How should Canada's government ideally be structured?

[SignalHillHiker]

I apologize if this has been asked. If it has, I could not find it.

It's your turn to be the founding father or mother - you get to decide what type and structure of government, from constitutional monarchy to fascist dictatorship, that Canada should ideally have.

What would you choose?

*****

I would choose a very loose federation.

It would be composed of:


The Northern Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut - with guest representation from the First Nations people of B.C., Alberta, Saskatechwan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador)
British Columbia
Alberta
The Prairies (Saskatchewan, Manitoba)
Ontario
Quebec
The Maritimes (N.B., N.S., P.E.I. - which would include an Acadien political entity)
Newfoundland and Labrador (which would still include Nunatsiavut, our Inuit political entity in Labrador)


Each of these regions would have its own government that would be responsible for just about everything.

We would all be joined by this loose federation, with a federal government limited to things such as foreign affairs, central banking, defense, and so on.

This federal government would be composed of two very small bodies - a house made up of a number of members elected by each region based on their population, and a senate made up of two members from each region.

[Doug]

How about one with clear lines of accountability according to the Constitution instead of muddied jurisdiction over issues such as health care, labor and trade?

[b31den]

I would divide the provinces as follows:

BC
Alberta
Sask
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Maritimes (NB, PEI, NS)
Newfoundland
Territories (YT, NWT, NT, Labrador)

Most of the powers would remain with the provinces as it is right now, but as someone else said their should be clearer divisions between federal and provincial. Any new powers should automatically be federal instead of provincial.

Provincial Powers:
Language
Education
Health
Natural Resources (land and sea)

Federal:
Foreign affairs
Currency
Stock exchanges
Defense
Air/water transport
Telecommunications
Interprovincial Transportation (ie: rail and TCH)
Policing (excluding municipal)

The governments would be elected by proportional representation. Except there would be a locked number of 100 seats. Each province/region/all territories (combined) would have a minimum of two seats. The remaining seats would be evenly devided according to population (unlike today). As populations shift, provinces that gain seats will be taking them away from others.

The senate would consist of 5 elected senators from each province/region, except the territories which would share two. It would play a much larger role in government than the current one.

I would scrap the monarchy for a canadian head of state appointed by parlament. Two term limit for prime ministers and governor generals also.

I would also find a magic solution to Canada's seemingly eternal struggle with aboriginal poverty/social problems. Nawwwt. I really have no idea how to deal with that or even where to start. All I know is what we have now doesnt work and that the british, canadian government, general public, history, and aboriginals are all to blame.

[vid]

I'd leave the provincial boundaries alone, but give them more powers in certain areas as suggested above, and within Ontario I would make Northern Ontario autonomous, with the ability to make policy regarding energy, natural resource extraction and social issues like minimum wage and health care, while remaining part of Ontario. Residual powers would be provincial instead of federal; the opposite is currently true.

Basically there are two areas of government I am most interested in: the electoral system and aboriginal governance.

Electoral:

For all parliaments, implement a proportional representation voting system to ensure the make-up of parliament reflects popular vote. This would involve a combination of ridings and list seats. The senate would be elected at-large by the provinces and territories, one senator per million people with a minimum of 5 senators per province and 1 per territory. Elections would occur every four years. Provincial elections would ideally not happen in the same year as a federal election because that is annoying.

Repatriate the crown and "elect the monarchy". This would probably be the easiest way to become a republic without having to re-write a bunch of laws (the crown would be the same; the way we determine who wears it would change) and it would be uniquely Canadian.

I would propose a 3 term limit on parliamentarians (including senators), exempting party leaders—this would allow a parliamentarian to sit for three terms, become party leader, and sit for three more terms, instead of constantly forcing a firsts or second term MP to become a leader and then they have to quit at the next election. I would implement a 8 year term, with a one term limit, for the "elected monarch". Essentially, every second election would also be the one where we elect a new head of state. The position must be apolitical, any involvement by parties to elect a candidate of their choosing would be illegal. I might even go with a 4 year term with elections alternating with the federal election to totally separate that position from the partisan houses of parliament.

First Nations governance:

Abolish the Indian Act, convert the Assembly of First Nations into a legislative body over First Nations, ensure First Nations receive a share of both input/approval and resource revenue from any resource extraction on their lands so that they can become more independent (the only reason they require so much of our tax dollars is because we have removed the ability for First Nations to raise any revenue themselves). Their election would be by proportional representation. They can decide if they want parties or not. A three term limit, like I propose for the other legislatures.

Establish regional Aboriginal Assemblies for different cultural groups (no more than 5 or 6, however) with responsibility for implementing programmes needed by their people such as education, health care and infrastructure development. The areas subject to those assemblies would each elect an at-large MP to send to parliament, and collectively the citizens of the national assembly would elect a senator or group of senators to represent them in the senate.

Allow First Nations governments to determine property ownership rights in ways that are compatible with their culture. Currently the Federal Government has applied the First Nation belief that land cannot be owned by individuals as an overall ban of private land ownership on most reserves; only the Federal Government can legally own property on them; First Nations are free to build almost anything on their land and charge rent for it, though. Some First Nations want to maintain the absence of private property, some don't. They should have the right to determine that without federal punishment—reserves that do allow private property ownership lose most of their tax exemptions and federal funding.

The process of sending some resource revenue to First Nations government instead of Provincial governments will result in a loss of revenue in all provinces, but the decreased burden placed on both the Federal and Provincial government by a more self-reliant First Nation society within Canada will allow us to raise our standard of living much faster and less expensive in the long run than if we stay on the current course with regards to Aboriginal Affairs.

Most importantly, this entire system must be codified in a constitution written by and for aboriginal people, with an emphasis on the fact that they are a part of Canada and have an important role to play in the prosperity of this country. They will be equal partners, not lesser ones.

Other stuff:

Establish a national standard for education and training to make transferring of skills across provinces easier. Doctors and welders should not have to re-certify to work in another province. The provinces have already, by and large, completed this process in a piecemeal way. Like many other initiatives (medicare, same-sex marriage) we simply need the federal government to take something that is de-facto and apply it properly to the country as a whole.

All of this of course would require a major re-writing of the constitution...

