[steve81]

The need for a constitutional reform in Canada

Canada’s constitution is a mess. Yet, no politician wants to step into the constitutional debate. After the failures of the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, the Canadian public became fed up with constitutional talks and punished Mulroney’s Progressive-Conservatives in the 1993 federal election, reducing them to two seats. Quebec, lead by the Parti Quebecois, held a referendum in 1995 to separate Quebec from Canada which was lost by a margin of less than 1%. Since then, there has been no talk about any serious constitutional amendment.

The purpose of the previous constitutional talks was to get Quebec to accept the Constitution Act, 1982, after they refused to do so when the constitution was patriated in 1982. It was mainly symbolic, since the Constitution Act, 1982 applies to Quebec anyway. Since the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, we continued living with our constitution and endured its deficiencies. Fifteen years passed. Things have changed since then…

It’s not just about Quebec anymore

Back then it was all about Quebec. Then came Western alienation, fiscal imbalance and lack of funding for cities. Now even Ontario is unhappy with the federal government, saying they don’t get their fair share of federal transfers. Provinces, who teamed up to form the Council of the Federation to take on the federal government together, now fight between themselves to get more money from Ottawa, thanks to changes in the equalization formula and Paul Martin’s new culture of making side agreements with provinces. This is where the constitutional mess led us. This is not just about symbolic recognition from one province anymore; it’s about taxation and funding of different levels of government and one government not minding its own business. And it won’t be fixed unless the constitution of this country clearly separates jurisdictions between different levels of government and allow taxation powers reflecting that. The 2007 federal budget helped, but it doesn’t fix anything as a future federal government could scrap the changes. It is merely a temporary solution to a deeper problem. So, who will initiate the constitutional talks now?

The politicians won’t do it

It seems to be a non-issue. Politicians don’t want to get into constitutional talks because of the aftermath of the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. But we tend to forget that these attempts to find a solution, even though they didn’t go far enough, were aimed at fixing some problems we are still enduring today. Canadians didn’t like that the Meech Lake Accord was negotiated behind closed doors, so the Charlottetown Accord was submitted to a national referendum in 1992. But it was still negotiated behind closed doors! The 1992 referendum was lost because during the campaign, many Canadians found one thing they didn’t like in the Accord and voted against it. It was seen by many as how a certain elite of the country wanted Canada to be and was rejected. It was also necessary to have the yes side win in all ten provinces to win. So if only one province had said no, it would still have been a failure!

There is no legal need to have a referendum to amend the constitution. What Canadians didn’t like is that previous accords were negotiated behind closed doors. It’s time Canadians have their say in this. It was hard for ordinary Canadians to get heard back then, but today things are different…

We have the internet

We can share our ideas of how Canada should be. Just look at the importance of the internet in recent elections. If we can get enough attention from the press and the public, then politicians will have to start talking about it. In the meantime, we have to discuss about proposals to amend the constitution and get heard. To start the debate, I will share my ideas with you. You probably won’t agree with everything below and I may change my mind on some issues in the future. My goal is to start a discussion. In order to do that, I will tell you my vision of how Canada should be. To be short, I think the Constitution Act, 1867 should be scrapped and some parts of the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended. In order to achieve that, we would need the support of the House of Commons, the Senate and the legislative assemblies of the ten provinces. The first thing to do is to get a Head of State of our own…

Form of Government

Canada should become a federal republic. It’s time to end our ties with the Queen. This means we would no more have a Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. Canada would have a Prime Minister and provinces would each have a First Minister (Premier), who would each be Head of State and Head of Government. The Prime Minister would also be Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces and his/her official residence would be Rideau Hall (instead of 24 Sussex).

In a presidential system, the executive and legislative branches are separated. I'm proposing something like a presidential system, but we would have a Prime Minister instead of a President. The executive and legislative branches would be separated. A system of checks and balances (to be defined) would have to be made between the different branches. A mechanism to appoint judges should be defined (no elections) and a fourth branch of Government should also be created: Auditory. We have an independent Auditor General right now, but she doesn’t have much power.

The actual Senate should not be reformed, it should be abolished. The Senate was supposed to be the voice of the provinces at the federal level. This won’t be necessary anymore as provinces will be autonomous and independent of the federal government in their jurisdictions (read below). An upper chamber is not necessary in Canada and would only gridlock legislation. A system of checks and balances between the different branches of Government should be enough.

