles would, yes, be "downloaded", but that would only be a matter of the lower government assuming powers and responsibilities usurped by the federal government. Centralizing something is not necessarily a good thing. It takes control further from the people who are supposed to hold it, and can stifle innovation.

Regardless, our Country has been set up in the way that it has. Provinces were once colonies, with generally the powers and responsibilities that they now have under Confederation. As they freely entered into Confederation, they should retain them.

And were we to centralize all things, there would be no need for provinces and territories at all, no?

That might save far more money than abolishing the Senate, but it would also make things unwieldy - like having Corps with no Divisions or Brigades.

Are you sure that we are "allowed" to have and express opinions about this, though?
 
According to a report in the National Post, the government will introduce a bill (tomorrow) to limit senate terms. A step - but not necessarily in the best direction.

----------

Mods: could this thread be merged with the stickied, GG, HoC, Senate thread above, please?

 
Loachman said:
Are you sure that we are "allowed" to have and express opinions about this, though?

Haha, that's pretty funny.

You seem like an educated man, so I will assume you know the difference between giving your opinion on concepts just as discussion (senate) and in other cases putting your opinion where it really shouldn't carry any weight (gays in the military).

We're not technically voting on anything here either, we're just talkin'.  And also about something so abstract that it's not an issue of being in/out of arcs.
 
I will rephrase your original question:

Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.

That was my thought, also, when I saw the title...

Who want to discuss the constitution, and spend time and money on that,
in "bad economic times" ?
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I will rephrase your original question:

Bad economic times = really, really bad time to open up the constitutional can o' worms.

On the other hand, few people talk about this during economic good times, so when do "we" discuss these issues?
 
I think that bad economic times is the best time of all, because everything has to be looked at closely.

I'm not saying that our morals should go out the door, I'm saying that money should only be spent on things that can be fully justified.

I see the Senate as having some use but nowhere near what it costs to run.  There could be 4-5 people doing the same job if the only function of the senate is to provide one extra level of top-cover oversight.
 
So far this doesn't seem to be an April Fool's joke:

;D

Canadian Press link

Ontario gets lion's share as government bill adds 30 new Commons seats

2 hours, 3 minutes ago


By The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - New government legislation will add 30 new MPs to the House of Commons.


Under the bill introduced Thursday, the Commons would grow to 338 seats, with Ontario getting 18 new MPs, British Columbia getting seven and Alberta getting five.


The representation for the other provinces would not change.



Steven Fletcher - minister of state for democratic reform - said the idea is to give greater representation to the faster-growing regions of the country.


"If passed, this legislation will give fair representation to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, while protecting the seat counts of the other provinces," he said.


A similar bill was introduced in 2007, but was withdrawn over complaints that Ontario would remain under-represented.


The number of seats in the Commons has grown in fits and starts since Confederation, when there were only 181 MPs.


Normally, the seating is adjusted after each census according to a complex formula adopted in 1985.


That formula would have given Ontario only four new seats, with British Columbia getting two and Alberta one.



The government says the 1985 formula was designed to slow the growth of the Commons and penalized some regions.


"The proposed legislation would update the formula so that future readjustments better reflect the democratic representation of faster-growing provinces."


Fletcher said he hopes the new legislation is passed before the next routine update which is supposed to follow release of the 2011 census.


Pure representation by population is almost impossible in Canada because the Constitution guarantees that no province can have fewer MPs than it has senators. That means Prince Edward Island, with about 141,000 people, is assured of four MPs - or one for every 35,000 people.


If that ratio were accepted nationally, it would require more than 970 MPs.
 
For the Senate to be an effective provincial counterweight to the House of Commons, all provinces should have an equal number of senators.  At the very least, there should be two senators per province, or twenty in total.  However, I'm guessing that twenty would be too small, since most upper houses in bicameral parliaments have more than 50 members.
 
I would suggest that a "triple E" senate needs to have an odd number of members (either per province or total) to ensure there are no deadlocks. Term limits and "rolling elections" like the US system (where Senators and members of Congress are not all elected at once) should also be considered.
 
The Senates I'm familiar with have an even number of senators, but I believe one sits as Speaker and only votes to break a tie.

Term limits and "rolling elections" would also be great to have.
 
Any attempt at equality will require a Constitutional amendment with all that entails - which is more than politician i can think of wants to face.

An elected Senate is fairly easy - as I have explained in the past, on an all too regular basis. An equal Senate will, very soon, become an effective one, too - no matter what the prime minister of the day may think or want. But equality is a much, much tougher nut.
 
Agreed.  I'm just fantasizing about what it would be like if I were King of Canada.  ;D
 
'Bravo, Michaelle Jean': Ignatieff's GG endorsement raises eyebrows
By: Stephen Thorne, The Canadian Press 2/05/2010
Article Link

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is urging the prime minister to extend Michaelle Jean's term as Governor General when her five-year appointment expires in September.