[SignalHillHiker]

:previous:

It still boggles my mind that we have legislation called The Indian Act. And that's not even getting into its contents.

I like your ideas for First Nations governance. I have no idea what would work in that regard, but I do agree that we have to do something, even if it's big and expensive, to end the cycle that we've created. You put any group of people into the situation our First Nations are in and you would get the same problems. So we have to give them whatever will actually fix it.

[casper]

The only changes to the provincial boundaries I would do are:
- Split Southern Ontario from the rest of Ontario
- Split Montreal from Quebec
- Split Metro Vancouver from BC.
- Split the the national capital region form the Ontario/Quebec

The interests and needs of the large metro areas are quite distinct from the smaller communities and rural regions.

In terms of the split between the province and federal government I would provide authority to the provinces over everything except:
- External Affairs
- Immigration
- Environmental Laws/Protection including Nuclear
- Foreign trade including financial markets, banking, etc.
- Military
- Inter-provincial transportation
- National Standards (e.g., building code, fire code, drug licensing etc.)
- Criminal code (but enforced by the province)
- Policing in their area of responsibility
- Science and Technology
- CPP and EI

Income tax (both personal and corporate) and GST would be the same rate across the country and a fixed percentage distributed to the provinces based on population. Provides a level playing field.

Fix the number of members in the house of commons; guarantee a minimum of two seats per province and redistribute the other seats every 15 years based on population.

For the senate; provide two-five seats per province based on population. Elect each senator when the provincial elections occurs. Have the senate pick the head of state while the house of commons picks the prime minister.

For the first nations, I would give each reserve the choice of becoming a municipality under an existing province or alternatively joining with the others in that region of the country to form a first nations province. Each person can only vote in one province or the other. That provides self governance without creating another conflicting level of government. The members of the first nations province would be subject to the same tax rules as the other provinces.

[SignalHillHiker]

- Split the the national capital region form the Ontario/Quebec

I really like that, like our own District of Columbia. Fascinating idea. We'd have to ensure they still had elected representation, however.

[SignalHillHiker]

Just to want to add, and having noted b31den already pointed it out, I'll agree: proportional representation, please. The first-past-the-post system is too discouraging.

[Acajack]

The only changes to the provincial boundaries I would do are:
- Split Southern Ontario from the rest of Ontario
- Split Montreal from Quebec
- Split Metro Vancouver from BC.
- Split the the national capital region form the Ontario/Quebec



I would not advocate changing provincial boundaries personally, but if we are going to be doing that certainly the most logical one that jumps off the page is making the Acadian regions of New Brunswick their own province or some type of geopolitical entity.

[RyeJay]

I would not advocate changing provincial boundaries personally, but if we are going to be doing that certainly the most logical one that jumps off the page is making the Acadian regions of New Brunswick their own province or some type of geopolitical entity.

I don't see how making a separate Acadia would be possible, considering nearly every so-called ville d'Acadie is very mixed with anglophones and francophones. Even the francophone populations are mixed with Acadians, Brayons, and Quebecers.

Just as there has been a gradual anglicisation of francophone communities, there has been a gradual francosisation of anglophone communities (especially Moncton and Frederiction). Even Halifax's francophone population is climbing, which is a good thing :)

I suspect the interbreeding has gone on for far too long to make a separation.

[The Gibbroni]

Proportional representation, a constitution that can actually be amended, a senate that serves some useful purpose and yes, get rid of the monarchy.

[RyeJay]

I would divide the provinces as follows:

BC
Alberta
Sask
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Maritimes (NB, PEI, NS)
Newfoundland
Territories (YT, NWT, NT, Labrador)

Most of the powers would remain with the provinces as it is right now, but as someone else said their should be clearer divisions between federal and provincial. Any new powers should automatically be federal instead of provincial.

Provincial Powers:
Language
Education
Health
Natural Resources (land and sea)

Federal:
Foreign affairs
Currency
Stock exchanges
Defense
Air/water transport
Telecommunications
Interprovincial Transportation (ie: rail and TCH)
Policing (excluding municipal)

The governments would be elected by proportional representation. Except there would be a locked number of 100 seats. Each province/region/all territories (combined) would have a minimum of two seats. The remaining seats would be evenly devided according to population (unlike today). As populations shift, provinces that gain seats will be taking them away from others.

The senate would consist of 5 elected senators from each province/region, except the territories which would share two. It would play a much larger role in government than the current one.

I would scrap the monarchy for a canadian head of state appointed by parlament. Two term limit for prime ministers and governor generals also.

I would also find a magic solution to Canada's seemingly eternal struggle with aboriginal poverty/social problems. Nawwwt. I really have no idea how to deal with that or even where to start. All I know is what we have now doesnt work and that the british, canadian government, general public, history, and aboriginals are all to blame.

Although I realise this is how you would personally establish Canada, I don't see the Maritimes as ever combining into one. Ever. Nor would the territories. Nunavut is still enjoying its childhood as a separate territory -- and Yukon (it's no longer called 'Yukon Territory') has been discussing for quite some time its potential for eventually becoming a province.

Your breakdown of federal and provincial powers seems very black-and-white. I see many pros in shared control, especially in terms of education, healthcare, and language.

For instance, I do not believe Quebec should be permitted to exclude English classes from its school systems, just as Alberta should not be allowed to exclude French.

An equal level of healthcare, within reason, must be maintained across the entire nation so that Canadian consumers aren't harm disproportionately in one province, due to illness and inability to work (and pay for health needs), compared to another province.

If you give provinces ample amounts of self-governing there is a strong potential that Canada would become as fragmented as the not-so-United States of America. This would not be in Canada's cultural benefit, nor its economic benefit.

[The Gibbroni]

For instance, I do not believe Quebec should be permitted to exclude English classes from its school systems

English is mandatory in all Quebec schools from grade 1 onwards.

[Acajack]

I don't see how making a separate Acadia would be possible, considering nearly every so-called ville d'Acadie is very mixed with anglophones and francophones. Even the francophone populations are mixed with Acadians, Brayons, and Quebecers.

Just as there has been a gradual anglicisation of francophone communities, there has been a gradual francosisation of anglophone communities (especially Moncton and Frederiction). Even Halifax's francophone population is climbing, which is a good thing :)

I suspect the interbreeding has gone on for far too long to make a separation.

