Anybody else support a full-on constitutional convention?

[GritBusters]

On 4/2/2017 at 2:33 PM, Dick Tator said:

Ottawa has proven it can no longer govern Canada effectively and fairly. They constantly misrepresent the needs of Canadians as a whole. Canada is a very diverse country and it is unrealistic to believe that a central government can truly the diverse needs of all Canadians. Therefore it is only logical that each province have full autonomy yet still operate under the umbrella of Canada. 

I'm a left-wing populist and a fair weather New Democrat.

I identify more with Quebec Solidaire and the Pirate Party, but they are not viable options in Eastern Ontario.

I support the following:

Decentralizing powers to all provinces, not just Quebec, and limiting federal jurisdiction to the constitutional minimums outlined in the BNA/Canada Act.

Full status of nationhood for Quebec and the Quebecois. Given that power will be devolved to the provinces and First Nations communities, it will be trivially easy to give Quebec nationhood without any corresponding special powers and privileges that other provinces would lack.

Mixed member proportional representation for the House of Commons and Senate abolition. 

Decentralizing powers away from the Prime Minister, the Premiers, the PMO, and the PCO (and their provincial equivalents). No appointing judges, Senators (if we must keep them), or senior civil servants without full parliamentary oversight.

Fixed parliamentary terms and by-elections within 6 weeks of a riding's going vacant. No more leaving people without local representation in Parliament to manipulate its make-up or to create omnibus by-elections to serve as litmus tests for the government in power.

The right to referendums, popular initiatives, and the recall of elected officials.

Eliminating private money from political parties: let the government take care of the data mining and the campaign financing, and let the parties become philosophically coherent vehicles, dedicated to governing, to being governments-in-waiting, and to serving as factories from which new ideas are generated.

The creating of an 11th province, Outaouais, comprised of the current City of Ottawa and Ville de Gatineau. The current cities will be de-amalgamated (as the amalgamations were imposed by Queen's Park and Quebec City) and powers will be shared between the new provincial governments and the re-established cities of Ottawa, Gloucester, Nepean, Kanata, Vanier, Hull-Aylmer, Gatineau, and the smaller communities I've forgotten.

The calling of a constitutional convention to correct the archaic, undemocratic processes through which our current one was crafted.

[-1=e^ipi]

Constitutional reform is needed, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the kind of reform needed. I'd prefer we attain constitutionally protected freedom of speech (i.e. abolish section 1 of the charter, or better yet, get a new charter), abolish the monarchy & abolish the failed reserve system & indian act.

 

33 minutes ago, GritBusters said:

Decentralizing powers to all provinces, not just Quebec, and limiting federal jurisdiction to the constitutional minimums outlined in the BNA/Canada Act.

 

Better to abolish the provinces. The provinces cause an unnecessary duplication of costs (need more education ministers, MPs, bureaucrats, rules and regulations, etc.) and make it near impossible to coordinate economic, education, environmental and health policy.

[GritBusters]

7 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Constitutional reform is needed, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the kind of reform needed. I'd prefer we attain constitutionally protected freedom of speech (i.e. abolish section 1 of the charter, or better yet, get a new charter), abolish the monarchy & abolish the failed reserve system & indian act.

 

 

Better to abolish the provinces. The provinces cause an unnecessary duplication of costs (need more education ministers, MPs, bureaucrats, rules and regulations, etc.) and make it near impossible to coordinate economic, education, environmental and health policy.

Nobody outside of Ontario and Quebec's pro-Laurentian Consensus factions would seriously support something like this.

Frankly, I don't feel it's imperative that we coordinate health or education policies beyond the provincial level.

In the case of health, I'd rather give more latitude to right-leaning provinces to incorporate private actors and some two-tier programs if it would mean that provinces that are more prone towards electing progressive governments would have a freer hand and more resources to expand coverage to dental care, eye care, and sleep disorder treatment and to implement pharma care.

If you do not have provinces and municipalities to devolve power to, you will have to rely more on stuff like gerrymandering and (especially) malapportionment to keep smaller provinces and rural Canada satisfied.