In an unusual break with the non-partisan tradition of all things GG, Igantieff issued a news release Sunday saying the Queen's Canadian secretary consulted him on a successor at Stephen Harper's request.

Jean has served her country with "distinction and honour" and deserves Canada's thanks, Ignatieff said.

"We just think somebody ought to get up and say: 'Bravo, Michaelle Jean; you've done a great job for Canada and in our view it would be great if you continue,'" Ignatieff told reporters after a Sunday speech.

Within hours on Sunday, the topic of Ignatieff's comments was becoming political fodder — just the sort of thing critics of his public declaration warned would happen.

The Prime Minister's Office issued an official statement saying Jean has done "an exceptional job representing Canada" and that she and Harper "have an excellent working relationship."

"It's a little disappointing that Mr. Ignatieff appears to be trying to politicize the appointment of a new GG, even after the unprecedented input that he's been asked to submit," offered a PMO source, who did not want to be identified.

"Maybe this is a bit naive, but we asked him in private and we hoped that he would keep it in private, but apparently that hasn't happened."

The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada, effectively — albeit largely ceremonially — the head of state.

Appointed by the prime minister — formally by the Queen — her roles include the power to name a new government, a particularly sensitive issue in the current minority Parliament.

"One of the governor general’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament," says the GG's website.

"In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion."

Her powers were put to the test in December 2008 when she tossed Harper a lifeline and granted his request to prorogue Parliament while his Conservative minority was about to be toppled by an opposition coalition.

"The governor general is non-partisan and non-political," says the website.

Robert Finch, dominion chair of the Monarchist League of Canada, said Ignatieff's "peculiar" public endorsement risks politicizing the appointment process and compromising the GG's independence.

"I'm a little bit blown away," Finch said in an interview. "It's certainly unusual for a leader of an Opposition — or anybody, actually — to go public with their suggestions as to who should be governor general.

"It kind of opens the realm to politics and you don't want politics entering into the nomination process of the governor general."

Finch suggested such a move can start a slippery slope, whereby political parties ultimately line up behind one candidate or another.

Jean was appointed by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin in 2005. The subject of her replacement has been widely discussed since Harper recently confirmed her term would not be extended.

Several names have been floated as potential successors, including disabled-rights campaigner Rick Hansen; former defence chief John de Chastelain; Inuit leader Mary Simon and Reform party founder Preston Manning.

A Facebook page has even sprung up where tens of thousands are advocating Montreal-born actor William Shatner — Star Trek's Captain Kirk — for the job.

"It's time for Canada to boldly go where no country has gone before," it says.

The traditional five-year terms of Canadian governors general have been extended on several occasions — by as much as two years. Among those who've been kept on were Roland Michener, Jeanne Sauve and Jean's predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson.

Said Ignatieff's release: "Ms. Jean has done a superb job. I am calling on Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision to replace her."

He said Canadians were "deeply moved by her strong and passionate performance" after the devastating earthquake in her Haitian homeland, which reportedly killed more than 200,000 people.

Her role in bringing attention to Haiti and its people's plight has been "significant, profound and needs to be sustained," Ignatieff said.

Jean has also been a powerful advocate for aboriginal and Arctic peoples, and a proud commander-in-chief who has stood alongside Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he added.

"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," said Ignatieff.

Finch said he can't imagine what Ignatieff's thinking.

"It risks (undermining) the whole non-partisan nature of the Crown," he said.
More on link
 
From the Liberals' news release:
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff today called on Stephen Harper to extend the term of Governor General Michaëlle Jean when her current five-year term expires in September.

Mr. Ignatieff was consulted by the Canadian Secretary to the Queen at the request of the Prime Minister for suggestions on a successor to Ms. Jean. Mr. Ignatieff strongly urged, instead, that Ms. Jean's term be extended.

"Michaëlle Jean has served her country with distinction and honour.” said Mr. Ignatieff. "She deserves our thanks and our gratitude."

"All Canadians were deeply moved by her strong and passionate performance in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in her homeland of Haiti. Her role in bringing attention to the country and the plight of its people has been significant, profound and needs to be sustained."

"She has been a powerful advocate of Aboriginal and Arctic people."

"As a proud Commander-in-Chief, she has stood with our brave men and women serving in Afghanistan."

"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as Governor General, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," said Mr. Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff noted that extending the terms of Canadian Governors General has been a common practice in recent times, citing the examples of Roland Michener, Jeanne Sauvé and Adrienne Clarkson.

"Ms. Jean has done a superb job. I am calling on Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision to replace her," Mr. Ignatieff concluded.

Sorry, Iggy - if you can pick your own GG on your watch (if you ever get one), what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Or would YOU be willing to let the opposition tell you who to pick/keep?
 
milnews.ca said:
Sorry, Iggy - if you can pick your own GG on your watch (if you ever get one), what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Or would YOU be willing to let the opposition tell you who to pick/keep?

There's the small obstacle of winning an election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top