Electoral System

We should have fixed election dates. Canadians would vote every two years, with alternating federal and provincial elections. This means governments would be in place for four years and elections could not be triggered by a non-confidence vote, bringing more stability. The process for the budget could be similar to the one in the United States.

Prime Minister and Premiers should be elected by the people with Instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting), with no obligation to rank all candidates (a minimum of one would be required). There should be no official party affiliation for this race. This would give less power to the parties. To enter the race, a non-refundable deposit should be paid and a minimum number of signatures should be collected in order to discourage frivolous and non-serious candidates.

We should have proportional representation for Parliament and legislative assemblies. This idea doesn’t get much support actually because we would always get minority governments with proportional representation. Canadians like minority governments, but they don’t like going to the polls every 18 months. This would not be a problem anymore in a presidential system with fixed election dates. MPs and MLAs should be elected through a Single Transferable Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote) system, like BC-STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV#System_design) (with no party lists).

Distribution of Powers

Federal and provincial powers would be more clearly defined and separated. There would be no more joint federal-provincial funding and no more federal interventions in provincial jurisdictions. Either something would falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Provinces should be allowed to sue the federal government if the federal government doesn’t respect provinces powers and vice-versa.

Some actual jurisdictions could switch to the other level of government. For example, it would make more sense to have securities as a federal jurisdiction. No more joint federal-provincial funding would mean that highways, for example, would be funded by only one level of government. The Trans Canadian Highway would be 100% federal and all other highways would be 100% provincial. No subsidies or funding would be allowed to something that is not in the government’s jurisdiction. This would make levels of governments more accountable to the public as they could not blame the other level of government for their failures.

Basically, things of national interests (e.g. defense, foreign affairs) and things that should be uniform across Canada (e.g. drug approval, securities regulations) should be federal. These powers would have to be expressly defined in the new Constitution. Residual powers should be given to the provinces and not the federal government.

The federal government would be responsible of foreign affairs. The executive branch of the federal government would sign international agreements, which would need to be ratified by the legislature. When an international agreement would concern provincial jurisdictions, it would have to be ratified by the provinces legislative assemblies (a formula like 2/3 of the provinces representing 50% population could be used). Provinces could also be allowed to sign and ratify international agreements related to their jurisdictions. This would be welcomed in Quebec.

Health and social federal transfers would be abolished. Federal taxes would be lowered and provincial taxes would be raised. Equalization should either be abolished or reformed to be objectively fair (no special treatment or deal should be allowed).

Cities and regions

Another major issue is cities. Maybe cities with a certain minimum number of citizens should have powers allocated in the Constitution (with necessary taxation powers). Cities should deal with municipal services, which could be defined in the Constitution. Rural municipalities would remain under provincial jurisdiction.

What about downtown versus suburbs funding/taxation/governance? Certainly something that needs to be studied further. Are municipal agglomeration councils a good thing? I can’t think of any solution or proposal for now.

Other

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be kept intact, except where some adaptations would be required. Same thing for official languages.

There is also the topic of Aboriginal Peoples that needs to be dealt with. Maybe it’s time to give aboriginal on federal reserves the right to private property.

It would be the perfect time to do a Maritime Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Union). New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island could merge and be renamed Acadia (Acadie in French).

Labrador should separate from Newfoundland and become a territory.

The municipalities within the National Capital Region should be under federal jurisdiction. This means Ottawa would remain in Ontario and Gatineau would remain in Quebec, but municipal affairs would be handled by the federal government. This would be beneficial as OC Transpo and the STO could merge (for example). Normal provincial services would still be handled by provincial governments. Quebec civil law would still apply to Gatineau and Ontario common law would still apply to Ottawa.

Finally, it might be a good thing to mention in the Constitution that Canada is indivisible. Maybe the Constitution could specify that to in order to leave Canada, a province would be required to hold a referendum and get 60% or 2/3 support (clear majority).

Keep in mind this is a draft. Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

[MistyMountainHop]

Sounds a little bit too American for my liking.

[Canadian Mind]

most my qualms are merely symbolic, could we avoid using the same names as the in the states?

