# Conservative Defence Policy - 80,000 bodies



## Kirkhill (5 May 2004)

> The party would increase the strength of the Canadian Forces to 80,000 from about 60,000, and would spend an additional $1.2-billion a year over the 2003 budget, increasing over time to $2-billion.


 http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040505.wxcons0505/BNStory/Front/ 

Just in today‘s Globe and Mail.  From Conservative Policy Guidelines for Candidates.

I am not sure about the budget terms but based on previous announcements I believe that on the funding the Conservatives are advocating adding increasing increments to the budget over a period years.

If a correct assumption that would mean the budget would look like

13 now, 14.2 next year then 15.5,16.8,18.4,20.0,21.7,23.5,25.4,27.4 by about 2012-13.

At that rate they would be adding a total of about $66 BCAD to the defense budget over 8 years, roughly in line with the kind of increase the Aussies have undertaken.

Assuming a current expenditure of 1.1% of GDP on defence and an average growth in the economy of 2.5% annually that would mean that by 2012 we would have increased defence to about 1.9% of GDP.

Still a little shy of the NATO target but a whole lot better and still less than we have done in the past.

If the assumptions are correct.  

And if they get elected.

And if they keep their promises.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (5 May 2004)

Conservatives doing this!?

Last time I remember Mulroney nearly killed the military with his exceptionally under qualified defense minister Kim Campbell, who would later become PM! 

As a result of this, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded because of the Somalia Affair while Kim Campbell created a whole cover up to protect her campaign for PM in fall of 93, therefore causing a huge media explosion and a whole cover up at NDHQ.

To top that off, Mulroney sent Canadian troops to Somalia behind the back of parliament by using UN Chapter 7 (order for engagement of war) as an excuse to justify it and only to give the troops the ROE‘s of peacekeepers in a war zone which lead to a whole conflicting mess.

Seems to me the Conservatives are the last people we want. I‘ll believe these budget increases when I see it, seems to me, everyone is making promises while the military continues to be stained, it gives the false impression that things are effectively being done and improved.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2004)

I agree that David Pratt is a considerably better choice for Defence Minister than Kim Campbell if that makes you feel any better.

I would also note that the programme described above is very similar to programmes described by a number of committees including one which David Pratt chaired.

My point,  not that the Conservatives are necessarily the answer, (IMHO they can‘t be worse than the current mob and we might as well give them a chance) but that there is a window of opportunity here. If we can get all politicians to say the same thing then there will be less chance they can say that they can‘t implement the programme because the public doesn‘t want it.

Somewhere along the line we have to trust somebody or at least give them a chance.  Other wise we may as well all fold up our tents and head for the pub.

Cheers.


----------



## Farmboy (5 May 2004)

Yeah let‘s keep the Lieberals in power   

 2 Billion on the gun registry, let‘s see....  how much could 2 billion do for the military..or LE, or education, health care.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (5 May 2004)

Some of you need to get a grip on reality,  Why is it every time anything is proposed for the Military, I always read somthing negative about it. The issue about the forces with the New Conservatives isnt anything new, they have been planning and speaking about this for years, Regardless if they do exactly what they say or not. they will do somthing that is still a **** of alot better then the Liberals are doing.

Liberals are a joke, and if you havent realized that by now, then i feel sorry for you!

The Conservatives are not even remotley the same party as they were during Mulroney years. 
They are much better and Honestly what do we have to loose. It cant get any worse then our current government.

Also if ya wanna start nit picking what certain parties have done in the past go do a search and see what the Liberals have done and are still currently doing.

time for change

Vote Conservative


----------



## Old Cent Hand (5 May 2004)

Yes, 2 billion , on the silly " Gun Registry". The money would have been , well spent else where, not only on the military. Watch the movie , " Bowling In Columbine". Canadians , own firearms , for other reasons , than the American , " Right To Bear Arms".
I Am Canadian !
I would rather eat excrement, than be a Liberal.


----------



## Old Cent Hand (5 May 2004)

As for Defence Minister , how about Don Cherry , he is out spoken, supports us , is a Proud Canadian , and has " NADS".
Let‘s Go Conservative.


----------



## tabernac (5 May 2004)

> As for Defence Minister , how about Don Cherry , he is out spoken, supports us , is a Proud Canadian , and has " NADS".
> Let‘s Go Conservative.


Hear, Hear!


----------



## Mo` fella (8 May 2004)

Lets go conservative. Harper is a smart dude, and the tories are finaly rid of Joe Clark.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 May 2004)

I can‘t believe no one see‘s through these parties crap.  They are all the same, commit the same offenses and lie, cheat, and steal with the best of them.  They will all say what they want to get into power and once there will flip flop.  There is no accountability in our govt and until there is they will all be the same politicians with different coloured banners.


----------



## rdschultz (8 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte.Nomercy:
> [qb] Conservatives doing this!?
> 
> Last time I remember Mulroney nearly killed the military with his exceptionally under qualified defense minister Kim Campbell, who would later become PM!
> ...


