I’ve been in a number of debates about the way our country is run, and I would like to share what I’ve come up with, and see what other ideas float around out there!
Most of the debates I’ve been in are about how to restructure the Canadian government to make it more effective.
Here’s what I would do……
First up, scrape the Provincial Governments. I would take each current riding, and turn that in to a county. (As most riding are pretty much divided up that way anyhow.) I would then transfer all powers, money received of the province, and grant it to each county. It seems to me to be just ludicrous for one official in Toronto to try and make changes that positively affect North Bay as our current system works. With the local counties having the power and money to make their own decisions currently handed to the Province, they themselves would have a much better idea of what laws would be right for them, what level of spending on what ETC.
This idea has been proven to work in a lot of countries in the world, most notably, the United Kingdom.
I would then reduce the National Government’s responsibilities to pretty much only what is granted in the Constitution acts. They would be responsible for National Defence, Foreign relations ETC. Things like the Gun Control Act would become the responsibility of the new “county provinces”.
Make the Senate Elected. The way this would work would be for each county to have it’s own Member of Parliament, (Except of course where one county might only represent a few hundred people, like it does in the North, in which case, several counties would be represented by one member) and elect 2 senators from each of the former Provinces.
This gives the advantage of being able to elect say, a Liberal House of Commons, but an Alliance Senate to act as a counter guard.
Give the Governor General a “real” veto, (The GG actually has the legal right to veto anything coming out of the Lower and Upper houses now, but it would be tough to use) and have the GG appointed by Her Majesty with no advice from Parliament. This would mean that if one party occupied both the Senate and Commons, the people could always have the GG veto a bill that the majority of us didn’t want and the GG would have no reason to feel any sort of need to act against the interest of Canadians because he was appointed by the PM. Thusly, the GG would be an “active” part of Government instead of the practical rubber stamp it is now.
Just some thoughts… What else is out there?
I don’t think getting rid of provincial government is the answer. It wouldn’t much bother people in Ontario - in Ontario people generally don’t care about being Ontarians as much as they care about being Canadians - but provincial identity is a strongly held principle in other parts of the country. eliminating provinces would be seen in Quebec, the Maritimes, and the West as being a significant threat to their self-government. Replacing them with counties would just be (correctly) perceived as a divide-and-conquer strategy.
I think having Canada divided into provinces is fine. If I was going to restructure our government, I’m change the Senate:
- Make it elected in set 5-year terms
- Ten reps from every province
- Have them vote on legislation, but not as powerful as the House of Commons. If the House votes yes for something, the Senate can only overrule them with a 2/3 majority No vote.
- Give the Senate a vote on the appointment of the Governor-General, Supreme Court justices, the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary ombudsman, and other key federal posts
That simple change would, to my mind, have five key benefits:
-
It would balance the power of the Prime Minister, who has always ruled by fiat, but the power of the PM’s office has become a larger problem in the last 15-20 years or so.
-
It would bring greater accountability to appointed posts, which in turn would make federal government more accountable. This is ESPECIALLY true of the Supreme Court, which is often criticized - sometimes very legitimately so - for making politically convenient decisions that are not really in accordance with the law.
-
It would provide a legitimate, elected balance to the House of Commons, while still giving the House the majority of the power to enact legislation.
-
It would assuage regional concerns over Ontario’s dominance of the House (though Ontario is actually underrepresented in the House, by about 10-11 seats) and would eliminate a common Western grievance while probably not irritating Quebec too much.
-
It would add legitimacy to the post of Governor-General, this allowing the GG some genuine, democratically legitimate authority.
-
Fixed dates for budgets and elections.
1a. Legislature must pass by 2/3 majority to alter election date
1b. Senate is allowed all powers as the House aside from monetary issues -
Elected Senate with 10 reps per province and 4 per territory
-
All government appointments must be reviewed/approved by joint House/Senate committee
-
Divesture of all Crown corporations
-
Introduction of GAAP to all government budgets. Hell make this number 1, I’m tired of math-a-magic when it comes to budget time.