Keep the whole "province" bit, just give them most of the same powers as actual states. In my mind this wouldn't include healthcare, which would be something federally controlled, as to guaruntee all canadians, from the richest province to poorest province and territory would be granted adequate healthcare.

As far as highways go, please nationalise the Trans-Canada, aswell as highways that stem from the Trans-Canada to International Borders.

As for the maritime union, in addition to that, take the opportunity to re-organize other provinces, including; splitting northern Ontario off and merging it with Sask and Man, taking the northeastern Part of BC (eas of the rockies) and merging it with Alberta, and splitting of the northern and Eastern Parts of Quebec, Merging them with Labrador, and calling the new jurisdiction another territory.

As for as presidents and Governors, atleast come up with new names. I like republic system though, just ensure proportional representation.

I still want the queen on our coins though, its a part of our history.

[steve81]

most my qualms are merely symbolic, could we avoid using the same names as the in the states?

[...]

As for as presidents and Governors, atleast come up with new names. I like republic system though, just ensure proportional representation.

The names could be different, it's easier to call them like that for now. As for states versus provinces, Quebec doesn't like being just a province and would prefer being called a state (État in French).

The Canadian states would NOT be like the American states. In the United States, the government is centralized in Washington. What I'm proposing is a more decentralized version of what we have in Canada right now. Completely different.

[m0nkyman]

Maybe it’s time to give aboriginal on federal reserves the right to private property.

Can we give it to the rest of us while we're at it. :tup:

[steve81]

Keep the whole "province" bit, just give them most of the same powers as actual states. In my mind this wouldn't include healthcare, which would be something federally controlled, as to guaruntee all canadians, from the richest province to poorest province and territory would be granted adequate healthcare.

I disagree. That would be too American, where the federal government is responsible of health care. The delivery of health care services should remain provincial. I want to give more power to the provinces.

I'm not renaming provinces states to do like the Americans, I'm doing that to please Quebec. Mexico has states. As for President, the US doesn't have a monopoly of presidential systems. France has a President and it's not like the United States. As for Governor, look at what we have right now:

Governor General
Lieutenant Governor

I don't want this thread to become a "We should Americanize Canada". That has not even crossed my mind when I wrote that. Please comment on the ideas. If there's something you don't like, tell us why.

[trueviking]

yes, we should work as hard as we can to ensure that canada devolves into a loose collection of small republics with no central authority.

god bless america...i mean canada...or whichever you are trying to make us.

[someone123]

I think this whole issue would go away if the federal government would focus more on actual services and taxation levels rather than the abstract diversion of tax dollars.

Right now it is a constant tug of war between the federal government and provinces and I don't think either side has specific needs. It is just a cash grab that can be translated into later vote buying.

These changes don't seem great for the Atlantic region. Why not just join the US? Would the rest of the country even care?

[brento79]

Sorry I think we can improve on what we have, not having to change the whole system. Who cares if we aren't a republic? Or what the name of provinces are. Sure there needs to be some reforms but why should we adopt Americanized policy?

[m0nkyman]

]Would the rest of the country even care?
Yes.

[steve81]

Sorry I think we can improve on what we have, not having to change the whole system. Who cares if we aren't a republic? Or what the name of provinces are. Sure there needs to be some reforms but why should we adopt Americanized policy?

It's not Americanized policy. In the United States, pretty much everything is centralized in the federal government, like health care and education. In Canada, we are more decentralized and the provinces handle education and the delivery of health care services. But the provinces depend on federal funding to be able to fulfill their duties. The federal government intervenes in provincial jurisdictions all the time. Provinces should be able to collect the taxes they need to deliver their services, they should not have to wait after Ottawa to get the money they should have collected in the first place. This is what my proposal is about.

It is also about democracy and proportional representation. If we were to adopt proportional representation right now, we would never have a majority government again. The problem with that is that elections can be triggered too often. That is why I propose a presidential system. Actually, the Prime Minister and Premiers (when they have a majority) control everything. People vote mostly for party leaders anyway, so a presidential system might not be such a bad idea.

[steve81]

I think this whole issue would go away if the federal government would focus more on actual services and taxation levels rather than the abstract diversion of tax dollars.