As stated by *CDN*Blackhawk, thats not a fair comparison.  The conservatives then and the conservatives now are not the same party.  There are so many differences, one cannot even begin to compare them.

However, the same can be said for the liberals.  Jean Chretien effectively "finished off" the forces (at least, Jack Granatstein seems to think so in "Who Killed the Canadian Military", and I tend to agree).  But Chretien isn‘t in power anywmore and the liberal party has also changed.  Not nearly as much as the Conservative party, but it still has changed.

I‘d like nothing more than to see a conservative government form.  That said, I don‘t think its going to happen.  All the recent seat predictions and whatnot I‘ve seen seem to indicate that a minority liberal government is far more likely.  At the very least, the Conservatives now have their heads out of their asses (the whole Alliance-P.C. rouse and infighting that made them weaker, instead of stronger), and the Liberals seem to be doing the infighting now.  Hopefully its signs of good things to come.  But with the all the *******s spread all over in Ottawa, who knows.

You do have a point though.  This isn‘t the first time a party has promised increases spending on the military and then not followed through.  I‘ll believe it when I see it too, but I think the forces are far more likely to see more money under a Conservative government.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 May 2004)

Get rid of the career politician (esp. the Senate)and legislate accountability. Until then it won‘t matter who we elected.


----------



## rdschultz (8 May 2004)

I‘d be all for getting rid of the senate, but I‘m still holding out hope for getting appointed to it in about 40 years.  Talk about a killer retirement job.


----------



## logau (8 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Pte.Nomercy:
> [QB] Conservatives doing this!?
> 
> Last time I remember Mulroney nearly killed the military with his exceptionally under qualified defense minister Kim Campbell, who would later become PM!
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2004)

> Get rid of the career politician (esp. the Senate)and legislate accountability. Until then it won‘t matter who we elected.


You, my friend, should run for office.  I would vote for that platform alone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 May 2004)

Too honest.  Plus people have the attention span of a 3 year old. So any damage a political party does, it is quickly forgotten.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 May 2004)

As compared to the damage the Liberals are doing now?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 May 2004)

Personally as a member of the CF I dread them all. Face it....say if the Conservatives get in, nothing will get done as they will implement their own review as the new goverment and set up their own boards to determine what is needed. Sure they will cancel some projects to get back at the Liberals for cancelling the EH101 all those years ago. *POOF* now you have travelled 4 years into the future, nothing has been done for the CF and all of a sudden they start making purchase announcements for whatever interests them at the time.


----------



## atticus (31 May 2004)

Old Cent' Hand said:
			
		

> I would rather eat excrement, than be a Liberal.



Yup


----------



## Yes Man (31 May 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Get rid of the career politician (esp. the Senate)and legislate accountability. Until then it won't matter who we elected.



I always find answers like this funny.  Many of the reasons why there is no accountability in our government come as result of changes in its design.  We are a Constitutional Monarch which was setup to work along side with the Senate and the Governor General, representing the queen.  But in our current system the Governor General and the Senate have no real power, thus there are almost all of our checks and balances are gone.

I would rather see more power be given to the Senate and there jobs take on an important role in society, than to abolish them and hope that it somehow magically fixes things.  

Also for a side note, if I remember correctly there are around 100 senators.  Even if they are paying them $250,000 salaries, that's only 25 million.  If you think 25 million is going to have a huge impact on Canada as a nation you're kidding yourself.


----------



## Rick_Donald (31 May 2004)

Stephen Harper is not Brian Mulroney nor are the new Conservatives the Progressive Conservatives. The Reform Party rose up out of distaste and frustration over Mulroney,Clark, Campbell and Turner, et al. The Reform,then Alliance were further fueled by Chretien and Clark to become a formidable power. Now through brilliant strategy the right has united under Harper and I strongly feel that they will not be follwing in the PC's footprints.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 May 2004)

The only thing I worry about the Conservatives is while they would probably be good for the CF, they would pretty much cut the Atlantic Provinces loose. For them I think the Canadian border starts at Ontario. Until Martimers hear otherwise I don't think they will do too well out here.


----------



## Goober (2 Jun 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The only thing I worry about the Conservatives is while they would probably be good for the CF, they would pretty much cut the Atlantic Provinces loose. For them I think the Canadian border starts at Ontario. Until Martimers hear otherwise I don't think they will do too well out here.



You got that right.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

Odd.  You would think a region of Canada that allegedly has a higher-than-proportionate representation in the CF would be interested in a healthy CF.

Notwithstanding the feasibility of the Conservative promise, which other party has promised to try to create several thousand new well-paid federal government jobs with full benefits, open to citizens from any region of Canada with no more qualification or advanced training than a high-school degree, in support of an agency that has not only the power to assist any region of Canada in time of difficulty, but also to promote Canadian values and human security abroad?


