• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

What do you want to see?


  • Total voters
    194
Status
Not open for further replies.
Infanteer said:
What would a party run a candidate for if it didn't want to compete for the seat?  Do you think, if there were no vote subsidies, that the NDP wouldn't run 308 candidates with the objective of winning as many seats as possible?  Of course, in many ridings it's a long shot, but as this year's election showed us, nothing is ever for certain.
No, I don't think that ANY party would run in all 308 seats, certainly not in the manner in which the NDP ran in this past election.  Bartender from Ottawa thrown into Three Rivers, Quebec?  Another candidate who couldn't campaign because she couldn't get time off from work: as an NDP fundraiser!



It ran for a few things.  One was to have a legitimate speaking line about 50% of their candidates being women, or some other such nonsese (as opposed to the most competent, to wit, they could all be women).  The NDP is "Democratic" in name only, much like many so-called "democratic republics", past and present.

The other was as stated: the vote subsidy.  Money talks, and there is no friggin' way that even Jack Layton thought that Miss Brosseau was going to win.

As an aside, from my Quebcois colleagues, Mr Layton appeared on a very popular TV show in Quebec, and he did very well, as one would expect.  The polls immediately following its telecast showed the NDP surge starting.  THen it took off.  The votes showed many things, and I think the main thing is that as a province, Quebeckers are fairly socialist: high taxes, nanny state, etc.  So, out with the Bloc, in the the New (democrats, that is).
 
Like I said, once the subsidy is ended, a party may still choose to run candidates in all or most ridings to establish a national presence. Since the reason for having a candidate has changed the people being recruited as candidates will also change.

Fringe parties will continue to run people who are true believers in whatever cause they espouse (there are political parties that campaign for animal rights or to abolish monetary interest). More mainstream parties will need to run serious candidates even where there are limited chances in order to show they are serious (governments in waiting), and to take advantage of missteps of the established party candidate.

Regardless, parties will still round up less than suitable people (it is hard enough to find 308 excellent candidates for anything, now multiply 308 X 19 registered political parties....) and of course the voters are still responsible for their choices.
 
Switching gears a bit, I mentioned in another thread that defining a Triple E Senate in Canada in terms of "equal" would be difficult.  How is equal defined when the goal is regional representation when we have Provinces that are so vast that they compose different regions?  As I stated, the default may be simply to give Provinces a certain amount of seats (say 5).  That being said, there are vast differences within provinces, especially larger ones with metropolitan areas.  Does a province take its seats and divide them up as they see fit along geographic grounds?

I'll propose a Senate of 60 members:
1.  40 members from the provinces - each province is allotted 4 Senators to represent it in the Senate.  Provinces may individually determine how they wish to assign Senate seats within their province (one per geographic area, top 4 out of all candidates, PR from all parties, whatever).
2.  14 members from Canada's major cities, with each city getting 2 Senators.  I've classified a major city as a metropolis with over 1 million people.  At this point, there are 7 - Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, and Edmonton.
3.  6 members from each Territory - 2 per territory.

Due to the majority of seats in a rep-by-pop House of Commons for major cities, some may find para 2 undesirable.  I included it as major cities have unique regional interests that might be distinctly recognized from the interests of smaller cities/rural areas.
 
You'd have to reopen the constitution to do that....senate seats were defined under the charter....that simple? act, opens an entire pandora's box....
 
Package it right and it is doable; Constitutional Reform isn't, nor shouldn't be sacrosanct.  Meech Lake/Charlottetown were disasters because they were packaged around matters of identity and Quebec's position in Canada which are contentious at the best of times.  Focusing more on structural aspects of Canada should be easier.
 
link

..Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien, the architect of the current system.

Harper tried to kill the $2 per vote subsidy in 2008, sparking a rebellion by the opposition parties that nearly cost him his minority government. During the just-concluded election campaign, Harper said a majority Conservative government would phase out the system over two to three years in consultation with the other parties.

"I think [Harper] should reflect on that. The system is working very well," Chrétien told reporters in Quebec City Monday.