Right now it is a constant tug of war between the federal government and provinces and I don't think either side has specific needs. It is just a cash grab that can be translated into later vote buying.

These changes don't seem great for the Atlantic region. Why not just join the US? Would the rest of the country even care?

I agree that it's a constant tug of war between the federal government and the provinces to grab the cash. That is why I think that if each level of government could be completely independent (as much as possible), it would be much better.

I certainly wouldn't want the Atlantic region to join the US, being from New Brunswick.

[Boris2k7]

It's not Americanized policy. In the United States, pretty much everything is centralized in the federal government, like health care and education. In Canada, we are more decentralized and the provinces handle education and the delivery of health care services. But the provinces depend on federal funding to be able to fulfill their duties. The federal government intervenes in provincial jurisdictions all the time. Provinces should be able to collect the taxes they need to deliver their services, they should not have to wait after Ottawa to get the money they should have collected in the first place. This is what my proposal is about.

No, the states have a less centralized system but power of the purse allows the federal government more control. The same thing happens in Canada, but the consititutional structure is more centralized than here in the first place.

It is also about democracy and proportional representation. If we were to adopt proportional representation right now, we would never have a majority government again. The problem with that is that elections can be triggered too often. That is why I propose a presidential system. Actually, the Prime Minister and Premiers (when they have a majority) control everything. People vote mostly for party leaders anyway, so a presidential system might not be such a bad idea.

There is absolutely no need for a stupid presidential system. What we need is a mixed member system, most of which are quite stable.

[Boris2k7]

BTW, rights to private property is one of the last things we need. It would strip the ability for cities to make plans and acquire property of its constitutional basis. It would also mean handing an unecessary amount of power to the self-interested individual, which clearly goes against more Canadian collectivism.

Basically, most of what you are proposing is very Americanized.

[steve81]

BTW, rights to private property is one of the last things we need. It would strip the ability for cities to make plans and acquire property of its constitutional basis. It would also mean handing an unecessary amount of power to the self-interested individual, which clearly goes against more Canadian collectivism.

Basically, most of what you are proposing is very Americanized.

I do agree with what you're saying on private property, I was only referring to aboriginals.

The only thing that could be seen as American is the Presidential system. But just because it's American doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There are many presidential systems around the world, not just the US. Feel free to explain any other alternatives you might think about (the idea is to discuss solutions).

[waterloowarrior]

I think a big problem is that many of your ideas just cast off Canadian traditions and political history and we become almost like a generic state.

I feel that constitutional reform is better achieved by using systems like MMP, reforming the Senate, and devolution of powers. These processes are like evolutions of the Westminster parliamentary system - just look at everything that's happened in the UK over the last while and is still happening today.

We can achieve the goals of improving our constitution and governance while also maintaining our national identity, traditions, British heritage, and uniquely Canadian quirks that make this country great!

edit: Parliamentary > Presidential ;)

[steve81]

Allright, I'm going to edit my post and change "state" for "province", "President" for "Prime Minister" and "Governor" for "First Minister/Premier". But it will still be the same proposal.

[Boris2k7]

I think a big problem is that many of your ideas just cast off Canadian traditions and political history and we become almost like a generic state.

I feel that constitutional reform is better achieved by using systems like MMP, reforming the Senate, and devolution of powers. These processes are like evolutions of the Westminster parliamentary system - just look at everything that's happened in the UK over the last while and is still happening today.

We can achieve the goals of improving our constitution and governance while also maintaining our national identity, traditions, British heritage, and uniquely Canadian quirks that make this country great!

Well said. The proposal is just too radical and doesn't jive with the Canadian experience or identity. There need for such large changes, as opposed to "evolutions," isn't really all that apparent. Canada is still quite stable, its citizens rather unpolitical, the economy rolling along, and the threat of seperation still marginal. There are problems, but they can be fixed within the confines of our current system, and perhaps to the greater benefit of Canadians.

Steve81: it isn't about the semantics. The problem is that things like a seperation between state and government, a collectivist outlook, and responsible government are integral to Canada. To sacrifice these on a whim seems rather irrational.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Speaking as an immigrant from the US, I like having a queen. And fixed election dates don't improve democracy.