I am not necessarily advocating, but it still would make more sense than the other splits that are being suggested. Montreal has more in common with other parts of Quebec than Caraquet has with Woodstock. Ottawa and Vancouver have more in common with the rest Ontario or BC than Shippagan has with Minto.

Economic viability would be the main stumbling block I'd say.

[RyeJay]

I really like that, like our own District of Columbia. Fascinating idea. We'd have to ensure they still had elected representation, however.

I have always been in favour of removing Ottawa-Gatineau from Ontario and Quebec (not JUST Ottawa, because these two municipalities function as one entity in more ways than not).

The City of Ottawa-Gatineau, I could live with. :) The two names reminds us of colonial Canadian history, as there used to be two Canadas.

No need to put 'District of Whatever' at the end :D

[Acajack]

.

For instance, I do not believe Quebec should be permitted to exclude English classes from its school systems, just as Alberta should not be allowed to exclude French.



I don't think that even if Quebec has full authority and autonomy with respect to its school system that it would ever exclude English completely.

As for other provinces with French, I am not sure about some of them.

Although I generally would favour a more Swiss-style TRUE confederation for Canada, one thing that has happened there is that some cantons (equivalent to our provinces) have made the controversial move to shift their second language focus away from other Swiss national languages in their schools (like it always was traditionally), to English.

I am not sure if this has been reversed or contested though.

Of course, this being Europe as opposed to North America, there is often not just one non-native additional language taught in schools there, but often two or even three. So perhaps it's not such a big deal.

[haljackey]

Proportional Representation... Its a 21st century voting system. Sever ties with the queen. Abolish the senate or elect em.

Northern Ontario would become its own provinces. The Atlantic provinces could be merged together to form a single province.

Make Ottawa-Gatineau a federal district (not a part of any province).

[Acajack]

I have always been in favour of removing Ottawa-Gatineau from Ontario and Quebec (not JUST Ottawa, because these two municipalities function as one entity in more ways than not).

The City of Ottawa-Gatineau, I could live with. :) The two names reminds us of colonial Canadian history, as there used to be two Canadas.

No need to put 'District of Whatever' at the end :D

You might find this thread interesting:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=202088

I think a lot of people in Ottawa might go for it but my sense is you would get a lot of opposition in Gatineau with respect to being cut off from the rest of Quebec. And that's not counting opposition from the Quebec government which I believe has some kind of law that makes it illegal for it to cede any millimetre of territory to the feds or any other province - even willingly. Although of course that law could be changed... but would they do that? The fact that it exists gives you an idea of the mindset.

[RyeJay]

I am not necessarily advocating, but it still would make more sense than the other splits that are being suggested. Montreal has more in common with other parts of Quebec than Caraquet has with Woodstock. Ottawa and Vancouver have more in common with the rest Ontario or BC than Shippagan has with Minto.

Economic viability would be the main stumbling block I'd say.

Oh, I agree! I actually think all that splitting up previously mentioned is a tad crazy. Montreal should never be removed from Quebec.

Economics would be a major roadblock against the creation of a separate Acadia, yes. But again: New Brunswick is no longer clearly divided between north and south. I don't even know where the provincial boundaries would be drawn.... Moncton would become a battleground -- and not just in the context of anglophones vs. francophones...but Acadians vs. Acadians!!

I believe it's a mythology that a majority of Acadians want to separate from New Brunswick. In Moncton, in Fredericton, in New Brunswick's north...there is constant switching back and forth between French and English, to the point where it's difficult to know who's an anglophone and who's a francophone. In fact, the only place I hear mention of a francophone separation is in Saint John. But what else is new... :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I just discovered the new boundary... :haha:

[RyeJay]

You might find this thread interesting:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=202088

I think a lot of people in Ottawa might go for it but my sense is you would get a lot of opposition in Gatineau with respect to being cut off from the rest of Quebec. And that's not counting opposition from the Quebec government which I believe has some kind of law that makes it illegal for it to cede any millimetre of territory to the feds or any other province - even willingly. Although of course that law could be changed... but would they do that? The fact that it exists gives you an idea of the mindset.

I will definitely read this thread.

(Gatineau wouldn't enjoy being the national capital?!... Geeez.)

[Acajack]

Oh, I agree! I actually think all that splitting up previously mentioned is a tad crazy. Montreal should never be removed from Quebec.

Economics would be a major roadblock against the creation of a separate Acadia, yes. But again: New Brunswick is no longer clearly divided between north and south. I don't even know where the provincial boundaries would be drawn.... Moncton would become a battleground -- and not just in the context of anglophones vs. francophones...but Acadians vs. Acadians!!

I believe it's a mythology that a majority of Acadians want to separate from New Brunswick. In Moncton, in Fredericton, in New Brunswick's north...there is constant switching back and forth between French and English, to the point where it's difficult to know who's an anglophone and who's a francophone. In fact, the only place I hear mention of a francophone separation is in Saint John. But what else is new... :rolleyes:

Oh wait, I just discovered the new boundary... :haha:

I agree that NB francophones are not rumbling about splitting off from the province. Not at all.

As for the likely boundary between Acadia and RONB (the rest of New Brunswick), in the Moncton area it would likely be NB Route 15 to the north and the Petitcodiac River to the west!

[Acajack]

0
(Gatineau wouldn't enjoy being the national capital?!... Geeez.)

It already is, as defined in the National Capital Act.

[RyeJay]

I agree that NB francophones are not rumbling about splitting off from the province. Not at all.

As for the likely boundary between Acadia and RONB (the rest of New Brunswick), in the Moncton area it would likely be NB Route 15 to the north and the Petitcodiac River to the west!

LOL, I see that you're trying to place UdeMoncton in Acadia. The problem is, the amalgamated community of Lewisville, which is part of Moncton now, has more anglophones than francophones, despite the presence of the francophone university.

And there are a lot of francophones living in downtown Moncton, just as there are anglophones living in Dieppe.

It would be awfully messy, and everyone would be scratching their heads as to why the separation was taking place at all. Most Monctonians, regardless of language, don't mind the culturaly diversity. They focus their bitterness toward Halifax instead ;)

[SignalHillHiker]

Also, one thing I admire about the American system:

I want to be able to vote for my local MP and my Prime Minister SEPARATELY.