Chrétien noted that in his last election, in 2000, the Liberals spent only about two-thirds of the money that Hillary Clinton did to win her U.S. Senate seat.

"So, you know, it means that money in Canadian politics is less important than elsewhere, a lot less important," Chrétien said. "The parties receive it if they are serious, they receive a subsidy from the state. But they don't become prisoners of raising the money."

The Chrétien government created the per-vote direct subsidy in 2004, when it banned corporate donations to parties and limited contributions to ridings or candidates to $1,000 per year. Individual donations were capped at $1,000 per party and $5,000 total, down from $10,000.

In 2006, the new Harper government dropped the individual limit to $1,000 (adjusted to inflation; it was $1,100 in 2010 and will be $1,200 in 2011) and imposed a complete ban on donations from corporations, unions and organizations. Donations to political parties are eligible for up to a 75 per cent rebate.



A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper says killing the subsidy is a platform promise the government intends to fulfill, but they haven't yet decided when to start the process.

"We'll take things one step at a time. It remains a priority and it's in our platform. We will be fulfilling that commitment," Sara MacIntyre said.

Harper and other government officials have said passing the 2011 federal budget is their first priority, followed by legislation that will set into law the anti-crime bills the Conservatives weren't able to pass as a minority government.

In response to a reporter's question, Chrétien said that an end to the direct subsidy will hurt some parties more than others.

"Those [parties] who are closer to the poor people, there's less money to raise among the ... poorer people than the rich people, don't you think? And that will be perhaps, you know, handicapping some element of politics," he said.

"I did not invent the system, the system ... was here in Quebec and after that, it was adopted by Manitoba and after that, I decided to do the same thing for the federal government and I was very proud of it."

"It's a system that is functioning well, you know... but if [Harper] does it for ideological reasons, he will have to explain it," Chrétien said.

Harper argued during the election campaign that political parties already enjoy tax advantages and taxpayers should not financially support political parties that they don't support with their votes.

"I've wanted to change this. But we were very clear: unless we have a majority government we will never attempt to change it because we know in a minority government you can never move this forward," Harper said in early April.

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, in an interview with CBC Radio's Kathleen Petty on election night, confirmed the Conservatives' plan to move ahead with ending the subsidy.

"I think taxpayers shouldn't be subsidising political parties and that's the commitment that we've made," Moore said.

The Conservative Party is by far the strongest fundraiser among Canada's parties. The party consistently raises the most money and has the largest base of contributors, where the Liberal Party has struggled in the past.

In the first quarter of 2011, for example, as the parties prepared to head into an election, the Conservatives raised $7.4 million from 50,478 donors, according to Elections Canada. That's more than double the number of donors of either the Liberals or NDP. The Liberals raised $2.65 million from 22,245 contributors, while the NDP raised $1.9 million from 17,492 people.

The Green Party raised $413,757 from 4,122 donors, while the Bloc Québécois hit $192,644 from 1,858 contributors.

The Liberals, however, were much more successful than usual during the recent election campaign. Party officials say they raised $4 million, more than they did during the last three elections combined.

The subsidy has been lucrative for all the major parties, but particularly for the opposition. The total 2010 allowance for the Bloc, for example, was four times more than the party raised that year through donations. The Greens got a $600,000 boost from the subsidy to its fundraised $1.3 million.

The Liberals raised $6.6 million in 2010 but got $7.3 million from the subsidy, while the NDP raised $4.4 million in donations and got $5 million from the allowance. The governing Conservatives made $10.4 million from the subsidy to add to the $17.4 million they fundraised.
...
 
Chretien put the libs on the road to ruin. People should really stop listening to him. His stale date is past. I'm sure Harper doesn't put a whole lot of stock in him. The PM has pledged to end the subsidy. I'm sure he will.

I don't want my tax money supporting paties I don't like. I'll donate to the party I want in power.
 
From my perspective, Chretien recommending one COA is reason enough to go in the other direction.
 
Technoviking said:
No, I don't think that ANY party would run in all 308 seats, certainly not in the manner in which the NDP ran in this past election.

