jbg Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 • Open up our healthcare to allow more two-tier medical services. • Tear up the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. • Give Quebec a one time take it or leave it offer to either join confederation as a full and equal partner, or to fully succeed with no more money or services from Ottawa. • Give First nations the same offer. Either you're fully equal Canadians, or the reserves are your own independent nations and you're on your own. • Get both softer and harsher on drugs at the same time: no penalties at all for simple possession or personal use (especially soft drugs like pot), but life in prison for trafficking hard drugs. I'd add tearing up the Official Languages Act and the Multiculturalism Act. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 I'd add tearing up the Official Languages Act and the Multiculturalism Act. Yes, because tearing apart all of Canada's most important institutions is sure to create a better country. And Canada's economy, like most first world economies, is heavily service oriented. We're simply lucky enough to have resources and manufacturing (and there are huge amounts of manufacturing still done here) to o along with it...and that's why we have a top 10 nominal per capita GDP, or so says the IMF. Quote
jbg Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Yes, because tearing apart all of Canada's most important institutions is sure to create a better country. Yes, indeed. Canada's greatness is built upon Somali Gay Pride parades? Not. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Yes, indeed. Canada's greatness is built upon Somali Gay Pride parades? Not. No, it's built upon inclusinveness, a diverse population, and the idea that Canada's people build this nation through their contributions, cultural or economic. Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 No, it's built upon inclusinveness, a diverse population, and the idea that Canada's people build this nation through their contributions, cultural or economic.Such attributes are attributes of the population at large and not the result of government laws. Quote
Evening Star Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Prime minster with an absolute majority in both houses? Ok. I'd throw out the Canada Health Act, and adopt the Swedish health care system, with elements of France and Germany. Based on the Wikipedia entry on health care in Sweden, their system seems to work OK. One chief distinction seems to be that it's largely managed at a local level there? One issue I could possibly see is that level of decentralization might perhaps not work as well in a huge, sprawling country with a tremendously diverse population. Work with the provinces to bring in a new level of trade/apprenticeship colleges/programs like the Germans have. I actually agree that higher education is in crisis. Our current system is completely unsustainable. The European model does seem more realistic. (Quebec already seems to be partway there.) However, education is completely under provincial jurisdiction, isn't it? All new buildings would be required to adopt much stricter energy and water efficiency systems, including gray water recycling and top end insulation, and, wherever practical, be required to be equipped with geothermal heating. An interesting idea. Might be quite workable. Edited January 15, 2012 by Evening Star Quote
Evening Star Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 I'd need to study each issue more I definitely feel this way too but some things I'd lean towards include: - moving towards sensible copyright law that does not aggressively inhibit teaching (for one thing) - promoting greater autonomy for MPs - promoting greater investment in R&D and innovation. The Liberals' idea of promoting 'strategic sectors' actually sounded good to me, although I had little faith that they would implement it. - making the long-form census mandatory again - decriminalizing soft drugs and prostitution - very incremental tax reform, e.g. adding a 31% bracket for people who make over $250 000, scrapping some of the recent boutique tax breaks, very slight increases to wealth tax and inheritance tax, significant cuts to small business tax; really, though, I don't know enough about economics to say anything with great certainty here. - making net neutrality law, prohibiting UBB, ensuring that the Internet is accessible everywhere in the country - promoting fair trade internationally and taking steps to ensure that the trade really is fair - providing stable funding and support for Canadian arts and culture Quote
Evening Star Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 I would try to improve the public understanding of government - by educating and better publicizing government operations, by creating new public forums for debate, by simplifying and flattening government operations. These sound good in principle. What are your thoughts on how this can be done? What do you see as lacking in the existing 'public forums for debate'? I would look for ways to better separate the political side of government from services, perhaps through outsourcing or consolidation I would look for ways to make the public service more dynamic and more closely tied to private business. Does this mean you'd want to accelerate how much the PS already contracts work out? Something else I might lean towards is having a national public employment service, a national 'temp agency' of sort, perhaps. Quote