If I want to vote for Conservative Jane Doe for my MP, because she's sane and effing awesome, that should NOT translate as an automatic vote for Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. I should be able to vote Thomas Mulcair for Prime Minister, and my local Conservative for MP.

[vid]

PR with list seats would partially solve that. You would vote for your MP, and then vote for which party should lead.

The US system has the executive fully separated from the legislative branch and I am not thoroughly convinced on the effectiveness on that kind of government.

[kwoldtimer]

Also, one thing I admire about the American system:

I want to be able to vote for my local MP and my Prime Minister SEPARATELY.

If I want to vote for Conservative Jane Doe for my MP, because she's sane and effing awesome, that should NOT translate as an automatic vote for Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. I should be able to vote Thomas Mulcair for Prime Minister, and my local Conservative for MP.

I'd be more concerned with Canada's excessive concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister. I'd like to see it diminished and have MPs released from whipped votes for all but matters of confidence.

[The Gibbroni]

I'd be more concerned with Canada's excessive concentration of power in the office of the Prime Minister. I'd like to see it diminished and have MPs released from whipped votes for all but matters of confidence.

A Canadian Prime Minister with a majority government wields power that is unprecedented in Western democracies. A 5 year virtual dictatorship.

First past the post simply has to go. A party winning as little as 35% of the popular vote can win 65% of the seats giving them 100% of the power to enact whatever they want with no checks or balances. That's just wrong, I'm tired of feeling as if my vote has been wasted after every election. No wonder young people are so disinterested in voting.

[Dado]

Not necessarily what I would advocate, but how about abolishing provinces altogether? In the grand scheme of things, what function do provinces actually serve? They seem to spend much of their time arguing with each other and the federal government over the niceties of equalization and resource development and royalties while making life miserable for the municipalities below them and for anyone who is involved in some kind of employment requiring certification. If we just had municipalities and the federal government (and First Nations), we'd have a pretty clear distinction between federal areas of jurisdiction and municipal ones, with all resource issues being dealt with by the federal government and First Nations.

Or failing that, how about creating a lot more provinces, i.e. like a bunch of city-provinces? Ontario could become half a dozen provinces, Quebec probably three or four and BC and Alberta probably two or three each. Hopefully the more provinces the more they'd be forced to cooperate.

For a forum full of urban-minded people it's a bit surprising to see no suggestions yet on dealing with the municipal level. This is, after all, supposed to be about an 'ideal', not whether getting there is actually possible.



As to how I'd restructure the current federation... that could take quite a while but here are the basic elements:

House of Commons
Enforce rep-by-pop by province (so no more over-representation in the Prairie and Maritime provinces)
Elected by preferential ballot
No party affiliations on the ballot and no party funding of campaigns

Senate
PM, Cabinet, shadow cabinet would sit in the Senate
Elected by proportional representation from party lists
PR election can be done Canada-wide or by region or province

Since people seem to vote for the party leader in a fit of cult-of-the-leader (see NDP vote in Quebec), we might as well formalize it with a party list system that doesn't generally grant one party unimpeded power and since the Senate is an appointed house anyway in which its members are not directly elected, appointing senators based on a party list works philosophically. The Commons would revert to more of an oversight role and the means of election of its members, stripped of party affiliation and especially of dependency on a party for their election, would help ensure its independence. The PM (in the Senate) would have no moral sway over MPs in the Commons (i.e. "You're only an MP because I signed your papers and people were really voting for me, not you") since MPs could quite reasonably argue that they are there on their own merit with an independent mandate.

[vid]

Provinces provide regional level services. In UK, the national parliament is commonly convened to discuss things like sewage issues in Manchester which is a waste of time for all of the MPs not from Manchester. Smaller, single level regional governments might work, but how good would Toronto be if suburbanites were 60% of its city council? It's bad enough someone like Rob Ford was able to win in the 1/3rd of Toronto that actually is Toronto.

The federal government is really only needed for issues of national concern, like security and military, finance, trade and economic issues, and ease of mobility within confederation.

[RyeJay]

Also, one thing I admire about the American system:

I want to be able to vote for my local MP and my Prime Minister SEPARATELY.

If I want to vote for Conservative Jane Doe for my MP, because she's sane and effing awesome, that should NOT translate as an automatic vote for Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. I should be able to vote Thomas Mulcair for Prime Minister, and my local Conservative for MP.

Totally disagree.

The American system is far too fragmented, and prevents progress, as the house and the senate are always able to block the President's (or, in our case, the Prime Minister's) efforts.

Obama just won re-election, but the house is still in Republican control, so the political theatrics will continue as their debt rises. No one has to give an inch; they only need to continue shouting empty rhetoric at each other to keep up the game.

What we need to fix in Canada is what composes a 'majority' government. A majority government need to be reflective of an actual majority of Canadians. The first past the post system is horrible. It needs to be at least hybridised with proportional representation, it not complete proportional representation.

[RyeJay]

A Canadian Prime Minister with a majority government wields power that is unprecedented in Western democracies. A 5 year virtual dictatorship.

First past the post simply has to go. A party winning as little as 35% of the popular vote can win 65% of the seats giving them 100% of the power to enact whatever they want with no checks or balances. That's just wrong, I'm tired of feeling as if my vote has been wasted after every election. No wonder young people are so disinterested in voting.

We would not be viewing Harper as a dictator if an actual majority of Canadians voted for him. I agree: first past the post has to end.

With too many checks and balances, however, there is the potential for creating deadlock and political games that we see in the USA.

Political Science should be a required subject in public schools. A decent education is our only true defence against political corruption. Stupid people vote for anything.

I support MANDATORY voting -- or at the very least submitting an abstention/blank vote.

Also: 2 party political systems should be illegal. There are more than two parties in the USA, but none of them are allowed to participate in the debates. ALL parties must be allowed to participate in the debates.

[vid]

Also: 2 party political systems should be illegal. There are more than two parties in the USA, but none of them are allowed to participate in the debates. ALL parties must be allowed to participate in the debates.

The United States has 2 major parties, 5 minor ones, and dozens if not hundreds of even smaller parties. Canada has over 20 registered political parties.

