Friday, February 20, 2015

Canada Needs an Effective Senate

I believe that Canada needs a second chamber to balance the high population regions, represented in the Commons with membership that represents the regions equally. I don't think Canada should have a second chamber that is elected, as the Commons is because party politics would dominate as it does in the Commons and negate regional representation or worse, create the kind of political deadlock, that is experienced in the United States. I propose... The Crown appoints Senators from a shortlist of no more than 3 candidates, 2/3 approved by their respective provincial legislatures. This would result in truly regionally based Senators who have achieved bi-partisan support from elected representatives in their actual home province. I would like to see the resulting Senators caucus by region rather than by party. Each regional caucus would elect from among it's members, a caucus chair who would sit on an executive council, chaired by the only partisan Senator, the Government House Leader. It would be the job of the Senate's 'executive council' to steer government legislation through the caucuses and the wider Senate. What do you think?

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Property Rights - Literally? King in OWN Castle

Progressive Canadian Party of Canada favours the amendment of Canada's constitution to include protection of private property rights. This is not a new position for any party in Canada or, indeed throughout the western world. This concept dates back to as early as 1215 and the Magna Carta. Private property rights have been part of English Common Law for centuries. It was also entrenched in the United States constitution in 1791. It has been said that for the above reasons and others it could be argued that private property rights are already part of Canadian Law. David Johansen, in an October 1991 paper states that "entrenchment of property rights in the Charter would do more than simply protect those who own real property from expropriation without compensation." My question.... Is this discussion about OWNERSHIP of land? Most would say it is AND more! I think it would be interesting to ponder exactly what ownership means in the context of Canadian land. Who owns Canadian land? The Crown? What is the Crown? Is it the people of Canada collectively as I have argued it should be? Is it the personification of the Government of Canada, as most think it is? Is the Crown an office or an actual person, specifically the Queen of Canada? It seems to me that actually owning land means, for one, that you don't have to pay yourself rent as one does who is renting from an actual landlord. Right? What in actual fact is the government's legal justification for charging land 'owners' property taxes? Perhaps it is that land is actually 'owned' by some entity other than the man, woman, persons, corporation or group that has paid to be granted title. Perhaps the entire issue of private property rights is moot, in the context of a government that claims to actually own all the lands within it's borders.... or perhaps NOT. If someone does, in fact, actually own land AND it is an entrenched RIGHT in Canada's constitution, could that be interpreted by the courts as meaning that one is not required to pay property taxes? Does anyone even have durisdiction within the boundaries of your 'privately OWNED'lands? If the Crown does not own all of Canada then what authority does it have to exercise durisdiction over this land in the first place? I wonder.... is it possible that OWNING land that was previously OWNED by the Crown, corporate/government/office/personally means that sovereignty may also have been transferred AND with a constitutionally entrenched Private Property guarantee..... means..... One might actually be in FACT, literally King of your OWN castle!

Crown Must be Distinct, Resident AND Effective

My name is Rob Wolvin. I've spent a lifetime pondering my country's past, present and future. I don't have university or work credentials that would generally give weight to my constitutional suggestions BUT I want to share them with you...

Patriate Canada's Crown!

I am of the opinion that Canada has one of, if not the first, truly democratic and nation specific, fully codified, Constitutional Monarchy form of democratic governance. It is my contention that democracy is not defined simply by use of the ballot. It is the experience of a society that is governed for the people. Democratic societies work to provide for the enjoyment of, near universally accepted, human rights. Governance for the people ought to strive for equality of opportunity to reach one's full potential, regardless of impairments; physical, intellectual or socio-economic. This fullest possible participation in the life of society, is not only JUST but guarantees increased optimism, energy and innovation, resulting in a more robust economy as well as a richer cultural environment. To achieve this level of governance, responsible to the people, all the people, I believe we need a balance between forms of legitimacy in our nation's branches of authority. I believe in the ultimate supremacy of the Crown who's powers are exercised through Parliament and a politically aloof judiciary and law enforcement apparatus. I believe in a mix of legitimacy because most commonly, one 'dances with the one what brought ya'. That means that the exchange of favours is too prevalent in the electoral process to ever fully protect us from secret and ill definable favouritism. It's my believe that Canada's constitution rightly provides for legitimacy through inheritance, appointment AND election with the various branches of our system appropriately weighted. Unfortunately TWO branches, Crown AND Senate, have been permitted to atrophy since 1867, rather than reform with our changing needs. That has led, to various problems, most notably, the usurpation, entirely unconstitutionally, of power, by the Prime Minister's Office! A primary advantage of having a Constitutional Monarchy is that we are heirs to an evolving system that represents centuries of struggle, innovation and adjustments. It can be an organic structure, not only able to conform to a distinct society, but to changing times. This system, that Canada is heir to, can NOT be it's most effective, if it is static or perceived, accurately or falsely, to be governance from a foreign country!

Canada does not enjoy many, if ANY, of the advantages of our constitutional system of governance! The Crown has NO significant balancing effect to other branches of government. It is perceived by the public, to be without legitimacy. This is because the ballot is constantly promoted as synonymous with democracy, even though it is only one tool in that goal. Also, the Crown is seen as an antiquated relic, of an increasingly foreign, former colonial master! The Crown could function as a recognized guarantor of parliament's place in our democracy. The Crown ought to be able to function as a unifying symbol, with it's muti-ethnic heritage in an otherwise disparate populous. Well trained and well connected royals DO NOT advise new Prime Ministers or act as ambassadors, utilizing long acquaintances with statesman or corporate world leaders. Canada's current royals offer all those services even, condolences & celebrations of national significance, to the UK, exclusively! A modern monarchy MUST be seen to be part of, and serving the exclusive interests of, the nation in which they have leadership!

I propose... The Crown be patriated before the end of the current reign! I think the most legally sound and most historically honourable way to effect this change is an adjustment to the line of succession. Parliament should pass a succession change that requires Canada's Heir Apparent to be both resident in Canada and to renounce on behalf of him/herself succession to any other crown. I believe that the change could be effected seamlessly if, for instance, we went down the current succession list until we found one of the Queen's heirs willing to move here, renounce other crowns and commit to Canada. Where it seen to be the will of the Canadian people, to have our own Heir Apparent, I'd be very surprised, if senior persons in the succession, like The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge didn't immediately renounce their candidacy for the distinct Canadian succession! I don't believe it should be legal to renounce on behalf of one's heirs, like Prince George of Cambridge, for instance. I therefore think it would be appropriate for the next Heir Apparent, resident and unique to Canada, to take office as a Regent. This would also establish, in the Canadian consciousness, that Canada's Crown ought to be seen as governing on behalf of the Canadians, corporate, rather than as ruling or even reigning over us. The Crown in Canada deserves to evolve in a manner distinct to out needs and sensibilities. I suggest that a Regent of Canadians is more to our liking, with respect to an office that is the personification of the peoples of Canada and a guarantor of the rights of Parliament as the heart of a free and democratic nation!

What do you think?