Missed this one.

The NDP ran 294/295 candidates in the 1993 election and 295/295 candidates in the 1988 election, before Chretien brought in the vote subsidies.  So you are categorically wrong in your assessment.

The NDP is a national party and will run candidates across Canada; they may not be the most qualified, but they legally passed the test.  I saw Ms Brosseau made an appearance in her riding - she is definitely easy on the eyes!
 
Prime Minister Harper may be mulling other options for Senate reform:

http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2011/06/senate-nuclear-option.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BackOffGovernment+%28Back+Off+Government%21%29

The Senate Nuclear Option
Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Harper's Aussie meanderings are spooking some back home:
"Reform means reform. We would like the senators are elected and have fixed terms. We believe we are on track. But the comments of the Prime Minister in his speech in Australia always reflect his thoughts, "said a government source said yesterday in La Presse.
In that speech, Mr. Harper said: "Australia's Senate shows how a reformed upper house can function in our parliamentary system. And Canadians understand that our Senate, as it is today, must change or, as the old upper houses of our provinces, vanish. "(link)

To be fair Harper has not said he would consider abolishing the senate. Neither did Jason Kenney when he recently insinuated that the government would consider more "dramatic" options should the senate reform bill fail in the Senate.
One very real option is to pull a Mulroney: appoint more Senators. Tip the balance of power - but make sure that these guys Harper appoints stick by their word this time. That gives Harper the majority in the Senate he needs to reform it.

Yet Harper used the word "vanish" without much explanation. He would no doubt know the implications back home. This leads me to conclude that Harper intended to cause a splash.

He knows there is no appetite for the type of constitutional reform abolishing the senate would require. Yet every opposition party in parliament supports the notion of "abolishing" the senate. Including some provincial governments.

What I think this really is, is a concerted strategy by Harper to call the opposition's bluff. If they really believe in Senate abolition - we'll give it to them.

This puts the opposition in an awkward position. I don't believe for a moment that the Progressive left in this country actually believed in abolishing the senate so much as opposing the government's senate reform plans. The Canadian Senate has been a boon to the Canadian Left for decades acting as a nice socialist-second-thought to our Elected Accountable House of Commons.

With the Tories calling their bluff, and Senator's seeing that the PM is willing to call it quits with trying to fix the senate, the only option left for those opposed to having an elected accountable senate is to accept reform or face oblivion
 
I've been a keen follower of Senate Reform for many years, and wrote a number of university papers on the topic. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue.


There is one thing people always forget that must be key: Whatever is proposed will need to actually work, and be accepted.

This means no EEE. Quebec will never settle for having 6 Senators (or PEI having 24)
This means no as-powerful-as-the-commons Senate.

There are a few things that I can see being accepted and working.

1 - Term Limits
This is as good as done. Be it 8 years, 9 years, 12 years; the Senate will now have a term limit.

2 - More seats for AB and BC.
Currently, AB and BC each have 6 seats, while NB and NS have 10. This is due to history. If NB and NS could be bribed to giving up their seats, they could, as stupid as it sounds, trade with BC and AB. A more sensible idea that would result in more Senate seats (and thus anger Quebec) would be to give AB and BC 12 each. This is actually what I think will happen at the end of the day.

3 - Elected?
This will come down to exactly how the government does reform. It can either keep everything tightly federal, and hold federal elections to the Senate; or it can hand over responsibility to the Provinces, in which case you'll have some (IE Alberta) electing Senators while others (IE Quebec) will have the Premier appoint them. I can't tell which direction Harper or Canadians are going, but with term limits, and more seats for the western provinces, the desire to also elect Senators may die down, and not happen any time soon.

If we do go elected, the only systems we would likely use are proportional. Either STV as in Australia, or a direct proportional representation system. I also think that we would copy Australia and split our elections over two or three periods so that (in a 6 Senator province) you have either 3 up every 4 years, or 2 up every 4 years, which would make the total term either 8 or 12 years. If you did 2 every 3 years, you could do a 9 year term.
 