[Kitchissippi]

Also, one thing I admire about the American system:

I want to be able to vote for my local MP and my Prime Minister SEPARATELY.

If I want to vote for Conservative Jane Doe for my MP, because she's sane and effing awesome, that should NOT translate as an automatic vote for Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. I should be able to vote Thomas Mulcair for Prime Minister, and my local Conservative for MP.

This makes absolutely no sense. What if the prime minister you choose is not part of the government? The PM is the head of government.

90% of the world's democracies separate the functions of government and state. It's a principle that has allowed the Europeans to unite without giving up their identities. The USA's system is one of the very few that don't distinguish these functions, and it often puts the president in conflict with what the people want and what needs to be done.

In the Canadian system, the government is simply the hired manager of the state, it is not the state (although it seems that Stephen Harper sometimes forgets this). You and I, and all Canadians collectively, technically OWN/ARE the state, symbolically represented by the "Crown".

[The Gibbroni]

.....

This makes absolutely no sense. What if the prime minister you choose is not part of the government? The PM is the head of government.

Then your prime ministerial choice doesn't win but your local candidate- who may be a member of the same crew- does get elected. The way our system works, you're always voting for prime minister- your local candidate is just a cog in the wheel.

In the Canadian system, the government is simply the hired manager of the state, it is not the state (although it seems that Stephen Harper sometimes forgets this). You and I, and all Canadians collectively, technically OWN/ARE the state, symbolically represented by the "Crown".Stephen Harper has a majority- dictator for 5 years. And the crown? Oh yeah, the fucking clown er.. crown lol!

[Kitchissippi]

Then your prime ministerial choice doesn't win but your local candidate- who may be a member of the same crew- does get elected. The way our system works, you're always voting for prime minister- your local candidate is just a cog in the wheel.

Stephen Harper has a majority- dictator for 5 years. And the crown? Oh yeah, the fucking clown er.. crown lol!


Electing a PM and and MP separately means that you could end up with an NDP PM with a PC government. Not gonna work.

Stephen Harper has a 10 seat majority. 10 of his MPs, if they had the balls, could revolt and cross the floor to topple the government. It's been done before, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it.

The PC party could also call for a leadership convention and oust Stephen anytime they want. Nothing guarantees him 5 years.

[The Gibbroni]

Electing a PM and and MP separately means that you could end up with an NDP PM with a PC government. Not gonna work.

Stephen Harper has a 10 seat majority. 10 of his MPs, if they had the balls, could revolt and cross the floor to topple the government. It's been done before, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it.

The PC party could also call for a leadership convention and oust Stephen anytime they want. Nothing guarantees him 5 years.

Yeah right, and any of that would ever happen under our current system. Ten MP's would be committing political suicide. And why would a party with a majority suddenly call a leadership convention?

A PM without government support could easily work. It's called a coalition. They would be highly unlikely to have zero representation at the MP level and therefore be forced to work with the party that received the majority of votes.

[Kitchissippi]

Yeah right, and any of that would ever happen under our current system. Ten MP's would be committing political suicide.

So explain how Scott Brison crossed the floor from Conservative to Liberal and still get re-elected a few times. If the government was really doing something against the will of the electorate, those MPs could actually gain the respect of their constituents.

It's our own fault for buying in too much into party platforms. If we were smart, we should always vote in a minority government and give the balance of power to independents who can flip-flop however we want them to.

[The Gibbroni]

So explain how Scott Brison crossed the floor from Conservative to Liberal and still get re-elected a few times. If the government was really doing something against the will of the electorate, those MPs could actually gain the respect of their constituents.

It's our own fault for buying in too much into party platforms. If we were smart, we should always vote in a minority government and give the balance of power to independents who can flip-flop however we want them to.

One, count them- one, maybe even two, can cross at any time. You're talking about 10.

It's fun to talk about pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals but that does nothing to address the structural fuckedupedness of our current system.

Our current system is fucked.

[RyeJay]

The United States has 2 major parties, 5 minor ones, and dozens if not hundreds of even smaller parties. Canada has over 20 registered political parties.

America has TWO parties that have any chance. The others are not permitted to participate in the debates, and that is an absolutely travesty.

[RyeJay]

Electing a PM and and MP separately means that you could end up with an NDP PM with a PC government. Not gonna work.

Stephen Harper has a 10 seat majority. 10 of his MPs, if they had the balls, could revolt and cross the floor to topple the government. It's been done before, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it.

The PC party could also call for a leadership convention and oust Stephen anytime they want. Nothing guarantees him 5 years.

Exactly!

The America system, and how there is so much separate of governing powers, creates an enormous lag on getting this done.

The USA has been debating healthcare for over 100 years...and they still don't have a socialised system yet....not even a public option. :( It's almost laughable, it's so pathetic.

Insurance companies win, while the American economy suffers. This is an example of how an instance of socialism FEEDS capitalism with a stability of consumerism (large middle-class) -- as consumers cannot consume when they are going bankrupt due to illness.

[Kitchissippi]

One, count them- one, maybe even two, can cross at any time. You're talking about 10.

It's fun to talk about pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals but that does nothing to address the structural fuckedupedness of our current system.

Our current system is fucked.

There's nothing "pie in the sky" about it. You don't even have to look too far back for an instance. Thirteen, count 13, MPs, changed party status all at the same time in 2001, some of them are still sitting in Parliament today:
2001 - MPs Art Hanger, Chuck Strahl, Gary Lunn, Jim Pankiw, Val Meredith, Grant McNally, Jay Hill, Jim Gouk, Monte Solberg, Andy Burton, Brian Fitzpatrick, Deborah Grey, and Inky Mark were either expelled from or voluntarily left the Canadian Alliance caucus after publicly criticizing party leader Stockwell Day, and sat as an "Independent Alliance Caucus". Hanger, Gouk, Solberg, Fitzpatrick and Burton returned to the Alliance at the end of the summer; the remaining MPs continued to sit as the Democratic Representative Caucus. All but Mark and Pankiw eventually rejoined the Alliance by 2002.

[eternallyme]

First, create three new provinces: split off northern Ontario (which I would define as the Severn River between Orillia and Gravenhurst and Algonquin Park) into a separate province, split off northern Quebec and northern Labrador (defined as the Inuit territories north of 55N) and split off the National Capital Region from Ontario and Quebec.

