Sorry to take so long in responding to this, but I've been swamped with work.
You asked: What sort of reforms are we talking about here? Abolish the monarchy? Change the Senate to be more like ours? Compulsory voting? Multi member electorates?
Some people have been talking about abolishing the monarchy for a long time, but it's very much a minority. We'll see what happens when the next generation takes the throne. Senate change is much higher on the discussion list - ours is, as you probably know, appointed. There's a very strong move in the west for an elected Senate, and I think the idea is spreading. Whether it will happen, I can't say at this point, but it's on the discussion agenda. There is a good deal of discussion about changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to some other form, possibly the preferential reassignment type that I believe is in use in Australia, or some form of proportional representation. It's in the early stages, but the new Prime Minister made a big deal about his desire to revitalise Canadian democracy, and he seems to have sparked a number of debates on a variety of issues by his comments.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Canadian government is more devolved, at least not as a matter of political principle. In fact, we started out by saying that anything not specifically stated to be under provincial jurisdiction was to come under the federal authority. But we have evolved a system in which the federal government has to broker deals among the provinces on a wide variety of issues, both federal and provincial in nature, because of the huge importance of equalisation payments in our country. The various provinces have widely disparate economic wealth, and so the federal government redistributes wealth via transfer payments. Naturally, the richer provinces are not always pleased about the idea of sharing their wealth with the poorer provinces - and often, when poorer provinces become rich, as has happened with Alberta, and may soon happen with Newfoundland, they don't want to see their transfer payments diminish and their monies being used to support programs in other provinces.
Because the federal government, in essence, takes most of the revenues and then gives them back under a formula that is theoretically designed to give all Canadians in all regions relatively equal access to services, this gives the federal government a lot of power over provincial areas of jurisdiction; at the same time, the constant negotiations over both transfer payments and the mechanisms of administering "equivalent" services in areas which are vastly different - physically, demographically, culturally and politically - give the provinces more influence than one would expect over areas of federal jurisdiction.
I'm afraid, though, that I don't know enough to accurately compare Canada's system to that of similar federated states, but it's always been my impression that within the U.S., the states are more independent than are our provinces.
The whole world is probably more concerned with the US than usual. Here, the events of 9/11 have drawn us much closer to the US, and concerns about cultural imperialism have abated.
It's probably the mouse sleeping with the elephant thing, but we've become further from the U.S., and more concerned about cultural imperialism. Also, we are not militarily involved in Iraq, and at the same time, the U.S. has taken actions in several issues having to do with everything from trade protectionism and tariffs to changes in border regulations that may or may not be related to our lack of involvement, but have been seen by some as payback. We have a number of very unique concerns that result from out geographical proximity, and our deeply entwined mutual trade patterns.
But I think that the Canada-philes are misreading the situation when they equate Canada's desire to be a peacekeeping nation with our "deputy sheriff" <>.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 10:50 pm (UTC)You asked:
What sort of reforms are we talking about here? Abolish the monarchy? Change the Senate to be more like ours? Compulsory voting? Multi member electorates?
Some people have been talking about abolishing the monarchy for a long time, but it's very much a minority. We'll see what happens when the next generation takes the throne. Senate change is much higher on the discussion list - ours is, as you probably know, appointed. There's a very strong move in the west for an elected Senate, and I think the idea is spreading. Whether it will happen, I can't say at this point, but it's on the discussion agenda. There is a good deal of discussion about changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to some other form, possibly the preferential reassignment type that I believe is in use in Australia, or some form of proportional representation. It's in the early stages, but the new Prime Minister made a big deal about his desire to revitalise Canadian democracy, and he seems to have sparked a number of debates on a variety of issues by his comments.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Canadian government is more devolved, at least not as a matter of political principle. In fact, we started out by saying that anything not specifically stated to be under provincial jurisdiction was to come under the federal authority. But we have evolved a system in which the federal government has to broker deals among the provinces on a wide variety of issues, both federal and provincial in nature, because of the huge importance of equalisation payments in our country. The various provinces have widely disparate economic wealth, and so the federal government redistributes wealth via transfer payments. Naturally, the richer provinces are not always pleased about the idea of sharing their wealth with the poorer provinces - and often, when poorer provinces become rich, as has happened with Alberta, and may soon happen with Newfoundland, they don't want to see their transfer payments diminish and their monies being used to support programs in other provinces.
Because the federal government, in essence, takes most of the revenues and then gives them back under a formula that is theoretically designed to give all Canadians in all regions relatively equal access to services, this gives the federal government a lot of power over provincial areas of jurisdiction; at the same time, the constant negotiations over both transfer payments and the mechanisms of administering "equivalent" services in areas which are vastly different - physically, demographically, culturally and politically - give the provinces more influence than one would expect over areas of federal jurisdiction.
I'm afraid, though, that I don't know enough to accurately compare Canada's system to that of similar federated states, but it's always been my impression that within the U.S., the states are more independent than are our provinces.
The whole world is probably more concerned with the US than usual. Here, the events of 9/11 have drawn us much closer to the US, and concerns about cultural imperialism have abated.
It's probably the mouse sleeping with the elephant thing, but we've become further from the U.S., and more concerned about cultural imperialism. Also, we are not militarily involved in Iraq, and at the same time, the U.S. has taken actions in several issues having to do with everything from trade protectionism and tariffs to changes in border regulations that may or may not be related to our lack of involvement, but have been seen by some as payback. We have a number of very unique concerns that result from out geographical proximity, and our deeply entwined mutual trade patterns.
But I think that the Canada-philes are misreading the situation when they equate Canada's desire to be a peacekeeping nation with our "deputy sheriff" <>.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me?