[e909]

I'm going to agree with the OP. They are all fairly good ideas. I don't think we should avoid change just to not "look american".

With that said the country is too complacent to change a thing. It'd never happen.

[e909]

Speaking as an immigrant from the US, I like having a queen. And fixed election dates don't improve democracy.
I'm mixed on that issue. I am against everything and anything the queen and the monarchy stands for, but I realize it has brought stability to us for a very long time. :shrug:

[steve81]

Some changes will have to be made in the future. The ADQ almost won in Quebec and they could very well win the next Quebec provincial election, which may come quickly. The ADQ wants more autonomy for Quebec and Mario Dumont said he wants to open the Constitution. Even though he's not a separatist, he wants more power for Quebec.

The funding problem is real. Personally I doubt the last federal budget will put an end to the bickering between the federal government and the provinces, like Minister Flaherty said. It certainly helped though, and was a good move.

[steve81]

As for the Queen, I'll let Rick Mercer explain:

Rick Mercer rants about the Queen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ)

:P

[e909]

Some changes will have to be made in the future. The ADQ almost won in Quebec and they could very well win the next Quebec provincial election, which may come quickly. The ADQ wants more autonomy for Quebec and Mario Dumont said he wants to open the Constitution. Even though he's not a separatist, he wants more power for Quebec.

The funding problem is real. Personally I doubt the last federal budget will put an end to the bickering between the federal government and the provinces, like Minister Flaherty said. It certainly helped though, and was a good move.
It exploded a can of worms out east though. The federal budget was a band-aid solution that covered most of the problems, but left some of them exposed still. I suppose the Atlantic provinces will always whine about the amount of funding they get, but I'm just astounded at the amount of work and time Newfoundland is putting into whining for more money. Maybe they should use those resources to improve their province to make it more sustainable?

I think the best idea would be to end the idea of equalization entirely, and work to make each province more financially independent.

[steve81]

I feel that constitutional reform is better achieved by using systems like MMP, reforming the Senate, and devolution of powers. These processes are like evolutions of the Westminster parliamentary system - just look at everything that's happened in the UK over the last while and is still happening today.

I don't like MMP as it gives too much power to the parties. In BC, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform opted for a modified version of Single Transferable Vote, called BC-STV, which was almost adopted by referendum. It will likely be adopted next time.

http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf

[trueviking]

i really dont get why canadians have this attraction to make their province a pseudo independent state...it surely must be unique in the world....it is such a weird thing to strive for.

i guess albertans want to hoard their money because they were lucky enough to live in the area of canada where dinosaurs lived....and we all know what quebec wants, but why does everyone else want their province to be a mini country?.....its such a short sighted outlook....the province you are living in right now...wherever you are, will eventually need the stability of the rest of the country...

i believe in a centralized strong nation...

[trueviking]

I think the best idea would be to end the idea of equalization entirely, and work to make each province more financially independent.

not surprising....we should all be as smart as albertans eh?....how should they we do that exactly?...start searching for oil in our back yards?

self centred greed.

[malek]

Some changes will have to be made in the future. The ADQ almost won in Quebec and they could very well win the next Quebec provincial election, which may come quickly. The ADQ wants more autonomy for Quebec and Mario Dumont said he wants to open the Constitution. Even though he's not a separatist, he wants more power for Quebec.

The funding problem is real. Personally I doubt the last federal budget will put an end to the bickering between the federal government and the provinces, like Minister Flaherty said. It certainly helped though, and was a good move.

Dumont is a separatist on hold, wait and see!

[trueviking]

^thats pretty obvious....

[jeremy_haak]

While I'm not opposed to constitutional reform, this proposal seems to ignore anything we have learned from our own history.

To take one example, the jurisdiction of provinces and the federal government was set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. Not unexpectedly, times have change over the past 140 years, and certain things that the Fathers of Confederation never anticipated became issues, such as jurisdiction over airports. Besides entirely new issues arising, some issues that it focused on lost any relevance, and others that were largely ignored became tremendously important. It's rather naive to believe that amending the formula is going to change anything. There will always be new things like air travel and the internet, and as these issues arise, they'll get resolved through negotiation or the courts as is necessary. The Canada Health Act arose, not because the federal government has any jurisdiction over healthcare delivery, but because the provinces (save Quebec, which is excluded from the Act) recognized the importance of a federal role in healthcare.