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

What does it mean, "cut the Maritimes loose"?  Have the Conservatives promised something to the rest of Canada that the maritime provinces will not receive?


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Jun 2004)

For all the things I love about Canada, I feel our politics are a joke. I often think, politically, we are like the "biggest banana republic in the world". Patronage is (or was when I left) rampant, and even for low-level Government jobs, I was told to "call my MP" (or MLA for provincial jobs). I think having a recall procedure is a good idea. I think maybe that "career politicians" aren't the problem, as much as "career bureaucrats". These people don't change when the Government changes, but build little empires for themselves. The Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc., only know what these guys tell them usually. The priority of these bureaucrats is CYA, and keeping their little empires cozy.

It has always been mystifying to me why Canadians continue to tolerate it. Not only tolerate it, but thrive on it, to some degree. Maybe it's because the "silent majority" does indeed stay silent in Canada. I'm often defending Canada to my American friends (PC, socialist policies making the news, etc.) and I tell them that those aren't the views of most Canadians. That's our politicians. When they say "Well why don't the people do something about it?" I feebly mumble something about the intricacies of our political system, but all in all they are right. I think as a whole, Canadians like to grumble, but at the end of the day, we are complacent - and as long as neither of the 2 major parties are REALLY screwing us, nothing will ever change....


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2004)

> For all the things I love about Canada, I feel our politics are a joke. I often think, politically, we are like the "biggest banana republic in the world". Patronage is (or was when I left) rampant, and even for low-level Government jobs, I was told to "call my MP" (or MLA for provincial jobs). I think having a recall procedure is a good idea. I think maybe that "career politicians" aren't the problem, as much as "career bureaucrats". These people don't change when the Government changes, but build little empires for themselves. The Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc., only know what these guys tell them usually. The priority of these bureaucrats is CYA, and keeping their little empires cozy.



This paragraph just screams Robert Fowler....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jun 2004)

Brad....Stephen Harper and the Alliance...ooops I mean the onservatives have made it clear time and time again they have no use for the Maritime Provinces. Should they get in power (and its looking more and more like they will) then honestly I see things getting worse for the people down here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

I think I understand from where your perceptions originate; I've read Harper's remarks.  I am trying to challenge the flavour of your view.  What is the maritime perception:

1) The maritimes will be denied a fair share of federal spending?

2) The maritimes will be denied more than a fair share of federal spending?

I ask these questions because some of the comments I've read on the web and heard on TV allude to maritime worries that wealth transfers might be reduced.  Is that the maritimers' vision of Canada and their part in it - that the rest of Canada is a cow to be milked for their benefit?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jun 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I think I understand from where your perceptions originate; I've read Harper's remarks.   I am trying to challenge the flavour of your view.   What is the maritime perception:
> 
> 1) The maritimes will be denied a fair share of federal spending?
> 
> ...



Your last statement is the how most Westerners think of Maritimers. Contrary to popular belief out there, people here want to work but unfortunately call centers that are sponsored by the Feds don't cut it. The folks out here want actual jobs not goverment handouts. Harpers opinion seem to point that its the Maritimes fault that they don't have the powerhouse economies of Ontario and elsewhere and we should find our own solutions. All well and good but it does not solve anything for the people out here.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2004)

> Your last statement is the how most Westerners think of Maritimers. Contrary to popular belief out there, people here want to work but unfortunately call centers that are sponsored by the Feds don't cut it. The folks out here want actual jobs not goverment handouts. Harpers opinion seem to point that its the Maritimes fault that they don't have the powerhouse economies of Ontario and elsewhere and we should find our own solutions. All well and good but it does not solve anything for the people out here.



If the main issue facing Maritimers is employment, is blame for poor figures being put on the government?  There are reasons beyond anyones control for why good jobs are lacking in an area (that whole invisible hand thing).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jun 2004)

Oh Maritimers always blame the Liberals but fear Stephen Harper even more. Nor has he given any reason to them that their fears are unfounded.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2004)

That's the elephant in the room, isn't it?  People living in regions of high unemployment have basically four options:

1) Live frugally on what they can earn.

2) Move.

3) Vote for a party which will create busywork.

4) Vote for a party which will tax someone else to support them.

(3) is just (4) with less leisure time. If option (4) is chosen, what should be the perspective of those who are taxed?

I live where I do because it is convenient for work. I admit to being extremely lucky (my opinion) in that despite changing jobs twice and having my employers physically relocate office space three times, it continues to be a convenient location.  It is also an attractive location.  However, it is not my first choice of location (and no, I'm not thinking of the difference between my middle class neighbourhood and the British Properties area of West Vancouver).  The point - a lesson taught by my grandparents - is to live where the work is.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That's the elephant in the room, isn't it?   People living in regions of high unemployment have basically four options:
> 
> 1) Live frugally on what they can earn.
> 
> ...




