A system that gives MPs more power to hold the Pm and govt to account is good. We don't have that right now. The executive which is the PM, runs Parliament like a chess player moves his pawns on a chessboard. Our legislature is very weak in Ottawa as ut cannot subpeona information to do its job properly.
The Republic of Canada
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
A system that gives MPs more power to hold the Pm and govt to account is good. We don't have that right now. The executive which is the PM, runs Parliament like a chess player moves his pawns on a chessboard. Our legislature is very weak in Ottawa as ut cannot subpeona information to do its job properly.
Canada has the best system look at USA takes a long time to get a bill to law and most bills end up on the Senate floor
dumpthemonarchy, we could not simply fail to appoint Governors General or Lieutenant Governors—no bill or constitutional amendment would ever become law again, and no one could ever be appointed to any federal department or judicial institution. The practical functions of the constitutional monarchy are a very real reality of Canadian governance.
First, show me a country that works better than Canada. Our country, with all her faults is still the best place to live on this world. Sure, we have the odd crooked politician, but we also have a lot of honest politicians, who always seem to catch the crooked ones and you want to transition to the dopey system they have on the other side of our southern border where elections are fought by two identical parties.
Nonsense! It is a viable option. Legislation would not be held up. The GG would sign it in the "absence" of the monarch. No prob!
If we're brainstorming a "new way", how about scrapping the GG and the senate, keep the House of Commons but limiting their role to drafting legislation.
Then, once a month, we have a "mass" referendum on everything they've drafted - the people get to have the final say. So, voting day might be the first Monday of every month. There. Now we can all decide on everything and if something goes wrong, we can only blame ourselves.
After a couple of months of that, we might decide to go back to the "good old days!" (The system we have now)
Then, once a month, we have a "mass" referendum on everything they've drafted - the people get to have the final say. So, voting day might be the first Monday of every month. There. Now we can all decide on everything and if something goes wrong, we can only blame ourselves.
After a couple of months of that, we might decide to go back to the "good old days!" (The system we have now)
Direct democracy. I like the idea, but it'll never happen. There are too many politicians that think they know better than Canadians what Canadians need and want.
You're right.
Too bad though...I wonder if the idea could be sold on the basis of politicians having less accountability for their actions (which would then be limited to drafting legislation, instead of voting on it)...that might be the deciding factor for some of them...they would then be in the enviable position of "doing nothing wrong" and thus, would be very electable. It's an interesting thought...
The concept could be tweaked all kinds of ways to make it more practical...like having "Referendum Days" held every 3 months (A quarterly thing), limiting the number of bills to a max. of 10 (so it would be a manageable thing - going for quality instead of quantity), having the draft bills posted online two weeks before the vote so everyone could have a chance to study them a bit before the vote, and likely a few more things to have it all make sense. The summary would also have to include showing which current bills are affected by the new draft one, and what actions (e.g. repealing the old law) would be taken in the event the bill passed, in order to avoid cluttering up the legal scene with overlapping, conflicting laws.
The role of the MPs would then be limited to deciding (voting) on which bills make the "cut" for presentation to the people (us) to make the final decision on Referendum Day(s). Sounds downright utopian, doesn't it?
Yup. And to make sure that people do their homework before voting in a referendum, there could be a little quiz about what each bill is about. Grading the answers would occupy at least part of the bureaucratic jobs that would be lost by giving Canadians power over their own lives.
Good idea. And a good thought about the bureaucracy issue - I wonder how much money we could save by eliminating the Senate? Salaries, expenses, support staff...Hmm...we could implement direct democracy and save a bunch of taxpayer dollars all at the same time.
Gawd. I bet if anyone in Ottawa reads this thread we'll all be brought up on Treason charges.
Naw! Let's Sing It Out!
Sung to the tune of "Jesus Loves Me"...
Though I love my country so,
Change is needed, that I know,
The Charter blankets us like snow,
'Cause SirJP told me so!
You'd better hope the "Treason Police" are church-going types...they'll at least appreciate the tune! (and overlook the lyrics) :lol:
Lover of protocol. Yawn.
Democracy resides in a GG gesture. Get real. Do you know how the GG makes laws. A nod. Very powerful. We see nothing of this so it is nothing.
A bil is law is because our elected legislators make it so. Harper rolled the GG with a phone call last week to prorogue Parliament. The majesty of it all.
Democracy does not reside in the Governor General, but the responsibility to ensure that Canada always has a democratically-elected Government rests with Her Majesty the Queen, performed in all practical terms by the Governor General and our Lieutenant Governors. The very fact that The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson P.C., C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the 25th Governor General needed to watch her second prime minister so very carefully during the ‘confidence motion’ crisis (as stated in her own memoirs) makes it very clear that the Governor General has a practical (and vital) role in Government, as did the fact that our second-to-last request for prorogation took nearly two hours of the prime minister’s time.
We could not simply fail to appoint a Governor General, because Canadian legislation can only be enacted by Her Majesty the Queen with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons. The legislation is drafted and passed by the legislature, but it is only made law by the Royal Assent of Her Majesty through the Governor General or one of the Lieutenant Governors; without that final step, the rules of our parliamentary system would have the legislation die on the floor when the session expires. You cannot circumvent the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 by simply “failing to appoint” a Governor General or Lieutenant Governor, or refusing to proclaim a monarch. Our system of government would simply stop.
We could not simply fail to appoint a Governor General, because Canadian legislation can only be enacted by Her Majesty the Queen with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons. The legislation is drafted and passed by the legislature, but it is only made law by the Royal Assent of Her Majesty through the Governor General or one of the Lieutenant Governors; without that final step, the rules of our parliamentary system would have the legislation die on the floor when the session expires. You cannot circumvent the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982 by simply “failing to appoint” a Governor General or Lieutenant Governor, or refusing to proclaim a monarch. Our system of government would simply stop.
We've got a minority government that spends more time trying to figure out how to shut down Parliament and hide from the press than it does actually running the country, how is that a desirable state of affairs?
Maybe we should just let things slide to the point where we have basically no say in who our elected officials are then we can try and fight for democracy from scratch... it's a lot harder than trying to reform a broken system IMHO.
It really depends on what country you wish to compare Canada to. In many cases Canada looks good only because it is compared to the USA. Thus we come out ahead on things like civility (you know - the myth of the polite Canadians compared to the rude Americans); health care, and the fact that our political system works better. We tend to overlook the fact that compared to many European nations our health care system is second rate, and countries like Sweden have a much more democatic and equitable society. There is also the annoying fact that Canada has allowed 25% of its economy to be owned by foreigners (especially Americans). Try finding a Canadian owned business in the average shopping centre and you will find they are few and far between.