Also, why do you feel that separating the government from the legislature is necessary? I happen to believe that the government has to be far more accountable in Canada because it is part of the legislature. Why in the world would you favour less accountability?

You've painted a picture of the sort of government you would like, but you haven't really offered any justification for the changes you support. If you're prepared to throw out centuries of tradition and laws and conventions that have stood the test of time, you're going to need to offer a better reason to do away with them than you have here.

You spoke about why the Charlottetown Accord failed, and I'm inclined to agree with you. The Constitution is too delicate a subject to be dealt with in sweeping measures, that's why, save the Constitution Act, 1982, there have been no significant changes to the Constitution, instead it has slowly evolved piece by piece. I don't know about you, but such a careful approach seems far more prudent to me. Yeah, lobby for PR, or abolishment or reform of the Senate. Personally, I believe each of those issues deserves individual scrutiny before allowing such important changes.

[e909]

not surprising....we should all be as smart as albertans eh?....how should they we do that exactly?...start searching for oil in our back yards?

self centred greed.
It has nothing to do with greed. But I guess what you're saying just reinforces the notion that Canadians think of Albertans as greedy and un-canadian, yet we foot larger than proportional amounts of the bill to keep other provinces afloat.

I do not suggest the abolishment of equalization due to greed. I suggest the abolishment of it due to the fact that it creates a dependence from certain provinces who spend more time trying to funnel money from the feds than to improve their economy and make it sustainable. All I suggest is each province should be responsible for its own finances to provide for its own services.

[steve81]

Also, why do you feel that separating the government from the legislature is necessary? I happen to believe that the government has to be far more accountable in Canada because it is part of the legislature. Why in the world would you favour less accountability?

You've painted a picture of the sort of government you would like, but you haven't really offered any justification for the changes you support. If you're prepared to throw out centuries of tradition and laws and conventions that have stood the test of time, you're going to need to offer a better reason to do away with them than you have here.

You spoke about why the Charlottetown Accord failed, and I'm inclined to agree with you. The Constitution is too delicate a subject to be dealt with in sweeping measures, that's why, save the Constitution Act, 1982, there have been no significant changes to the Constitution, instead it has slowly evolved piece by piece. I don't know about you, but such a careful approach seems far more prudent to me. Yeah, lobby for PR, or abolishment or reform of the Senate. Personally, I believe each of those issues deserves individual scrutiny before allowing such important changes.

Thanks for the reply. I favor separating the government from the legislature for several reasons. First, people gets to elect the head of state. In the actual system, people tend to vote for the leaders of the parties anyway. Separating the executive and the legislative branch let people vote directly for the Prime Minister and they could vote for local representatives independently from their choice of leader. With a good system of checks and balances between the executive and the legislative branch, you can ensure they are both accountable. I also favor separating the government from the legislature as a solution to end the possibility of government being overturned by a vote of non-confidence. I would prefer fixed election dates and no snap election. But there could be other solutions to this. I also prefer separating the government of the legislature because I personally like the Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers). I feel that too much power is given to the PM right now (especially with a majority government).

I certainly agree with you that each change should get individual scrutiny before being adopted. I'm not necessarily advocating radical changes at once. The reason Charlottetown failed is because it was presented as a package deal to the population. Even if some people agreed with most of it, they voted against because of one thing they didn't like.

I'm just trying to start a discussion here. I do see that there seems to be a lot of resistance against change. I certainly don't expect most people to agree 100% with what I wrote. I just wanted to start a discussion.

[skyscraper_1]

All I suggest is each province should be responsible for its own finances to provide for its own services. IF ALL provinces were created equal.

[e909]

IF ALL provinces were created equal.
They shouldn't all be equal. A decent amount of services, yes, and that can be achieved without equalization.

[trueviking]

It has nothing to do with greed. But I guess what you're saying just reinforces the notion that Canadians think of Albertans as greedy and un-canadian, yet we foot larger than proportional amounts of the bill to keep other provinces afloat.