1)   Honestly though do any of us actually do that. I know we all try but most of us still have some sort of debt. I have credit card payments, mortgage, car payments etc like most North Americans so realistically all should follow that advice not just Maritimers.

2)   A lot do move but look at it this way when a large population from a depressed area it will only breed resentment in the area that those people move into. Is that really a solution? For some yes but not a couple of hundred of thousands of people.

3)   Is there such a party? Usually for Maritimers that is the party in power.

4)   Again thats the common view Maritimers think that Westerners have of them. Do you actually think we enjoy being from a depressed area?? If you do you have been reading too many Alliance opinions.


----------



## Yard Ape (3 Jun 2004)

Liberal defence platform:


> Increase the Canadian Forces by 5,000 personnel, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada's capacity for peace support. This will boost significantly our ability to participate in multilateral operations that are consistent with our interests and values. It will enable our military to assume a bigger role in bringing peace, security and democracy to troubled nations.



The only thing the Liberal platform has over the Conservative, is that it commits to a fourth CMBG.  I hope to hear conservatives counter by promising the same.


----------



## willy (3 Jun 2004)

I don't think that increasing the CF's numbers by 5000 would suffice to create a new brigade.   In addition, I think that the creation of a new brigade would be one of the most expensive undertakings that we could possibly commit to.   

Think about how many units there are in a CMBG:

3 x Infantry Bn
1 x Armoured Regt
1 x Arty Regt
1 x CER
1 x Field Amb
1 x HQ & Sig Sqn
1 x Svc Bn
Plus additional assets such as an attached Tac Hel Sqn, etc.

I don't recall what the full authorized strength of a CMBG is, but it would eat up a substantial amount of the 5000 pers increase all on its own.   That's without adding any new troops to any Army, Navy, or Air Force unit or formation that we already have.   Our current brigades are under strength.   In many cases they're short of equipment, as in the case of the units whose kit has been transplanted to create the manouvre training centre in Wainwright.   There is always a considerable debate about the economics of any acquisition project the Army undertakes, (i.e. MGS debate), and the costs of those kinds of projects absolutely pale in comparison to the cost that would be incurred buying enough new LUVW's, LSVW's, MLVW's, HLVW's, Coyotes, LAV III's, barracks, etc, to outfit a whole new brigade.   Any increase in manpower or kit should, in my opinion, go to bringing existing formations back up to strength, rather than going to start another brigade that would itself likely turn out to be just another paper tiger along the lines of the three we have now.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

I think the existing three brigades need that 5,000 man infusion more than we need a fourth brigade.  And what the hell do we need an increase in our "capacity for peace support"?  Anyone can plop a company down in a PSO to drink coffee and watch the locals fornicate; we need to ensure we can deliver combat capable forces to the fight (eg: increased strategic mobility and support) so we don't have to leech off our allies everytime we decide to "assume a bigger role in bringing peace, security and democracy to troubled nations."


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

As for the Maritimes, maybe they could move towards getting out of the muck by eliminating all 4 of those provincial governments and having a region of 2.2 million people with less than half the land area of any other province under the direction of one administration; could probably streamline things.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

That would probably work and I think it would solve a lot of problems but can you imagine all 3 provincial goverments agreeing to unification. That would be interesting in itself.


----------



## Harris (3 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for the Maritimes, maybe the could move towards getting out of the muck by eliminating all 4 of those provincial governments and having a region of 2.2 million people with less than half the land area of any other province under the direction of one administration; could probably streamline things.


Here Here.  I'd go for that.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

In fact, I'm all for eliminating the provincial governments all together and splitting the powers between the federal government and the municipalities.  Can you imagine proposing THAT for a Constitutional Convention!


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2004)

Perhaps I should explain that better.

I'm a firm believer that democracy should consist of two parts to be truly healthy; direct democracy and representative democracy.

Right now, I vote for an MP to represent me in Ottawa on macropolitical affairs and I vote for an MLA to represent me on macropolitical affairs in Victoria.   Meanwhile, my municipality just dithers around on where to build a city hall while irate local citizens complain at the municipality meetings.

Direct democracy has a critical mass, for too many people makes it impersonal and unwieldly.   I believe stronger Municipal ridings should be formed with "town hall" meetings to address local concerns in a direct manner.   Meanwhile, my elected MP represents me populationwise and my elected Senator (pipedream) represents me regionally for national affairs.   Perhaps through direction of an elected senate, provincial responsibilities can be directed through "departments".

Of course, this would require a better civic education on behalf of the citizenry if they were to assume a greater part in the democratic dialogue.

Ack, I think Thomas Jefferson is speaking through me from the grave....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

*Great...Infanteer is hearing voices again*  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2004)

1)  I didn't mean ordinary debt.  I meant the requirement to subsist on lower average incomes without any artificial devices such as EI to prop up incomes.

2)  If people resent the migration, tough.  Mobility is a guaranteed right (privilege).  If you're going to be resented either for the perception of laziness or the perception of taking jobs away, you might as well pick the latter and enjoy the improved circumstances.