-
Aside from budget votes, the government is restricted to 3 potential votes of non-confidence.
-
Redesign the military/civil relationship to remove political aspirations from the military executive.
-
Elimination of inter-provincial trade barriers (I know not really a government issue but it ticks me off.)
-
Donations to political parties/individuals to be restricted to citizens only. Removes corporations/unions/non-citizens donation
I’m sure there’s more I’ll think about it.
I’m pretty close to Grey on this.
The most important reform is an elected Senate with real power. I think the American model is a good model for Canada, for much the same reasons why it’s a good model for the U.S. - they are huge countries with widely divergent populations. We need better regional representation, so that the large populations of the East don’t trump the concerns of the rest of the country.
Fixed elections, definitely. Incumbents already have huge advantages in elections - allowing the prime minister to set election dates on short notice is a terrible idea. But here’s an even better idea - if you want floating election dates, how about letting the people decide? Set a referendum date to fall two years after an election. At that referendum, the only voting choice will be whether to hold an election in the next year. If the people vote no, have a referendum in the third year, to determine if a referendum should be held in the fourth. If they vote no, the election gets held in the fifth year. That way, we can dump a bum government in three years, or keep a good one for five. But the politicians themselves get no say. Let’s keep 'em on their toes.
I would rather vote for a Prime Minister than a party. I think the person matters at least as much as the party he represents. I hate voting for who I think is a moderate by voting for the party, only to have him or her step down and be replaced by a drooling moron.
Get rid of rules that enforce so much party discipline. Canada has one of the most rigid and closed systems among the major parliamentary governments. Dissent is squashed within the government. That’s a bad, bad idea. I prefer the U.S. system where mavericks like John McCain can throw monkey wrenches into their own party if they see it going wrong. Here in Canada, a small elite at the top of the party power structure essentially become dictatorial during their term.
I also agree that inter-provincial tariffs and subsidies should be done away with, along with all crown corporatiions, but that’s an economic matter, not an issue of governmental structure.
I actually frimly agree with the voting for a Prime Minister, but where do you draw the line?
Would you make it so you can have a Prime Minister who’s party is in the minority? Talk about a monkey wrench! 
I do want to ask though, how would dismantling the Provinces be seen as a divde and conquor stratagy when the new counties get all the powers of the former Provincial government, plus all the powers (that I would give them) that the Federal Government currently holds, but is not promised to them under the consitution? (As I said, I would give all powers to the counties other then what is promised the Federal Government by the consitution)
I do like your thoughts on the GG though. If he/she was appointed by the Government as a whole, rather then just on the advice of the PM, it really would lend more creedance(sic) to the position.
Speaking as a Statesider with Canadian friends, here are my suggestions:
Throw away that appointed Senate and replace it with an elected body with actual legislative powers.
Constitutionally fix the period of elections but permit individual “districts” to have recalls if a certain percent of voters sign a recall petition for that “district”.
I also recommend direct voting for PM. As for having a PM with a “minority party”. That is a GOOD idea. So long as the executive and the legislative don’t get along, they can’t carve up the country. Look at the USA. Every time the executive and legislative branches are controlled by the same party, things get bad.
Marius I want you to image your current municipal government.
Take your time.
Remember the guys who spend hours voting on how dog poop should be disposed?
Ok. Now present them with the powers over natural resources, education, social welfare, infrastructure, health, tax rates and what ever else you are planning on handing out. See, I’m not even sure they should be dealing with the dog poop issues. 
The second problem is that instead of 10 relatively equivalent tax schemes across the country, you’ve just dropped down 300. Can you image the chaos when it comes to tipping?
What I meant by a PM with a minority party (I actually LIKE minority governments) was that the PM would be the leader of a minority party, and the ruling party’s leader would be Her Majesty’s offical opposition!