Smallc Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Such attributes are attributes of the population at large and not the result of government laws. That's true to a point, though government policy is often useful as it shapes intent. People coming here know what kind of place this is. Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) making net neutrality law, prohibiting UBB, ensuring that the Internet is accessible everywhere in the countryI will never understand why people think they have a god given right to use as much bandwidth as they want at a fixed cost. Virtually every other product or service we consume is priced based on consumption. Why is Internet access special?UBB billing laws are like laws that prohibit the sale of single show movie theatre tickets and require theatres to offer monthy packages that give the purchasers the right to see as many movies as they want in that month. Such a law only reduces access to the service by increasing he base cost (in this example movies would become unaffordable to people that can't afford the monthly package fee) and reduce the usefulness of the service because a small minority of hyper-users would consume way more than their fair share. The real problem that needs to be solved is reporting: i.e. ISPs need to provide people with real time information on how much bandwidth they are using so they don't get surprised at the end of the month. Edited January 15, 2012 by TimG Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 If I were PM what would I do? I would attempt to gain the confidence of the House in an effort to make each and every elected representative responsible for some function of government. This nation as all others have more problems than people in public service. The current system is fundamentally flawed as it is a patronage based system. Let us be realistic here, people want to reward their friends and in politics its simply what is done. Herein is a nice paradigm for us. The system can change with the will of the people expressed freely in the House of Commons where it really matters. We can end patronage, nepotism, or anything at all that we so desire with a simple majority vote. We don't. We continue to allow individuals to accumulate power and or wealth and use it against us. We all know it, but we don't do anything about it. That does not speak well of us, that we should continue with the system that we know is fundamentally flawed. As PM, one could speak as an advocate of direct democracy and actually have a chance to bring our nation to the next step in the evolution of our society. In a direct democracy the people determine the passage of legislation, not the government. One person, one vote. You want a say, then you should be able to stand and say it. Creating a direct democracy would soon become a national will, a political will that would provide an entirely new set of opportunities. It would allow us to rethink government from the point of view of the citizen instead of that of the bureaucrat. Every vote in the House of Commons MUST BE a free vote. It is only from the floor of that House that Legislation in this nation can be legally created, and to prevent democracy through partisan means is a very shallow approach to government. It needs to be said that we are a free people with free will. That concept must be enshrined within the terminology of our constitution. As PM you could lead the House into approaching constitutional change in a rational manner. Such change need not be feared. but instead embraced. The first change needed is in the amendment formula, from there the rest is less complex. If I were PM and could wave a magic political wand ....that is the question that was really asked wasn't it? I would give each and every elected member of the House a REAL job with real responsibility and shake the hand of one less senior bureaucrat. I would not simply fire them but instead encourage as many as I could to simply retire in peace. Attrition is the key to successful change in bureaucratic terms. I would use the resources of the Government of Canada to convince its citizens to support direct democracy. I would legislate to make voting a requirement of citizenship. At that point I should hope that true democracy should lead to public opinion compelling change from that point forward. The expressed will of the people. Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Every vote in the House of Commons MUST BE a free vote.Can't be done without changing the consititution. Whipped votes are only possible because the government falls if it loses confidence measures. This ensures MPs have to toe the line if they don't want to be constantly fighting elections. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Can't be done without changing the consititution. Whipped votes are only possible because the government falls if it loses confidence measures. This ensures MPs have to toe the line if they don't want to be constantly fighting elections. Free votes can be done, have been done and will again be done with the consent of the House. Is this statement incorrect? Whipped votes are the creation of partisan affiliation and are not specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Is this statement incorrect? Quote
jbg Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Every vote in the House of Commons MUST BE a free vote. Can't be done without changing the consititution. Whipped votes are only possible because the government falls if it loses confidence measures. This ensures MPs have to toe the line if they don't want to be constantly fighting elections. In the U.S. we've effectively had this system from the get-go. In practice there was some party discipline until 1974, when "reforms" associated with the Watergate era abolished the seniority system for choosing Committee chairs. This doesn't sound important, but the effect was to reduce the party's ability to control what came up for a vote on the floor.The problem has been felt in budgeting and is a large part of the reason for the expansion in government spending and deficits. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Free votes can be done, have been done and will again be done with the consent of the House. Is this statement incorrect?Some votes must be confidence measures. This is the nature of our system. Confidence measures cannot be free votes. You can try to argue to increase the number of free votes but getting rid of whipped votes is impossible unless the system is changed.In any case, I am not sure I want a system where individual MPs have that much automony because it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party. Look to the US to see what happenes when individual congressmen are free to sell their vote to the highest bidder. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Some votes must be confidence measures. This is the nature of our system. Confidence measures cannot be free votes. You can try to argue to increase the number of free votes but getting rid of whipped votes is impossible unless the system is changed. In any case, I am not sure I want a system where individual MPs have that much automony because it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party. Look to the US to see what happenes when individual congressmen are free to sell their vote to the highest bidder. You identify the rot in this system, yet do not want to treat it? In your own words "it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party", you then believe the system is either already corrupt or able to be corrupted, is that correct? Edited January 15, 2012 by Jerry J. Fortin Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 you then believe the system is either already corrupt or able to be corrupted, is that correct?Every system is open to corruption. Democracy's only virtue is it is harder to corrupt than most. The most we can do is minimize the influence of well funded lobby groups (be they business, union, NGOs, whatever). I was musing that a system where the opinion of MPs can't vote freely is not all bad because it means their votes can't be purchased. Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 If the system officially accepts whipped votes, why have the vote at all then. If I were PM I would save the taxpayer time and money by entirely removing MP voting. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Every system is open to corruption. Democracy's only virtue is it is harder to corrupt than most. The most we can do is minimize the influence of well funded lobby groups (be they business, union, NGOs, whatever). I was musing that a system where the opinion of MPs can't vote freely is not all bad because it means their votes can't be purchased. I agree with you for the most part, but. The citizens of this country, through their elected representatives can vote freely in the House of Commons. It is mere partisan convention, political influence that forms the "will of the government" to whip votes in the first place. Granted that whips exist in many political systems, I have yet to find this job or function within the text of the constitution. Do you not find the concept of free voting as appealing at all? Should not the free vote of a citizens be determined to be a fundamental entitlement of our citizenship? Quote
jbg Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 If the system officially accepts whipped votes, why have the vote at all then. If I were PM I would save the taxpayer time and money by entirely removing MP voting. Not all votes are whipped; and A party's share of Parliament varies by popular and regional support. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Not all votes are whipped; and A party's share of Parliament varies by popular and regional support. The concept of free voting needs to be enshrined in our constitution. Its time to revamp the system. I actually think that a leader of citizens could do worse than being an advocate of the free will of citizens to act within the law, in a government where the free will of the people can be expressed democratically in a system of government based on the free votes of the representatives of the people. This is not an argument about anything less than the freedom which a nation can provide for its citizens. It is as simple as deciding how a citizen wishes to be governed. It is as simple as deciding what power and or authority we decide to provide our representatives in government to have. Quote
eyeball Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) You identify the rot in this system, yet do not want to treat it? In your own words "it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party", you then believe the system is either already corrupt or able to be corrupted, is that correct? Treat it? He's done little else but celebrate it while looking down his snout at anyone else who's disgusted with it. No, it's built upon inclusinveness, a diverse population, and the idea that Canada's people build this nation through their contributions, cultural or economic. Judging by the nauseating defence of the status quo I'm seeing in this thread I'd say it's based on sycophantic obsequiousness. Such attributes are attributes of the population at large and not the result of government laws. That's true to a point, though government policy is often useful as it shapes intent. People coming here know what kind of place this is. Certain attitudes also just comes naturally to some people I guess. Edited January 15, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Scotty Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Do you not find the concept of free voting as appealing at all? Should not the free vote of a citizens be determined to be a fundamental entitlement of our citizenship? It's appealing but unrealistic. It would take forever to get a consensus, and it leaves open the certainty that the government would have to cut deals with dozens, scores of MPs, all of whom want something in exchange for their votes. It might be a bridge, highway repair, a new museum, river cleanup, a government office building, who knows. But it would cost money. And they'd had to do that on EVERY vote. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Yes, because tearing apart all of Canada's most important institutions is sure to create a better country. If you think official languages and multiculturalism are Canada's most important 'institutions' it's you who's out of touch with the mainstream. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
jbg Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 If you think official languages and multiculturalism are Canada's most important 'institutions' it's you who's out of touch with the mainstream. To me, the most important Cabinet ministry (since abolished unfortunately) was Minister of State (Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians). That's heavy. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.