Sometimes rural Canada has legitimate grievances about being under-represented in the halls of power, sometimes they're just assholes who want to use this lack of power as a bayonet with which to thumb Bibles and bash immigrants and queers.

A decentralized Canada would prevent this problem form occurring and ensure that nobody is over-represented when it comes to our ability to address issues that are truly national in scope.

Edited May 2, 2017 by GritBusters

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, GritBusters said:

Frankly, I don't feel it's imperative that we coordinate health or education policies beyond the provincial level.

 

There are significant positive externalities associated with health and education. In addition, people tend to travel between the provinces. A person may be born in Ontario, educated in Ontario, and then later move to BC and contribute to BC's economy (thus BC's future economy benefits from better education in Ontario today). If provinces control health care & education and they act in their own best interests, then this will result in an underproduction of health care and education in the provinces because the provinces are not internalizing the spillover effects between the provinces of health care and education.

 

Also, with respect to coordination, health care, education & the economy are deeply linked. A more educated and healthy population leaders to a more productive population and thus a better economy. A better economy can lead to richer people, which can lead to better health outcomes and education. Demanding that the federal government manage the economy while having little control over health care and education does not make sense.

 

1 hour ago, GritBusters said:

If you do not have provinces and municipalities to devolve power to, you will have to rely more on stuff like gerrymandering and (especially) malapportionment to keep smaller provinces and rural Canada satisfied.

Implement proportional representation, then gerrymandering is impossible.

 

1 hour ago, GritBusters said:

Nobody outside of Ontario and Quebec's pro-Laurentian Consensus factions would seriously support something like this.

Give all provinces the right to self determination & the right to separate via regular referendums on remaining in Canada (but otherwise eliminate them). This will create a strong incentive for the federal government to satisfy the needs to the different provinces because if a province feels too alienated then they will leave.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Moonlight Graham]

Quebec still hasn't even signed off on the 1982 constitutional changes, and attempt to bring them in to sign it very closely almost led Quebec to separate from Canada.  Re-opening the constitution is extremely politically risky as has been shown.  The last time almost destroyed the country, I say leave it be...

[kimmy]

5 hours ago, GritBusters said:

Nobody outside of Ontario and Quebec's pro-Laurentian Consensus factions would seriously support something like this.

Completely agreed.

There is a significant disconnect between the understanding of local issues from the understanding of issues as seen from Central Canada.  If decisions affecting interior BC were moved to Ottawa, they might as well be moved to London England or to the Moon.  Decisions should be made by the most immediate stakeholders.

 -k

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

Completely agreed.

There is a significant disconnect between the understanding of local issues from the understanding of issues as seen from Central Canada.  If decisions affecting interior BC were moved to Ottawa, they might as well be moved to London England or to the Moon.  Decisions should be made by the most immediate stakeholders.

 -k

I like more federalism and more local decision-making, not less.  It also gives your vote more power. 1in a million is better than 1 in 37 million.

[blackbird]

As far as I know, the only way to change the Constitution is by the existing amending formula in the Constitution.  It would be very difficult or impossible to make even minor changes with this formula.  So how do you propose to get around that hurdle?  That's the legacy of Pierre Trudeau.

Not only is it next to impossible to change the Constitution, but there are probably at least a million ideas how it should be changed.  And for every proposal to change something, there are probably a thousand politicians that would oppose it.  Maybe that's the way Pierre Trudeau wanted it.  He gave Canadians the finger with the Constitution, especially the amending formula.

He even pulled a clever trick to bring in the new Constitution in 1982.  He pretended Canada was bringing the Constitution back from Britain, when he was in fact bringing in a new Constitution.

Edited May 3, 2017 by blackbird

[-1=e^ipi]

13 hours ago, kimmy said:

Completely agreed.

There is a significant disconnect between the understanding of local issues from the understanding of issues as seen from Central Canada.  If decisions affecting interior BC were moved to Ottawa, they might as well be moved to London England or to the Moon.  Decisions should be made by the most immediate stakeholders.