4)  Maritimers may be correct to have that perception, but the western view would be wrong.  We have people who have learned to milk EI, too.  When someone brags to me about his ability to work part of the year and coast for the rest, I don't mind that he exploits a program for what it was designed to do, but I am quietly appalled that he brags about it.  (I've experienced this a handful of times.)  My disappointment isn't that people are inherently lazy; my disappointment is that they won't make the political choices that would result in the difficult path to reform.

EI is really three other things disguised as an employment insurance program:
1) Income tax.
2) Regional wealth transfer.
3) Wage subsidy to selected enterprises.

My vision of EI reform is:
1) Premiums = expenditures.
2) Longer qualification periods and shorter benefit periods (specifically engineered to exclude seasonal workers).
3) Universal schedule of benefits (no regional adjustments - everyone needs X weeks of employment to qualify for Y weeks of benefits).
4) Premiums, not benefits, reflect risk (higher premiums in regions of higher unemployment).

I'd also prefer to turn it over completely to provinces to collect and disburse their own EI.  If Alberta can charge lower premiums and pay less benefits, so be it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2004)

I prefer the federal government to hand over more powers to provinces (and likewise provinces to handover to municipalities).  Decentralize.  The problem with large federal programs is that what works well for BC doesn't necessarily work well for Ontario.  We piss a lot of money away trying to maintain one-size solutions.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

Considering most municipalties and provinces can barely pay for what they have to now how are they going to be able to afford EI payments?


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2004)

They would collect the premiums.

When I propose devolving powers, the devolution of the money is (or should be) implied.  The feds reduce income and other taxes by an amount commensurate with the program, and the provinces pick it up.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

Would that equal to more taxes I am paying out or less?


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2004)

Initially, it would be preferable to start off approximately revenue-neutral.

All other things being equal I would expect a lowering of taxes and/or an increase in level of services.  The more the devolved political authority, the more efficient (and diverse) the local solutions should be.  This is particularly true when the shopping lists exceed the budgets.

If you live in a province which tilts in the direction of big government, your taxes would gradually increase.  If you live in a province tilting away, your taxes should decrease.  Note that I specify "big government" - sometimes the disagreement is not about how much to spend, but what to buy.  The Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives are all capable of succumbing to "big government".  There's a method to my madness.  The most important thing is that it gives people who have different ideas about the role of government somewhere to go.  Yes, we have some regional differences now, but not as much as if the federal government were much less powerful and pervasive.  That should reduce regional tensions.  Alberta could chart one course and Quebec another, neither feeling much constrained by Ottawa or the idea that some swine in another region are holding them back from being all they can be.  One of the long-term benefits should be the evolution and adoption of "best practices".  After the divergence of ideas (between provinces) should come some convergence.  For example, how do we really know more private involvement in health care can't give us more bang for our buck unless we cut someone loose to try it out?

I must state that nearly all the objections to decentralization boil down to one theme: "But <something near and dear to objector's heart> will be left out."  True.  The more we decentralize, the less able we are to optimize for particular and universal outcomes.  But overall we expect to achieve a greater total value when we add everything up.  If I go blackberry-picking with a bucket on each arm and allot myself two hours, I may or may not achieve the aim.  But if I set out with the aim of picking any kind of berry, I may very well fill my buckets more quickly (unless there is nothing but blackberries), even though I don't get as many blackberries I might like.

A concrete example is the reduction in funding for provincial park services and introduction of user fees in BC (ie. devolution of authority all the way down to the taxpayer).  I don't currently do any camping.  The fraction of my taxes I was paying to support other people's free use of parks is now in my pocket and I can choose how to use it.  (The analogy is intended to be extended to cities and provinces making different choices rather than being confined by the mandates of higher levels of government.)

Basically my ideal is something close to the original US republic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jun 2004)

Very interesting points Brad but if we let too much power slip from the Federals to the provincial/municipal goverments though our ties as a country weaken either more and do we not become a loosely affilated collection of provinces and not a united country?


----------



## Goober (4 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for the Maritimes, maybe they could move towards getting out of the muck by eliminating all 4 of those provincial governments and having a region of 2.2 million people with less than half the land area of any other province under the direction of one administration; could probably streamline things.



Are you guys talking about the Atlantic region, or the Maritimes? Because there are only 3 provinces in the Maritemes.

The problem with this is that you have 3 quite different areas that share a few common things but have many issues that are independant of the other 2 provinces. What you would need to do if you amalgamated the 3, is to create 3 specific offices that would deal with the specific issues that affects any of the given provinces. But in doing that you just basicaly have the same setup as there is now(3 separate govts), only with an even bigger office overseeing these 3 smaller offices.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2004)

Keeping a tight federal grip on Quebec has not been the solution to retaining Quebec in Confederation.  If our ties as a country and unity as Canadians are defined by a powerful bureaucracy in Ottawa, Canada will not last.  The notion of Canada as a country and our self-realization as Canadian did not begin with passage of the Canada Health Act.  If we owe our continued existence to mere legislation, we are no more a real nation than Yugoslavia.