The three territories should be given provincial status as well. That would result in 16 provinces.

Each of the 16 provinces would be realigned into the governing bodies as follows:

House of Commons

- Not much change from now in function.
- The size of the House would be fixed at 250 seats, divided based on population (no other clauses) except that each province must have at least one MP.
- They would be elected every 4 years, and would determine the Prime Minister.
- Non-confidence votes are eliminated; they must serve out the full 4 years. By-elections are only held in deaths or resignations of individual members.

House of Lords (Senate)

- I am stealing the name from the British here. There would be 64 members of the House of Lords, with each province having 4.
- It would be democratically elected with Lords serving 8-year terms, with one up every 2 years in each province.
- They would have no control over the budget but would have to approve all other issues.

Prime Minister - same as it is now, but only has control over the legislative branch.

Governor-General - would be the elected leader of the executive branch and would share the Head of State with His or Her Majesty, similar to a President. He or she would be elected every 4 years opposite the House of Commons election, and would NOT be a partisan position. The vote there would be a preferential ballot until someone wins with 50%+1 of the vote. No interference with political parties or the legislature is allowed - if such is found, he or she is automatically disqualified.

Supreme Court - the number of justices would be fixed at 10, of which 3 must be French-speaking and 1 must be aboriginal. However, the provincial breakdown does not matter. Judges must be confirmed by a majority in both Houses.

[SignalHillHiker]

First, create three new provinces: split off northern Ontario (which I would define as the Severn River between Orillia and Gravenhurst and Algonquin Park) into a separate province, split off northern Quebec and northern Labrador (defined as the Inuit territories north of 55N) and split off the National Capital Region from Ontario and Quebec.

Could be a tough sell. Labrador's resources are vital to the entire province. And the existing, self-governing Innu political entity (Nunatsiavut) extends much farther south than anyone would be willing to let separate (it's the purple on this map):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p_dVQMO9pgs/SAU7rVzVXNI/AAAAAAAAASQ/eo3m9KlpIN4/s400/FirstRank.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p_dVQMO9pgs/SAU7rVzVXNI/AAAAAAAAASQ/eo3m9KlpIN4/s400/FirstRank.png

[Dado]

First, create three new provinces: split off northern Ontario (which I would define as the Severn River between Orillia and Gravenhurst and Algonquin Park) into a separate province, split off northern Quebec and northern Labrador (defined as the Inuit territories north of 55N) and split off the National Capital Region from Ontario and Quebec.

The three territories should be given provincial status as well. That would result in 16 provinces.

Each of the 16 provinces would be realigned into the governing bodies as follows:

House of Commons

- Not much change from now in function.
Or means of election, it would seem.

- The size of the House would be fixed at 250 seats, divided based on population (no other clauses) except that each province must have at least one MP.
- They would be elected every 4 years, and would determine the Prime Minister.
- Non-confidence votes are eliminated; they must serve out the full 4 years. By-elections are only held in deaths or resignations of individual members.


How can you eliminate non-confidence votes when they are determining the Prime Minister? I can understand that having a non-confidence vote might not result in dissolution, but that's different than not having them. The consequence though could be paralysis, which to avoid is why the Crown has the reserve power of dissolution - kick the problem back to the electorate to resolve.

And given Paul Martin's stunt from several years' back, a non-confidence vote doesn't automatically mean dissolution anyway - he lost on a non-confidence vote, ignored it, spent a week or so frantically trying to figure out what to do, and eventually "convinced" Belinda Stronach to cross the floor and appointed her to Cabinet, then had another vote which he went on to win. These days he would have just prorogued the place to buy some time and possibly floor crossers.


House of Lords (Senate)

- I am stealing the name from the British here.

I am mystified as to why you are doing this for what is going to be an elected body in a country without even knighthoods, never mind peers of any kind...

There would be 64 members of the House of Lords, with each province having 4.
Never been a fan of completely equal provincial representation in the upper chamber myself.

- It would be democratically elected with Lords serving 8-year terms, with one up every 2 years in each province.
That's quite a bit of churn, but OK. Would this be first-past-the-post or preferential ballot?

- They would have no control over the budget but would have to approve all other issues.

Prime Minister - same as it is now, but only has control over the legislative branch.

So... he's not really the Prime Minister, then, since ministers head the executive branch. In fact, you're pretty much describing the Speaker of the House of Commons. Prime Parliamentarian perhaps, but not Prime Minister.


Governor-General - would be the elected leader of the executive branch and would share the Head of State with His or Her Majesty, similar to a President. He or she would be elected every 4 years opposite the House of Commons election, and would NOT be a partisan position. The vote there would be a preferential ballot until someone wins with 50%+1 of the vote. No interference with political parties or the legislature is allowed - if such is found, he or she is automatically disqualified.

How is this going to work, at all? You've got someone heading up the executive branch - the most political branch of government - who is directly elected by the public at large (with a majority mandate to boot, courtesy of the preferential ballot) and you're hoping this person is not going to be a partisan?


Supreme Court - the number of justices would be fixed at 10, of which 3 must be French-speaking and 1 must be aboriginal. However, the provincial breakdown does not matter. Judges must be confirmed by a majority in both Houses.

Rather than one being aboriginal, which is sure to cause some problems sometime in the future, one could be selected by the Assembly of First Nations or equivalent from the rolls of eligible justices. As for the rest, I would prefer that they not be appointed by the head of the executive branch as now, even with confirmation. How about something like a vice-regal council or jury formed of the Lieutenants-Governor that chooses the justices?

[Aylmer]

I think it would be interesting to have preferential ballots to determine MPs but to then force the government to have a cabinet proportional to the first-choices of the voters.

So you might have a 40-30-30 house, but if the popular first-choice results are 35-35-30, you might have 13 ministers of one party, 13 of another and 11 of the third.


I think it would be a good way to force more consensus and less of this "Us-against-them-war" mentality since all the parties (and by extension Canadians of all viewpoints) would participate in Government.

_______

As for the Senate, I'd just like to see non-partisanship enforced. Cut ties with the parties and perhaps have them recommended by the courts instead of by the PM.

[vid]

Electing a PM and and MP separately means that you could end up with an NDP PM with a PC government. Not gonna work.