 -k

In that case, why not advocate for BC to become a separate country? What's the point in being in Canada? All you get is your province being disrespected, having it horribly underrepresented in the House of Commons and the Senate, and having money constantly drained from BC via transfer payments and equalization.

[-1=e^ipi]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I like more federalism and more local decision-making, not less.  It also gives your vote more power. 1in a million is better than 1 in 37 million.

Then why not advocate the breakup of Canada into 13 countries? Then your vote will have even more power (actually not really since your vote would no longer impact 37 million people but 1 million people; but whatever)!

[Queenmandy85]

On 5/2/2017 at 8:21 PM, kimmy said:

Completely agreed.

There is a significant disconnect between the understanding of local issues from the understanding of issues as seen from Central Canada.  If decisions affecting interior BC were moved to Ottawa, they might as well be moved to London England or to the Moon.  Decisions should be made by the most immediate stakeholders.

 -k

By the same token, decisions made in Victoria also might as well be moved to Ottawa or the moon.  People in Vancouver think once you get past Hope, you are in Alberta.

[-TSS-]

What kind of proportional representation do you have in mind if by-elections are still possible? I thought in most systems under PR if an MP dies or resigns then the first from the list who didn't get elected replaces the outgoing MP.

[Queenmandy85]

Gritbuster, 

I am curious as to what specific issues are not being represented in Ottawa? 

What sort of a check do you envisage on the House of Commons if you were to abolish the Senate?

How do you maintain a coherent national policy if you strip the Federal Government of it's powers?

If people are so concerned about first past the post, why not have run-off elections in ridings where the top candidate fails to get 50% of the vote? Proportional Representation means your Kootenay East -Revelstoke MP is appointed from a list drawn up by the party and will no doubt some bagman from Toronto. I gives way more power to the political parties. The current system gives you some control over who gets nominated and who gets elected. If the guy you campaigned for doesn't win, that's your fault for not working hard enough in the campaign. Hauling your body out to vote is not enough. If you didn't campaign, you have no right to complain.

You don't need a constitutional amendment to get rid of the position of Prime Minister. The office does not exist in the constitution. 

If you have fixed terms, how do you avoid the two year election campaigns like they have in the U.S.?

"No appointing judges" How do you have a judiciary without Judges? 

If you don't appoint Senators, how do you move away from having politicians in the upper chamber. Remove the Prime minister's involvement in these appointments as well as the judiciary. These appointments are the prerogative of the Crown and that is the appropriate avenue for non-political positions.

Giving nationhood to Quebec would split the country in two and fatally weaken us. 

 

 

[-TSS-]

Which provinces of Canada would be better off as independent countries rather than part of Canada? Certainly not Quebec but almost certainly British Columbia. Perhaps Ontario too.

[Queenmandy85]

B.C would get swallowed up by the Americans and Canada would be cut off from the Pacific rim. The same goes for Ontario. If you split the country, it cannot survive.

[-1=e^ipi]

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

B.C would get swallowed up by the Americans and Canada would be cut off from the Pacific rim. The same goes for Ontario. If you split the country, it cannot survive.

 

That sounds wonderful. It's in the national best interest of Canada and the USA to merge into a single country at some point anyway.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

That sounds wonderful. It's in the national best interest of Canada and the USA to merge into a single country at some point anyway.

The Americans would never adopt our parliamentary democracy.

[JamesHackerMP]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Americans would never adopt our parliamentary democracy.

Exactly.  Unless there was a provision in such a hypothetical union that permitted the former Canadian province to retain its form of government, but the entire United States would remain presidential (so the federal government of the US would remain presidential, the new states--former provinces--would not have to change their own governments).  I don't know if that would work.  Essentially you're right.  Americans have a phobia of parliamentary democracy and Canadians of presidential democracy.  The former is more suited in a "collectivist" version of democracy; the latter, in a more American-style "individual liberty" model.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why would you want either system? Our first past the post system is terrible, as is the electoral college system.

[JamesHackerMP]

Um, there's only three democratic models, really.  The French model (semi-presidential), the Westminster Model (parliamentary) and presidential republics.  Take your pick.

[-TSS-]

I would add to that the Swiss-model; direct democracy.