----------



## jrhume (4 Jun 2004)

Brad makes some good points.  But releasing some authority from the Federal gevernment back to the Provinces is only part of the problem.  All you have to do is look at the States to see that sort of thing in action.  Each State handles it's own matters regarding roads (except for Federal funds to be used on US highways and Interstates), it's own divorce laws, laws regarding contracts, corporations, etc.

This sounds scary and it is sometimes confusing.  For instance, contract laws vary across the country, but major legal organizations have long produced a Model Code and worked with individual States to have that Code incorporated into that State's laws.  Changes to the Code are gradually adopted across the country.  All without Federal intervention.

State's are free to try different approaches to problems like healthcare delivery, even though much of their funding comes from Federal taxes.  There are differences in driving laws, drinking laws, firearms legislation, etc.  We live with it.  Differing approaches to problems often results in far better service delivery to citizens, because a new method can be tried in one State and adopted in others when that method is seen to work better than others.

But giving local governments more authority over their own operations is only part of the problem, as I see it.  The biggest issue facing Canadians, I think, is that representation is concentrated in the most populous Provinces.  The Canadian government's own website says that while the US government is best described as having 'separation of powers', the Canadian govenment represents a 'concentration of power'.  

Madison, one of our Founding Fathers, correctly (I believe) pointed out that the interests of the public are best served when different branches of government collide.  Such collisions prevent one branch from overwhelming the others.  In Canada, a single party can control the whole government.  There is no way for the average citizen in say, Alberta, to exercise control over his government, because that control resides, effectively, in most populous Provinces.   

I think, based on conversations I've seen here and after conducting a brief investagation of Canada's government, that making the Senate into a useful body might be a good way to start.  Do like the States and elect two Senators from each Province.  Require that all bills pass both houses.  This gives every Province equal representation in one house and proportional representation in the other.  It would be more difficult for one party to dominate the entire government.

Right now, the Republicans maintain a slim majority in our Senate, a larger majority in the House and they have the Presidency.  Theoretically, they have control of the government, but in practical terms, they have to work with the Democrats in both houses in order to pass legislation.

It looks to me like Canada's Senate was intended for a more active role, back in the old days.  I'm not familiar enough with Canadian history (it isn't taught much in our schools -- but then, neither is our own history) to be sure about that.

Just my thoughts on the subject.  To me, concentration of power is almost always a poor way to go.  A single group, acting for a whole country, may seem more efficent, but usually that efficency is wasted in misdirected efforts and lost in a sea of bureaucrats.  Even in the States.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Jun 2004)

Great post Mr. Hume! You are right. There are many things about the US system that I do enjoy. There are things about the Canadian system that I like also. I like the idea of voting for the President (regardless of party) while still being able to for whom I choose as a Senator, to represent my interests locally (but at the Federal level).




> The biggest issue facing Canadians, I think, is that representation is concentrated in the most populous Provinces.



Would you say the Electoral College system does a good job here of preventing that? If so, you might explain how that works, also - I have a vague understanding of it, but you could sure explain it better than I.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

> Great post Mr. Hume! You are right. There are many things about the US system that I do enjoy. There are things about the Canadian system that I like also. I like the idea of voting for the President (regardless of party) while still being able to for whom I choose as a Senator, to represent my interests locally (but at the Federal level).



Perhaps Canada is in need of an Executive - Legislative split.

A Prime Minister who runs for election every four years and appoints his Cabinet (not from the House of Commons).

I would prefer the election to be based on a 50+1 for voting, with a second vote between the top two candidates if neccessary.


Parliament would consist of an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.
I don't know if I prefer the proportional representation that some parties (NDP, Green) advocate.  At least with a riding-based system, their is *some* sense of accountability to your constituants.  With no fear of a non-confidence vote and no role in the executive, we could eliminate some of the uglier parts of Canadian politics (party soldidarity).  However, of course it would bring a new set of problems with it.


----------



## jrhume (4 Jun 2004)

No system is perfect.  When I say proportional representation, I mean the number of representatives determined by population.  I might be using the wrong term.  My understanding was that your Parliment was already elected that way.  I understand that senators are appointed and that the Senate is largely ceremonial in function.

I think that having a PM selected as is done now is fine and familiar.  The Senate change alone would probably be enough to tackle in the short term.

The Electoral College system is well explained on a couple of web sites out there in Internet land.  There are also a couple sites arguing against it.  I like it, personally, because the way delegates are apportioned means that the States with large populations can't control the outcome quite as easily as if we used direct voting.  The candidates have to campaign more widely than they would without the influence of electoral votes.  The websites devoted to the Electoral College explain this better than I can off the top of my head.