EG) Liberals win 160 seats, and the NDP only win, say 40. Making the (GASP!) the Opposition.
Now, we vote for an Alliance Prime Minister. Thusly, we have a PM who leads a majority government, and the majority isn’t his party, nor is it even the opposition! Like I said, talk about a Monkey Wrench!
LOL! “Can you imagine the chaos when it comes to tipping?” Good call!
Actually, I honestly believe that the local governments are much better suited to deciding on Natural Resources, education ETC. I think the Maritimes would love to be able to decide thier own fishing limits!
Like I said before, I just don’t see the logic in having a single representive in Toronto making decisions for, or trying to make chances for North Bay.
Of course, one could argue the same thing for the Federal Government, so maybe I should stop while I am ahead… Maybe…?
If we’re going to elect a person to head things up, we should logically be voting for the GOVERNOR GENERAL, not the Prime Minister. As long as you’re electing someone separately from Parliament, we already have that covered, ya know. Just hold a vote.
Marius, at some point you have to accept that people in government will make decisions for people living in different places. The only thing to decide is how far apart they’ll be. I think provincial government represent a happy medium between no local government at all, which would be bad, and 300 separate little fiefdoms, which would quite literally halve the productivity of our economy. It would be a catastrophe.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I think most of our problems stem from having adopted the British system too precisely. In many ways, the British parliamentary system is somewhat ad hoc – the result of a series of reforms forced by rebellion, built on top of a monarchy justified by divine right.
Some changes I would make:
[ul][li]**Elected Senate: **I have yet to meet a Canadian who didn’t believe we should have one. I’m guessing the senate was intended as a brake on democracy (“sober second thought” – as if elected representatives were less than sober). Like the electoral colleges in the US, which had a similar purpose, the Senate is at best an impediment, and at worst a time bomb.[/li]
The regional model seems to be gaining favour, and it does make a lot of sense. Both Germany and the US have an upper house based on region/state, so it has been tried.
[li]**Limits to campaign contributions: ** total contributions received by a candidate should be capped. A concentration of wealth by one party should not translate into a concentration of votes.[/li]
[li]**A different system of casting votes: ** During the NDP leadership campaign, we tried a new system of ballot – rate the candidates from your #1 choice, to your #6. The advantage of this it provides an alternative to the painful predicament of having to “vote strategically” versus “voting with your conscience.” Many people I know who voted liberal last election only did so because they were afraid of Stockwell Day. Under this system, they could simply put a #2 by Liberal, and a #5 (or #6, or #7) by Alliance. In addition, this system sidesteps the danger of a two-party system, which so easily transforms into a de facto one-party system. The differences between a Democrat and a Republican, or a Labour member and a Conservative, shrink a little more every year. [/li]
[li]**An end to lobbying: ** The job of a lobbyist is to bribe a public official (by an offer of a job after office, connections, free publicity) into abandoning the people they represent, for whatever reason. Private interests are the single greatest source of corruption of a democratic system. Most are out only for their own gain, and the few that argue for the public interest are at a massive disadvantage. Lobbyists should suffer the same penalties incurred for offering a bribe to a judge or jury. These strict anti-corruption laws should be supported by a strong, independant agency.[/ul][/li]
That’s all I can think of, for now. I will say, though, that I’m not a fan either of term limits for prime ministers, or of set election dates.
As for the term limits, I see no reason why a popular prime minister (or one who is judged to be the least of evils) should not get to run again. Why should the public be denied that choice? Trudeau did some of his best work in his last term.
And as for set elections, we see the danger in the United States now of insisting that democracy be punctual. Half of America, half of Canada, and most of Europe will always see Bush as the unelected President, as an usurper, and nothing he does will ever be treated as fully legitimate. If the courts had had more time to sort through the issue, that might not have been a problem. Also, under our system, parliament can force an election if they have no confidence in the prime minister. That is a useful power, and not one we should throw away.