I do not suggest the abolishment of equalization due to greed. I suggest the abolishment of it due to the fact that it creates a dependence from certain provinces who spend more time trying to funnel money from the feds than to improve their economy and make it sustainable. All I suggest is each province should be responsible for its own finances to provide for its own services.

what a brutal comment your first sentence is....that is so condescending it makes me sick.

you're like the smug 3rd generation millionaire who drives his limo through working class neighbourhoods telling poor people that they ought to work harder, berating them for accepting social assistance as if it was a form of weakness...like if they didnt have social assistance, they would somehow figure out how to be wealthy like you.....insisting that your generosity be recognized because you pay tax on your found money.

we live in a fucking country...why should there not be a system which guarantees some basic level of prosperity for all the citizens of canada....the fishery dies in the maritimes, you say fuck them, i live in part of the country that is lucky enough to have oil...they should fix their own problems and not benefit from my fortune....it is totally self centred greed...nothing else.

you have the too often vocalized belief that you are somehow smarter than the rest of us because there used to be dinosaurs in alberta....this naive atitude that the rest of the provinces should just figure out how to be rich like yours is sickening....

alberta's time will come....read your history books....every region has had its turn at the top...today alberta is lucky enough to be swiming in the greatest building block of human society since the industrial revolution....it is a great bit of fortune that you should accept humbly, instead of looking down your nose at the rest of us who do not have that luck.

your greedy, regionalist attitude is the single biggest problem with our country....sadly, your views are not un-canadian...i wish they were....

i wish it was 'canadian' to believe that you lived in a country where all people deserve to have a basic level of prosperity...that when one part of our country is prosperous for what ever reason, that it is transfered on some minimal level to the rest of the citizens of the country.....instead we act like school children defending our own little piece of the sandbox.

[e909]

what a brutal comment your first sentence is....that is so condescending it makes me sick.

you're like the smug 3rd generation millionaire who drives his limo through working class neighbourhoods telling poor people that they ought to work harder, berating them for accepting social assistance as if it was a form of weakness...like if they didnt have social assistance, they would somehow figure out how to be wealthy like you.....insisting that your generosity be recognized because you pay tax on your found money.

we live in a fucking country...why should there not be a system which guarantees some basic level of prosperity for all the citizens of canada....the fishery dies in the maritimes, you say fuck them, i live in part of the country that is lucky enough to have oil...they should fix their own problems and not benefit from my fortune....it is totally self centred greed...nothing else.

Aside from all of the Ad hominem attacks...

berating them for accepting social assistance as if it was a form of weakness...like if they didnt have social assistance, they would somehow figure out how to be wealthy like you.....insisting that your generosity be recognized because you pay tax on your found money.
All I am arguing is that provinces currently accepting massive amounts of equalization have nothing long-term to gain from it. I fail to see how a transfer of wealth from one end of the country to another will make the country more sustainable.

I am not arguing against federal funding to keep a basic amount of funding for basic services like health care ,if needed, but I don't think there should be any long term guarantee of funding to the provinces through a legislated formula.

The way I see it is these provinces are less inclined to develop their economies to become economically sustainable because they actually loose revenue from the federal purse by doing that.

you have the too often vocalized belief that you are somehow smarter than the rest of us because there used to be dinosaurs in alberta....this naive atitude that the rest of the provinces should just figure out how to be rich like yours is sickening....

Have not stated any such things. I don't believe Alberta is any smarter or better than the rest of the country.

alberta's time will come....read your history books....every region has had its turn at the top...today alberta is lucky enough to be swiming in the greatest building block of human society since the industrial revolution....it is a great bit of fortune that you should accept humbly, instead of looking down your nose at the rest of us who do not have that luck.

Alberta won't always be at the giving end of the equalization formula. I understand that.


your greedy, regionalist attitude is the single biggest problem with our country....sadly, your views are not un-canadian...i wish they were....

i wish it was 'canadian' to believe that you lived in a country where all people deserve to have a basic level of prosperity...that when one part of our country is prosperous for what ever reason, that it is transfered on some minimal level to the rest of the citizens of the country.....instead we act like school children defending our own little piece of the sandbox.

The problem is we aren't transferring on some minimal level. I, as an Albertan, am directly paying for services in Quebec which even I do not receive living in the richest province in the country. How is that a "minimalist" level? I think you misunderstand my intentions. I want some sort of system that is actually SUSTAINABLE. Instead of just forking over a formulated amount of money to the needing provinces, I would rather have a system that ENCOURAGES economic development in all areas of the country.