Since the essential discriminatory nature of the Act of Settlement of 1701 - something that should burn in the breast of every right thinking Canadian  ;) - provides me with the basis for my proposal for a regency, I hope Prime Ministers Cameron and Harper do not manage to reform the thing. More in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/13/a-woman-first-in-line-to-the-throne-harper-consults-on-succession-changes/
A woman first in line to the throne? Harper consults on succession changes

Postmedia News  Oct 13, 2011 – 10:34 AM ET

By Randy Boswell

British Prime Minister David Cameron has launched a push to rewrite the ancient rules of succession that currently restrict the chances of female royals inheriting the throne.

The issue, to be raised at a Commonwealth leaders’ summit later this month, has been simmering for months in Britain and any changes to eliminate the discriminatory provisions would require a consensus among all 16 Commonwealth nations, including Canada.

According to British news reports, Mr. Cameron has sent letters to each of his Commonwealth counterparts, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging an agreement to update the 1701 Act of Settlement to finally end the practice of giving the royal family’s oldest male heir — even if he has an older sister — to become king.


Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952 after the death of her father, King George VI, because she had no brother.

The issue arose earlier this year in Britain ahead of the April wedding of Prince William and the former Kate Middleton — now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — because an elder daughter born to the newlywed royals would have to defer to her younger brother once William, expected to succeed Prince Charles one day as king, comes to the end of his own reign.

In his letter to Mr. Harper and the other Commonwealth leaders, Mr. Cameron states: “We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life, and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public office we continue to enshrine male superiority.”

While the Canadian government is now likely to join with Britain and other Commonwealth countries in eliminating gender discrimination in the succession rules, Mr. Harper dismissed the issue as a non-priority for Canadians during the federal election campaign in April.

“The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man,” Mr. Harper said at the time, referring to Prince Charles and Prince William.

“I don’t think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time,” Mr. Harper added. “That’s our position, and I just don’t see that as a priority for Canadians right now, at all.”

His comments followed the launch of a campaign by a group of British MPs to “modernize” the Act of Settlement to give both women and Catholics equal status to men and non-Catholics in the line of succession.

In January, British Labour MP Keith Vaz told Postmedia News that the Canadian government’s support for reforming the Act of Settlement was “very important” to his bid for change in the British House of Commons.

“It cannot get through without Canada’s support,” he said at the time.

Mr. Vaz, backed by a number of other MPs, had introduced a resolution in the U.K. Parliament to amend the 1701 act by scrapping provisions that prevent Catholics from becoming king or queen, bar anyone who marries a Catholic from the line of succession and give men a distinct advantage in the regal pecking order.

The 2008 wedding of the Queen’s eldest grandson Peter Phillips and his Canadian bride Autumn Kelly — a Catholic-born Montrealer — had also ignited debate around the rules of succession. Before their marriage, the Canadian woman gave up her Catholic faith and converted to the Church of England to preserve her future husband’s 11th position in the line of succession.

That couple’s first child and the Queen’s first great-grandchild — a British-Canadian daughter named Savannah — was born on Dec. 29.

The little girl is currently 12th in line to the throne. But, under the current provisions of the 1701 law, a future little brother would take the No. 12 spot and push his big sister to No. 13.

Mr. Vaz had urged the renewal of a 2008 all-party agreement to amend the law, and in January called on Mr. Cameron “to legislate an end to these outdated, sexist and anti-Catholic aspects of the constitution.”

Mr. Vaz told Postmedia News in January that he had written to Mr. Harper seeking Canada’s formal backing for the proposed reforms.

During the last attempt to change the law, under former British prime minister Gordon Brown, Robert Finch, chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, offered backing for the reform movement — partly, he said at the time, because those pushing for Canada to become a republic would “no longer be able to claim that the monarchy discriminates against Catholics.”

The Monarchist League “supports amending the Act of Settlement in order to modernize the succession rules,” he has stated.

“The Queen has no official religious role whatsoever in Canada, so it really shouldn’t be an issue to allow Catholics to become King or Queen of Canada.”