Since the Queen is head of state, shouldn’t you be able to vote for who gets to be Queen or King (and isn’t it possible that Conrad Black would end up running for the job?)
I agree that parliment should retain the ability to regect the executive at anytime the government fails a vote of no confidence. I would still insist that the right to determine when the next election is should be (outside of a 2/3 vote in the house for emergencies) removed. And it should be REQUIRED that the budget be presented at a fixed date every freaking year! Its my money damn it and I want to know what they’re doing with it.
Rickjay,
I understand what you are saying, and you may well be right, except that this is exactly the system that the United Kingdom uses. British Pound = about 2.40 CDN… Seems to work there…
Hamish: How does the 2000 election have anything at all to do with set election cycles? Couldn’t the same thing have happened if Bill Clinton had called an election in 1999 or 2001?
The 2000 election was a fluke. The odds that an election in a country with 3000 million people would be so close that individual hand-counted ballots would matter is astronomical. It could have happened at any time in the last 200 years. It didn’t, simply because it’s so incredibly unlikely.
What I don’t like about the government being able to choose when to call an election is that it simply gives the incumbent too much power. If a scandal breaks in the government, the temptation is to simply delay the election until it blows over. Or, like in the last election - if the opposition is in disarray, call a ‘snap’ election and take advantage of weakened opposition. I don’t see that as being healthy for Democracy.
Fixed election cycles force the government to play straight. Consider this: if the U.S. government could pick election cycles, George Bush I would have callled one immediately after the Gulf war, and won in a landslide. George W. Bush could call one today, and win in a landslide. If politicians see the economy starting to pick up on its own, they can delay an election to take advantage of the stronger economy. If they see it starting to slow down, they can call an election fast and get re-elected before the downturn kicks in in earnest.
Plus, the opposition needs time to prepare for an election. It needs to raise money, to stump for candidates, to prepare advertising, etc. Not knowing when the government will call an election makes it very difficult to prepare.
I think the comments about “300 little fiefdoms” and “compromise between local and centralised government” are bang on.
It makes sense to give some power to the people of one region, but to preserve some uniformity…
“No, sir, due to recent changes in regulations, and reciprocity discussions yet-to-be-finalised, your Province of Sudbury Health Insurance isn’t bringing anything up on the Province of North Bay Health Network.”
“Yes, sir, I know you’re from Esquimault, but North Vancouver provincial regulations do not allow right-turn-on-red. And Ignorance is no defence. You can fight it in Provincial Court, if you like.”
“If you would like to claim out-of province income for the fiscal year, please fill out the details on the appropriate form for that province.”
And do you really want to set up the scale of civil service that would be required? Sure, you say, we already have local government in place. But they don’t have the people or resources they’d need to run, and make regulations for health and environment, and so on. The guys who already have their hands full with “dog poop issues” would now have to do everything that all the provincial ministries do. Or, you could just upload those powers to Ottawa, but then you’re not really doing much for local government, are you?
And you’d still get people complaining that their government isn’t local enough. People don’t like city mergers as it is, and the ones who live outside the central urban section of the ‘county’ would still complain that they’re neglected by the local government.
Nah, keep the provinces.
The Senate? Elections could be good.
Rigid election times? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think we’d really be so concerned about this if we hadn’t just had a prime minister cut the terms so short. And if there’s an election thisyear, does the government stop governing and start campaigning? This is part of the fun of less-stone-carved election times; the campaign is only 36 days (or what not) and then it’s back to business. and while it can be argued that sometimes the ruling party can do some pre-election kissing-up-to-the-public, I’m not sure that’s really a big factor all the time.
The oppostion isn’t clueless. They know when the election is coming. They don’t know the exact date, but it’s four years (or so) after the last one, and current events will tell you whether ther’s going to be one soon. Plus, it’s not like the opposition waits for the week before the writ is dropped to fundraise. They need money all the time, and they’d rather, I think, have consitent support than only get the funds at election time. They can keep their funds in the bank, or even invest them in the mean time (as they do).