One of the problems with our system is that Representatives are only elected to 2-year terms.  That means they tend to be campaigning a lot.  Four-year terms would be better.  Overall term limits might be a good idea as well.  I'm generally for term limits, although you do lose good talent from time to time.

I can recommend the Federalist Papers as good reading for those interested in the formation of governments.  Madison's writings are useful.  He had very clear ideas on government and on preserving the rights of the people.


----------



## RCA (4 Jun 2004)

The original theory behind our Senate was the place for sober second thought in case Parliament went of the deep end. Its purpose has been corrupted and become a partisan albatross. Two questions, is there a need   a a sober second thought and if so how to make it non-partisan. Proportional representation would further fractionalize the country (just look to Italy), and Infanteer is right, I want my MP to be local and someone who can be accountable to the riding.

A quick question about the US Electoral College. As I see it is based on population (actually # of seats, but these are based on population) with states having greater population carring greater weight then those that don't. For instance the difference between Wyoming and California. As for voting for President, one man = one vote, why the addition of a third party. With the college a simple majority doesn't necessarily mean winning but one man-one vote does. Just a question.

Each riding in Canada has generally the same population give or take, so in theory each riding carries the same weight. As I see a people get frustarted with our system, they tend to look south of the border for the soloution. No system is perfect. Canada and the US are different and what works for one doesn't necessarily mean it works for the other. Canada has generally believed in a more centrilized system then the US. Therefore we move to a combined Legislative/Executive Branch. And it has worked well for us over the years. As any democracy, government are going to do things we don't like. You can't please everyone, everytime. However, no matter how you think, gov'ts don't have radical mood swings. Why, because in 4-5 years it will come back to haunt them because that is the nature of democracy.And if it doesn't come back to bite them, then its our own fault.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2004)

Jeez, 

My computer has been off-line too long.   Great stuff here.

First issue, Manning Levels 

- Conservatives call for 80,000 over at least two terms, 65,000 in the first term, 80,000 over the longer haul - Bodies   for all services

-   Liberals call for 5,000 regs for the army at some time indeterminate. Question is this five thousand over current trained, ready levels  (52,000) or 5,000 over the authorized strength necessary to maintain a manning level of 55,000.  That number is 60,000.  Plus 5,000 that equals 65,000.  Strangely similar to the Conservatives number.

The Liberals may want the room to do exactly what the Conservatives are proposing all the while proposing that the Conservative plan is unworkable

A similar mentality can be seen in their Windmill promise which duplicates Jack Layton's promise.

Net effect "We, the Liberals can do everything the other parties are promising without breaking the bank and getting into bed with George Bush".

Question  - Do you trust them?


Second Issue - Legislative/Executive split

I agree they should be split.  A republican monarchy is possible.  Elect the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

The Government is the tool the Governor-General was supplied to manage the affairs of Canada. All the legislation written supports that.

Parliament, the Senate and Commons, was created to advise and to check/restrain the Governor-General as he/she performed their duties.  Again all the legislation written supports that.

The Courts are a further check on all Canadians including the Governor-General.  (By the way if the G-G (Adrienne Clarkson) isn't available to give you your marching orders the Chief Justice Bev MacLaughlin will - she is Canada's 2ic, not the PM).

The problem is that a combination of a lazy German king in Britain 300 years ago and conniving politicians on both sides of the Atlantic since have schemed to usurp the power of the Crown and act in its place.

The result is that we now have a system to Control the Crown  but the no powers to Control the PM who is acting as both the Person responsible to control the crown and to advise and act in the name of the crown.  

The PM acts while the gaze of the law is focussed on an "impotent" G-G.

The only reason the G-G is impotent is she lacks moral authority.  Electing her would grant her that authority and then she could legitimately exercise control.  This scares the heck out of the Liberals I am betting.  Similar rationale applies to why they refuse to elect Senators.  The Government would then be held to account and we would no longer have 3-5 year dictatorships.

Take a close look at the government they are setting up in Iraq and you will see something of this evolving there.


Third Issue - The Maritimes


I think it was Infanteer that brought this forward, if not I apologize but how do Maritimers feel about getting control over their own resources like the mainland provinces have?  Aren't resource revenues and freedom to decide how to spend them a fair trade for equalization and EI payments?   As you said, nobody wants to be reliant on others and the payments themselves are a source of resentment.  Especially in the current situation where everybody else but Alberta is defined as in need of support. I know about Ontario but they are not really a have Province.  They are more correctly defined as the Median.  They are the standard to which everyone is supposed to be maintained.  This allows the government to define the standard in Ontario to appease voters down there, dole out cash to bring the other provinces up to that standard and send the bill to Alberta.  (I live in BC.)

This is no way to keep a country together.  It is a way to stay in power.


Thoughts for the Day

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

Good post Kirk.

I like the idea of the Republican Monarchy (there is an odd political term if I've ever heard one....).