If we keep the PM within the House of Commons and use proportional representation with list seats, the PM would always be the leader of the largest party in the house, unless otherwise decided by MPs in a vote of confidence for someone else.

America has TWO parties that have any chance. The others are not permitted to participate in the debates, and that is an absolutely travesty.

The others have almost no support. We flipped out at allowing Elizabeth May into the 2008 debate and she had a sitting MP; the third party in the US would love to get as much support as our fifth party does!

First, create three new provinces: split off northern Ontario (which I would define as the Severn River between Orillia and Gravenhurst and Algonquin Park) into a separate province

The boundary I always use is the French River/Lake Nipissing then south of North Bay to the Mattawa River, then following that to the Ottawa River at Quebec.

If you separate as far south as you do, you're putting Toronto's cottage country and an area within Toronto's direct sphere of influence into another province. It would also tip the balance of population further to the east than it already is.


- Non-confidence votes are eliminated; they must serve out the full 4 years. By-elections are only held in deaths or resignations of individual members.

We would end up with lame-duck governments like the US has had for the past 6 years. The ability to shift the balance of power from one side of the house to the other without an election is actually a very useful tool within our parliamentary system, we can "refresh" without spending millions on campaigning.

House of Lords (Senate)

- I am stealing the name from the British here. There would be 64 members of the House of Lords, with each province having 4.
- It would be democratically elected with Lords serving 8-year terms, with one up every 2 years in each province.
- They would have no control over the budget but would have to approve all other issues.

The British have that name because they literally had lords. A class of people who held an actual position that was that of lord.

We have a senate, which means "council of elders". I think that is more what we want, isn't it? Wiser, experienced people held in esteem, giving sober second thought to what the commons come up with?

And we should follow Australia's lead and call it the House of Representatives. We're not "commoners" anymore. The monarchy, as existent as it is, is largely symbolic.

Also, you're holding elections very frequently. I don't want us to end up like the US where we start voting for dog catchers and transportation planners.

[casper]

...

House of Commons
....
- They would be elected every 4 years, and would determine the Prime Minister.
- Non-confidence votes are eliminated; they must serve out the full 4 years. By-elections are only held in deaths or resignations of individual members.
....
House of Lords (Senate)
....
- It would be democratically elected with Lords serving 8-year terms, with one up every 2 years in each province.
- They would have no control over the budget but would have to approve all other issues.

Prime Minister - same as it is now, but only has control over the legislative branch.

Governor-General - would be the elected leader of the executive branch and would share the Head of State with His or Her Majesty, similar to a President. He or she would be elected every 4 years opposite the House of Commons election, and would NOT be a partisan position. The vote there would be a preferential ballot until someone wins with 50%+1 of the vote. No interference with political parties or the legislature is allowed - if such is found, he or she is automatically disqualified.

Supreme Court - the number of justices would be fixed at 10, of which 3 must be French-speaking and 1 must be aboriginal. However, the provincial breakdown does not matter. Judges must be confirmed by a majority in both Houses.

If you can not force an election you need a mechanism to pass a budget. I would propose that that a clause is added in stating that the civil service is to draft and use a baseline budget (no increase or decrease to any department/program) unless parliament passes a different budget. That provides some stability if the political parties start to play games.

I think you have far to many elections. I would have the senate elected at the same time as the province elects its legislature perhaps even on the same ballet to save costs. That provides continuity and also gets rid of the attitude of after an election ignoring the electorate since it is four years away from the next election.

[dmuzika]

The only changes to the provincial boundaries I would do are:
- Split Southern Ontario from the rest of Ontario
- Split Montreal from Quebec
- Split Metro Vancouver from BC.
- Split the the national capital region form the Ontario/Quebec

Arguably, some of the provincial boundries could stand to be redrawn:
- the eastern Columbia Valley in BC (Golden-Cranbrook and east) could become part of Alberta as the Selkirk Mountains are more of a geographical boundry than the Rocky Mountains
- the BC portion of the Peace Country (Dawson Creek/Ft St John) could become part of Alberta; another possibility is the Peace Country in both Alberta & BC becoming its own province.
- Thunder Bay-west could become part of Manitoba
- Vancouver Island could become its own province

[dmuzika]

I apologize if this has been asked. If it has, I could not find it.

It's your turn to be the founding father or mother - you get to decide what type and structure of government, from constitutional monarchy to fascist dictatorship, that Canada should ideally have.

What would you choose?

*****

I would choose a very loose federation.

It would be composed of:


The Northern Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut - with guest representation from the First Nations people of B.C., Alberta, Saskatechwan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador)
British Columbia
Alberta
The Prairies (Saskatchewan, Manitoba)
Ontario
Quebec
The Maritimes (N.B., N.S., P.E.I. - which would include an Acadien political entity)
Newfoundland and Labrador (which would still include Nunatsiavut, our Inuit political entity in Labrador)


Each of these regions would have its own government that would be responsible for just about everything.

We would all be joined by this loose federation, with a federal government limited to things such as foreign affairs, central banking, defense, and so on.

This federal government would be composed of two very small bodies - a house made up of a number of members elected by each region based on their population, and a senate made up of two members from each region.

I like your idea of the federation of political entities, however I might combine a few to form 4 federations:

Western Canada
- BC
- Alberta
- Saskatchewan
- Manitoba
- the northern territories could be included

Ontario

Quebec

Maritimes
- New Brunswick
- Nova Scotia
- PEI
- Newfoundland & Labridor

Within the federations, some could still be divided into provinces.

[SignalHillHiker]

I like your idea of the federation of political entities, however I might combine a few to form 4 federations:

Western Canada
- BC
- Alberta
- Saskatchewan
- Manitoba
- the northern territories could be included

Ontario

Quebec

Maritimes
- New Brunswick
- Nova Scotia
- PEI
- Newfoundland & Labridor

Within the federations, some could still be divided into provinces.

And I'd gladly fight a civil war to stop you, ha!

Kidding. But, if you combine us, it'd need a new name - Maritimes explicitly excludes N.L. So Atlantic, or Eastern.