Not to throw away the idea that the incumbent government gets a little extra power from being able to set the election times. But it’s not like they are guaranteed to win- in fact, I’m not sure it tips the scales tremendously in their favour. Sometimes, perhaps more than half the time, the incumbents stay. But look at the recent Québec election: The PQ chose the date, and it didn’t help them.
Oh, and referenda ever year to decide whether there should be an election? That seems like overkill… and a good way to make people sick of going to the polls. What if everybody likes the government? Do we still have to hold a referendum? It’s not like in the states where the President pretty much becomes an untouchable dictator for four years. If the PM sucks, let him step down in response to public opposition, or let a non-confidence vote end it. A vote where there are far less restrictions and MPs aren’t compelled to follow the party.
In fact, an all-round relaxation of the rues that compel an MP to follow party lines.
And I’m in the ‘No’ camp on term limits. If a PM is really good, let him stay. If he’s terrible, let him mess up and lose a confidence vote two years into his term.
I’m an opponent of deffering to an artificial collection of rigid rules what we should bve doing with a little reason.
A lot of these ideas are interesting, and I’m a republican at heart eager to ditch the monarchist trappings, but I have to disagree with idea of fixed election dates. The Americans can get away with it under their two-party system, but I can see Canada having a major problem with its four or five major federal parties. A hotly contested election could end up with no one party having a majority, and minority governments are notoriously paralytic. I’d hate to be stuck for four or five years with a parliament in which nothing can get done.
Beyond that:
[ul][li]Elected “executive” officer with largely ceremonial role (like the French president)[/li][li]Elected senate, with 10 seats per province, 5 per territory.[/li][/ul]
Perhaps these posts could be on fixed schedules, but the House of Commons should be easily dissolvable if a vote of no confidence passes.
An alternate solution to this problem would be to leave the question of calling an election entirely up to the Governor-General. You make a good case for taking control of that process out of the hands of the governing party, but I’m not convinced that fixed election cycles is the best solution.
Well, let me qualify that statement a bit: I’m not convinced that fixed election cycles is the best solution, if there’s no mechanism in place to ensure that Canadian elections don’t become as insanely complicated as ones in the States. Having elections on an irregular cycle is an incentive to keeping the process simple.
On the other hand one of the things I like about the U.S. system is the clearer distinction between legislative and executive branches, so I like RickJay’s suggestion of voting for the Governor-General (and giving that office some teeth).
And yes, I realize that’s somewhat at odds with simplifying the election process. Still working on these ideas…
Well the fact that the government could fall through a vote of non-confidence leading to an election would address that don’t you think? Once the new government is in the clock starts up again n+5 years.
I have to jump in and say I’m not thrilled about having set election cycles for the House of Commons.
If you had set election cycles for the Senate and Governor General, I think that would suffice. Allowing the House to collapse or stand on the merits of the ruling party has its advantages; if you’re setting fixed election dates for the Senate and GG, you potentially get the best of both worlds, although the cost of elections would increase, I guess.
Sam, the idea of having a recall in two years is interesting until you read Buchanan’s “The Economics of Political Behaviour.” The problem with total recall structures is that the government would always act as if it was in an election rundown, which means in practice they’d always be looking to buy votes with porkbarrelry. A democracy is always working against the treadmill of the government’s natural motivation to buy votes with spending programs. Look at how government now act in the last two years of their mandate, as opposed to the first 2-3 years; it’s like night and day. A House that was ALWAYS effectively in the last year or two of its mandate would have even more incentive to buy votes with the taxpayers’ dollars.
The U.S. House of Representatives works this way, albiet without the additional problem of rigid party discipline, but in practice you will never see such a hotbed of naked, shameless porkbarrelry.