Legislative Branch: Parliament, consisting of an upper (Senate) and a lower (Commons) house.   MP's in the Commons are elected every four years to represent a riding based upon population.   The Senate would be elected every six years to act as a regional representative body, equally assigned from each region (However that delination may work?).

Executive Branch: The Governer General, elected for a term of four years.

Judicial Branch: Supreme Court Justices, appointed by the Governer General and approved by Parliament.

Remaining questions:

Senate composition - Will we stick with the current proportion of Senators (105: 24 for the West, 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for the Maritimes, 9 for the North and Newfoundland) or should there be another way of breaking down the Senate composition, keeping in mind that it should be an equal form of regional representation.

The Office of the Prime Minister - Assuming that most of the executive powers of the PMO today would be transferred to an elected Governor General, is there any need for this office, which has essentially become akin to the "House Majority Leader".   Perhaps he could pick up the 2ic role?

Cabinet - Should it remain appointed from the House of Commons under the Prime Minister, or should the elected Governor General appoint Cabinet members on approval of Parliament?   I'm personally in favour of the second option, as I believe an MP goes to Ottawa to represent my interests in legislative matters, not to handle the unwieldly bureaucracies of the government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2004)

Our problem is that we really haven't "moved to" anything.  We more or less adopted a system without thinking how it might play out in a large, sparsely settled country with very uneven distributions of population.  The US system was given some thought.

The electoral college's advantage is that it is more subtle than a simple majority.  The number of electors per state is one per Senator (thus fixed at two) plus one per Representative (thus sensitive to population changes).  So there is built in a slight disproportionality favouring the small states.  The other subtlety is that in most cases (exceptions: Maine and Nebraska) one's vote is cast for a slate of electors who are all expected to support one candidate for president.  (That is not how it originated).  But the effect now is that a presidential candidate can't just write off the small states, "Ah, we're gonna get close to half of their votes anyway.  F' 'em", because to win a state (less the exceptions) is to win _all_ its electoral votes.  "Double or nothing" focusses some deserved attention on a state which appears to be split.

Unfortunately, in Canada the population imbalances are so huge that a similar system based on provincial boundaries would still mean that the outcome could always be decided by simply winning Ontario and Quebec, although it could also be decided if a dissatisfied west and Quebec both swung behind the same candidate/party.  That huge imbalance is a strong reason to support devolution of powers to provinces.  If this election is a rarity in that the opinion of the west might decide the result, that should be a good sign the system needs to be tuned.  Simply being the geographic centre's "boy" is not healthy for the long-term survival of the country.


----------



## jrhume (4 Jun 2004)

Thanks, Brad.

I hadn't realized the population differences were that great between Provinces.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2004)

Hi Infanteer

Thanks for the positive reinforcement.

I think we are in general agreement here.

As to the composition of the Senate I am open.  My sense is that the Government should do.  Anyone can propose,the G-G, the Commons or the Senate but all must be satisfied.

The Commons should continue to represent the people (single vote transferable appeals to me rather than party officials deciding on people not responsible to a particular group of voters)

The Senate I think could represent all those other power interests in Canada.  Provinces/Regions, Natives, perhaps even accredited NGOs, Unions, Professional Associations including lawyers --- just a thought.

The British House of Lords is actually a talking shop where over hundreds of years all of those that had a beef with the Crown got an opportunity to have their say and their position considered.  It represents a pragmatic solution to the problem of what do you do with people that have power, legitimate or not.

It comprises the Lords spiritual, the Church was the first group to bend the Monarch's ear looking for favours and influencing policy,  the Law Lords, like our Supreme Court, various Barons that fought/bought and cajoled their way to the table with money, votes or swords.  Nothing democratic about it but the general principle was, like it or not these people had power.   Better to bring them inside where they can talk and feel they have a voice than leave them outside causing grief amongst the taxpayers.

Anyhoo..

By the way the Republican Monarchy is modelled on an ancient Scottish tradition of appointing a Guardian to run the affairs of state and defend the rights of the crown when the Crown was not capable.  William Wallace is one example.


Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

For this little game of Extreme Makeover: The Canadian Constitution Edition, I thought I'd through in the essential Stats Can information as of 2001

Here is the link to the original page. 

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-PR.cfm

Enjoy.

--- 
Canada: 30,007,094

Newfoundland and Labrador: 512,930

Prince Edward Island: 135,294

Nova Scotia: 908,007

New Brunswick: 729,498

Quebec: 7,237,479 

Ontario: 11,410,046

Manitoba: 1,119,583

Saskatchewan: 978,933

Alberta: 2,974,807

British Columbia: 3,907,738

Yukon Territory: 28,674 

Northwest Territories: 37,360 

Nunavut: 26,745


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2004)

You might want to add in 400-800,000 natives, a number equivalent to some regions.

I don't know how many lawyers there are in Canada but I wouldn't be surprised if they outnumbered the natives ;D


----------

