Dave_ON

Nope, because in the case of a deadlock, as we saw with Martin's narrow confidence vote, the speaker casts the tie breaking vote.

Actually if I'm not very much mistaken ALL 308 MP's are eligible for the position of speaker. It is a normal course of action that those mentioned withdraw their names from the running for obvious reasons. source : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/01/pol-speaker-election.html

Two things. First this is a thread that is about Canadian Politics, something that Fox news has no bearing on. Secondly if we have no freedom, why are you allowed to write whatever you feel like writing on these and any number of other forums? Bonus questions, please define for us what you feel "democracy" is precisely.

Agreed but what can truly be done? Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge. Most Canadians, don't understand, nor care to understand how our government works. In order to rope most Canadians in you have to aim at their level of knowledge. Hence, the PM and Cabinet, and the Leader of the official opposition get the lion's share of media attention. The rest of the parliament is largely regarded as voting drones, a means to an end. The current state of affairs, is merely a result of what Trudeau started nigh on four decades ago through various means, and a tradition that Mr. Harper is just as happy to continue. ie. further concentrating the power of the PMO, sapping the power of the Crown through obfuscation and stacking the senate. Many don't realize that abolishing the senate would allow the PMO that much more power and basically allow him and his cabinet unchecked across the country. There's no denying the senate isn't functioning fully as intended, to say that regional interests are represented so long as the PM appoints the senators is a stretch. However, we'd be in a sad state of affairs if we abolished it. I don't know what I think is worse, blatant patronage appointments and stacking of the senate, or the current disparaging of the senate which might ultimately lead to it's abolition.

MP's have a similar gig, let's be honest here. Cabinet ministers have it even better AND if you're lucky enough to be elected speaker of the house you have it even cushier. Government work is cushy no matter where you sit that's hardly an argument against having a specific house. We need to fix the senate not abolish it. We need a regional non-partisan check on the pop-rep house. If we moved the appointments of the senate to the premieres of the respective regions, it would go a long way indeed toward resolving the inherent problems.

Indeed but this is a result of a convention that predates party politics in parliamentary systems. Once upon a time the PM was just the minister that commanded the confidence of the majority of parliament. There were no party leaders to become the defacto PM. All the same, the fact remains that as it stands now, even if a vote were held, we'd be in the same position regardless, with the possible exception of minority parliaments.

I don't think we should have a senate that is based on population truly, that is the function of the commons. Regional representation was truly intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, ie. Ontario/Quebec. Ontario and Quebec getting hosed, really? So it's ok for Ontario/Quebec to hose the TROC but not the other way round? I don't think that's the intent of the senate, it's designed to balance the population representation with regional considerations. What check is currently in place to prevent the clear majority of pop rep which resides in Ontario/Quebec from imposing their will on TROC? The Oft cited NEP is a prime example of Ontario/Quebec hosing the west btw and one that the senate could have prevented had it been comprised in such a way. The west could have potentially opposed it. Why should PEI be overruled by Ontario in the upper house simply because there is a high population in Ontario? What if the issue is quite important to PEI and doesn't even affect Ontario? Confederation is supposed to be a partnership between Equals under the crown, how can we say this when all partners are not equally represented in the upper house? Population representation is a very important part of democracy, but we also must try and prevent the tyranny of the majority whenever possible. Why should Ontario be able to decide the fate of Westerners, simply because more people happen to live here? I'm not sure if you live in Ontario or Quebec, I currently do, but I'm from NB originally. There is very much a sense in TROC that Ontarians are out of touch with reality. They have this sense that they speak for all of Canada and that in fact all Canadians are like them.

I don't disagree in essence I suppose, but I do feel it is a somewhat backward means of achieving that. I suppose my central point is that, a vote of no confidence doesn't apply simply to the PM, but the government as a whole. Further, the issue is Parliament never gets to choose the PM, this is chosen on their behalf by convention, which they can then accept or deny at the throne speech or any other subsequent confidence motion. But if their objection is with the PM specifically and not the government as a whole what recourse do they truly have at present? A vote of no confidence topples the government in it's entirety. Can parliament as a whole ask the GG to dismiss a sitting PM, yet still maintain that PM's government? I don't think that parliament actively electing a PM from the get go is such a bad idea. Honestly, the notion of confidence of the house predates party politics, nevertheless the system still makes sense. If a party leader's party has a majority of the seats in the house, why would he not be elected PM? I suppose such a measure would be window dressing at best. About all it would affect is a minority situation, which would in turn create a number of different issues.

I don't think that's realistic, if they are elected they must campaign, campaigns cost money. Where precisely will that money come from? A party, do you honestly think a senator is not going to tow the party line of someone who's paying their election bills? We'd be turning the senate into a second commons, and it would be just a partisan.