[manny_santos]

I would have given the provinces far more limited powers than they have now, with most government functions centralized in the federal government. Post-secondary education and health care would be a purely federal responsibility, and transportation would have greater federal responsibility. In return, I would've had more provinces:

- Quebec split into three provinces: Montreal Island, Eastern Quebec (Quebec City, Gaspé, Saguenay), Western Quebec (Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Rouyn)
- Ontario split into five provinces: Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough), Toronto, Central Ontario (Hamilton, Niagara, Barrie, Oshawa), Western Ontario (Kitchener, London, Windsor, Owen Sound), Northern Ontario

There are vast differences between the various regions of Ontario and Quebec, especially North vs. South Ontario, Toronto vs. rest of Ontario, Montreal vs. rest of Quebec, East vs. West Quebec.

[Acajack]

I would have given the provinces far more limited powers than they have now, with most government functions centralized in the federal government. Post-secondary education and health care would be a purely federal responsibility, and transportation would have greater federal responsibility. In return, I would've had more provinces:

.


If any greater centralization than we have now had been demanded (a la UK or France), Canada as we know it would never have come into being.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Ideally, I would have Canada be what the EU should be but probably can't be. Nearly everything would be the responsibility of the provinces. Tricky issues such as the economy and environmental policies will/should be flexible from province to province, but there should be regular summits between officials from all levels of government to work on building consensus and compromise on such issues.

----------

Form of Government

Ideally, I would like us to be a Parliamentary Republic, but I could settle for a "true" Canadian royal family that is born, raised, and living in Canada.

----------

Federal duties and responsibilities

The following would be the responsibilities of the federal government:

- Nationbuilding via infrastructure projects, and eliminating barriers between provinces, thus improving trade and allowing for the smoother flow and transition of goods, services, and citizens.

- National Parks and their creation and maintenance.

- Foreign affairs

- Defense

- Air/water transport

- Telecommunications

- Interprovincial Transportation (ie: rail and TCH)

- Space Program and other national initiatives

- Fund and maintain national arts and culture organizations. Basically, keep things like the CBC, CRTC, NFB and others around.

----------

Referendums everywhere, but not THAT kind.

Open season on referendums on just about every issue except secession. Ideally, in this Canada, each province would be more or less self-sufficient with help from the federal government when it relates to federal duties and responsibilities, so the push for separatism or feeling like the fed is playing favourites should be mitigated.

Referendum for creating a new province of Northern Ontario, for instance. Or, various ridings/districts joining another province. For example, I know there are people in NW Ontario who feel more connected to Manitoba than Ontario. If they wished, they could have a referendum on whether to join Manitoba or not.

Referendums for combining provinces. Province of the Maritimes anyone?

Referendums on what the Canadian public feels is important to them. Basically, referendums for just about anything. I would also approach the Turks and Caicos and put all our cards on the table and seriously enter discussions about having them join Canada.

I really like the Swiss system of direct democracy, where if enough signatures are acquired for a petition, a referendum on the subject is required. I would only make the following tweaks:

- 100,000 signatures nationwide: must be brought to the floor of the House of Commons, and a referendum called.

- 1000 signatures in a riding: The MP for that riding is required to bring the concerns of his riding to the floor of the House of Commons at the earliest possible convenience.


Such measures would also relate to my stance on lobbying, which is harmful to democratic representation of the people, by the people, for the people. I'd like to think that my stance on referendums, in conjunction with stricter rules for lobbyists, would make lobbying less influential and would see governments focus (willingly or reluctantly) on the demands of the citizenry. This actively engages more Canadians, makes them feel involved, and gives them some real power for a change. Not to mention stability.

----------

Financial management and policies

First off, MP's, Senators, Bureaucrats, etc. do NOT need the level of pay they receive, including all the associated benefits. Slashes all around the board.

I support regulations and a fair amount of oversight, but I am also a believer in the free market to an extent. I would have the government tax/penalize companies that fail to live up to standards and regulations. For "unclean" industries such as oil, natural gas, coal, mining, etc., standards and regulations would apply, but I would offer tax breaks/benefits/government support if they devoted significant amounts of their profit and business into developing greener ways of doing business and/or developing meaningful green technologies on the side. They get more of their money, we get cleaner industry, and new technologies. Everybody wins.

Fixed defense budget of 2% of Canada's GDP, focusing largely on the RCAF and RCN, seeing as how they are the ones patrolling our borders and enforcing sovereignty the most. The Army should be of a decent size, but the focus should be on making sure they are well-trained and well-equipped for any missions they may face, domestic or international. Special consideration should be given to Canadian companies with regards to procurement and development.

Bring tax rate to pre-Harper levels, putting more money in Canadian coffers for a range of purposes.

Legalize and tax marijuana, freeing up police time and resources, as well as adding $1 billion+ annually to the economy.

Free trade and fair trade are two things I support. Canada must expand its markets for any goods we have available that others are willing to buy. Whether it's oil for Asian nations, or equipment and medical technologies for newly industrialized nations, the federal government and the provinces should work together on how to quickly and efficiently move the goods from Canada to market.

----------

Foreign Policy

Canada should do its best to be a neutral broker on the world stage. We should be able to see both sides of an argument/position, and help form agreements and compromise between nations and groups.

International Operational Support bases of the kind that was in the news some time ago are a relatively good idea and affordable. They're also capable of being used to military action, or for aiding in peacekeeping operations, or responding to a natural disaster in the region.

Canada should strengthen its ties with the Arctic Council nations, and attempt to expand their power and influence. Canada should also work with Russia in order to truly become (alongside Russia) one of the two chief powers of the Arctic. We're starting to see this, but more needs to be done. Strengthening of economic and military ties with Russia would be key to all this.

----------

First Nations and other indigenous groups

Canada should work hand in hand with the First Nations, Inuit, and Metis on how best to improve the situation, involve them, and help them maintain and preserve their culture. There are already steps in the right direction, but much more needs to be done. We can't simply dictate terms to the natives, but also can't just roll over on every issue. There needs to be compromise and we must work with the communities and people directly. It will cost a lot of money, and take many long years, but it needs to be done. I rather like what Shawn Atleo had to say on the issue:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/national-chief-shawn-atleo-pitches-blueprint-for-moving-beyond-the-indian-act-178132331.html

----------


That's about all I got for now, but I know I have other ideas lurking in my mind. :P