In February, a nationwide poll conducted by Postmedia News found that Canadians supported the line-of-succession reform efforts by a three-to-one margin.

About 42% of Canadians polled at the time by Ipsos Reid said they would support changes to allow a monarch’s first-born child, regardless of sex, to be the first in line to the throne.

Just 14% said they would keep the rules of succession the same as they are now, with male members of the Royal Family put to the front of the line.


I love it when 300 year old laws create problems today.
 
The fact that the whole thing revolves around birthright makes me supportive of your Regency proposal....
 
As an ardent monarchist, I am in favour of modernising the Act of Settlement.

I would also be open to look at repatriating (or is it patriating?) the monarchy.  But that's another debate.  :)
 
RangerRay said:
As an ardent monarchist, I am in favour of modernising the Act of Settlement.

I would also be open to look at repatriating (or is it patriating?) the monarchy.  But that's another debate.  :)

Heah, Heah..... and a Huzzah or two for good effect  ;D
 
Given HM is the Queen of Canada, is it not possible to write Canadian Laws which would resolve this problem so far as Canada was concerned? This could be a regency as Edward proposed (and I am free should the position open up  ;)), or even a Canadian "Act of Succession" which simply states the Sovereigns oldest child becomes the next Monarch of Canada.

Just wondering
 
Thucydides said:
Given HM is the Queen of Canada, is it not possible to write Canadian Laws which would resolve this problem so far as Canada was concerned? This could be a regency as Edward proposed (and I am free should the position open up  ;)), or even a Canadian "Act of Succession" which simply states the Sovereigns oldest child becomes the next Monarch of Canada.

Just wondering


I think (and I would be most happy to be corrected) that there are two HUGE problems:

1. We inherited the Act of Succession along with the whole panoply of laws and customs designed to federally unite the Canadians provinces "into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom;"1 and

2. Our Constitution says2 that we can only alter the fundamental 'shape' of our government - and altering the monarch's status would surely be that - by unanimous consent of the Parliament of Canada and ALL provinces. That means a full blown constitutional conference with all that entails - something almost no one in their right mind desires.
----------
1. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Page-1.html
2. PART V, 41
 
30 new seats, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/26/pol-house-seat-distribution.html
30 more MPs for rebalanced House of Commons

CBC News

Posted: Oct 26, 2011

Quebec will get three more seats in the House of Commons under proposed legislation announced Thursday by the Conservative government.

Quebec is getting more seats than originally planned to ensure the province's representation in the Commons matches its share of the country's population.

Ontario will get 15 more seats, British Columbia and Alberta six each and Quebec three under the Fair Representation Act announced by Tim Uppal, minister of state for democratic reform, at a news conference in Brampton Thursday morning.

"Canadians living in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have become significantly underrepresented as their populations have grown," said Uppal in prepared remarks. "The Fair Representation Act delivers on our government's long-standing commitment and moves every single province towards the principle of representation by population."

That will bring the total number of seats in the House of Commons to 338 from the current 308.

The Conservatives had proposed to add seats in only the three fastest growing provinces: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated the government's position, which was included in the party's election platform. He said the government made three promises about representation in the House.

"First of all, that we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the growth of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, the growth of those provinces and their population," he said in Peterborough, Ont.

"That secondly, we would make sure that the number of seats for the small provinces did not fall, that they were protected, and that the proportional representation of Quebec would also be protected, proportional according to population. Those are our three commitments, and we intend to bring forward legislation that respects those commitments."

The party's platform guarantees Quebec won't drop below 75 seats.

Quebec has 75 of 308 seats right now, or 24.4 per cent. July Statistics Canada numbers show Quebec had a population of 7,979,663, or 23.1 per cent of the country's population.

Under the new distribution, the province would have 23.1 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons.


Not as "good" as I wished, not as bad as I feared:

BC: 42 (36+6)  AB: 34 (28+6)  SK: 14  MB: 14 ON: 121 (106+15) QC: 78 (75+3) NB: 10 PEI: 4 NS: 11 NL: 7 = 338
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top