[skyscraper_1]

The way I see it is these provinces are less inclined to develop their economies to become economically sustainable because they actually loose revenue from the federal purse by doing that.Is there any proof of this? There still is a motivation in each respective province to develop the economy, they will be thrown out of office if the economy does not improve.

It could be also argued that the rich provinces also are less inclined to develop there economies because it will be clawed back, but we know this isn't the cause.

[e909]

Is there any proof of this? There still is a motivation in each respective province to develop the economy, they will be thrown out of office if the economy does not improve.

It could be also argued that the rich provinces also are less inclined to develop there economies because it will be clawed back, but we know this isn't the cause.
Remember last year when Newfoundland would have actually received less federal funding as a result of developing their offshore oil fields?

[ScottFromCalgary]

what a brutal comment your first sentence is....that is so condescending it makes me sick.

you're like the smug 3rd generation millionaire who drives his limo through working class neighbourhoods telling poor people that they ought to work harder, berating them for accepting social assistance as if it was a form of weakness...like if they didnt have social assistance, they would somehow figure out how to be wealthy like you.....insisting that your generosity be recognized because you pay tax on your found money.

we live in a fucking country...why should there not be a system which guarantees some basic level of prosperity for all the citizens of canada....the fishery dies in the maritimes, you say fuck them, i live in part of the country that is lucky enough to have oil...they should fix their own problems and not benefit from my fortune....it is totally self centred greed...nothing else.

you have the too often vocalized belief that you are somehow smarter than the rest of us because there used to be dinosaurs in alberta....this naive atitude that the rest of the provinces should just figure out how to be rich like yours is sickening....

alberta's time will come....read your history books....every region has had its turn at the top...today alberta is lucky enough to be swiming in the greatest building block of human society since the industrial revolution....it is a great bit of fortune that you should accept humbly, instead of looking down your nose at the rest of us who do not have that luck.

your greedy, regionalist attitude is the single biggest problem with our country....sadly, your views are not un-canadian...i wish they were....

i wish it was 'canadian' to believe that you lived in a country where all people deserve to have a basic level of prosperity...that when one part of our country is prosperous for what ever reason, that it is transfered on some minimal level to the rest of the citizens of the country.....instead we act like school children defending our own little piece of the sandbox.

Ya but what's the point of being rich if you can't rub it in your neighbor's face.:cheers:

[steve81]

About MMP... it seems the Citizens Assembly in Ontario opted for an MMP system with closed lists. Which means the parties get to decide who will be elected. This is what I don't like with MMP. An MMP system with opened lists would certainly be better.

Personally, I would still prefer the BC-STV model. With MMP, I get the feeling it creates two classes of MLAs (local and provincial), and you still get the disadvantages of FPTP for local MLAs. The party winning most seats with FPTP will get most local MLAs, while the other parties will get more provincial MLAs to compensate.

Both BC-STV and MMP (with regional opened lists) would be an improvement over the current situation though. Take for example the last Québec provincial election. No MNAs from the ADQ have been elected on the island of Montréal, but 22% (I think) voted for them. STV and MMP (with regional opened lists) would ensure local representation for major parties everywhere. But I think STV would do a better job at this. But STV can be less proportional than MMP. No system is perfect.

The Ontario Citizens Assembly MMP proposal has the advantage of being simple and easy to understand. People vote for a local candidate (FPTP) and for a party. 70% of MLAs are elected FPTP, 30% are elected through party lists to compensate and put the legislature proportional (according to the party votes). The results are proportional, but to me it seems to be a patch of an inefficient system.

In other countries with proportional representation, coalition governments have been stable. This means we would be better with PR than with FPTP minority governments. Less elections would be triggered with coalition governments, and we could have fixed election dates for normal elections. I do think though we would need time to adapt before seeing coalition governments in Canada. The actual parties would not want to make coalitions at first, new parties would probably be created and with time we would get stability. I still personally prefer separating the executive from the legislative branch, because people would get to elect their head of government and head of state. But PR with the actual system seems to be doable. I'm not sure though our governments would be stable at first, with our present political culture, but I guess with time they would have to adapt.