I agree with 2/3 E's namely Equal and Effective. I think Regional representation is essential in a federation, to balance the power of Ontario/Quebec and to a lesser degree BC. Honestly these goals could be achieved without the need to politicize the role. If the senators were appointed by each province, or at least if we maintain the 4 divisions philosophy provinces in each region, this would solve the patronage appointment issue, while still maintaining the non partisan/political nature of the senate. Senators would truly be beholden and accountable to their region, rather than the PM who appointed them. Punked is right, the Senate once stacked doesn't go against the sitting PM often. I disagree with his assessment that it should be abolished though, the senate is not functioning as intended but it certainly is essential. If we can fix the senate, I think things will go far more smoothly for Canada, and a great deal less smoothly for the lower house. Honestly though for the Senate to truly be effective it must be an equal number from each province, not each "region". Once upon a time that may have worked, but now it's somewhat of an outdated philosophy based on population shifts and varying provincial interests. Why exactly if all 10 provinces are truly "equal" partners in Confederation do they not all have "equal" say on the federal level. As it stands now, Ontario/Quebec effectively rule both houses, which isn't fair in the least.

I think you miss my point. It's not about whether Harper gets elected or not, its about whether people would care or not if his own election law or senate term law was ignored. I posit most people wouldn't even notice much less care about it. Given the rather low level of political knowledge the general public have, how many are even aware of a second house? A shocking majority aren't aware of our head of state. I'm just not confident it's as big a deal to most Canadians as many people here are making it out to be.

I would tend to agree, the arts are low hanging fruit for politicians. I doubt Mr. Harper would go down that road again however, although it's not like he really has anything to lose in Quebec at present. I'd suggest cutting the size of cabinet, his personal security force and several other direct government expenses. These should get the axe far before any public services do.

Well I suppose in a sense, in as much as if the HoC doesn't expressly state there is no confidence he remains PM. I don't believe this is precisely what TTM was referring to however, as the absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation? If a party leader commands a majority, how would he not become the PM? The only thing this could truly potentially affect is a minority situation.

Honestly I'm not convinced that senate reform is a truly resonating factor for most Canadians. In the west perhaps, but certainly not in Ontario or the Atlantic. My guess is most people wouldn't even notice if a PM ignored a senate "election". Much like people won't care if Mr. Harper chooses to ignore his own "fixed election" law.

But if the steps are void of any constitutional weight what is the point? This is little more than pandering on Mr. Harper's part. He's simply trying to make it look like he's keeping his promise to what remains of the reform base. It's a sham and does absolutely nothing, it's about as effective as the warnings on cigarette packages. How many smokers have quit as a result of that? I agree steps need to be taken for senate reform, but real steps, not window dressing. Let's draft a constitutional change, and go from there, THAT would be doing something.

Why the indignation? At any rate I'm done with this discussion, if you want to take it personally, be my guest. Suffice it to say calling someone a "leftist" or a "right wingnut" are both equally inappropriate and doesn't end an argument. You can't simply dismiss someone simply because you perceive them to be a certain way. Address the issue, keep the insults down and stick to the facts plain and simple. You can disagree with someone and still show them common courtesy. Labels are dismissive and comes across as flippant. For the record it's not about sensorship my friend, it's about common courtesy. If you have to resort to being insulting to make your point, do you really have one to begin with? This is a prime example of what I'm speaking of, I'm certain I could find more. Either way as mentioned I've made my point, I don't wish to harp upon the subject any more than I have. Don't be so quick to judge or make assumptions about people, just because someone disagrees with you on a specific topic, doesn't mean you can peg where they stand on the political spectrum.

Lefties is a term that you use for those who do not agree with you, regardless of where on the political spectrum they actually happen to fall. I've noted you've called several people, who are not the least bit "leftist" thus, simply for disagreeing with you. You can't categorize people as leftist, because of one specific position they hold on one specific issue. People are not that simple to categorize. One can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the two are not mutually exclusive and terming someone a "leftist" is overly simplistic. I actually don't like the term right wing either, as it's often used as a self explanatory argument, and people use it to cop out of actually addressing an issue. As if to call it right wing speaks for itself. Precisely what political ideologies do I have that others supposedly share? I'm willing to bet you haven't the foggiest clue as to where I stand on almost anything let alone know who would share my political ideologies. I get it you're young and idealistic and think you've got the world figured out, or perhaps you get off on being inflammatory. Either way there is a certain level of etiquette that exists on this board, and people can disagree with one another without having to resort to being childish. There are many people I have disagreed with on many occasions on this board that I have a great deal of respect for and the discourse has always been civil. I don't want this board to turn into a CBC/CTV/ insert news media here comment board, that consists largely of buzz words and grunts.

Pompous is a stretch, I've only ever been polite even in the face of purely infantile comments. Be that as it may, perhaps we can be adult and stick to the topic of the thread at hand?

How sad if that is your rebuttal sir. You realize this only serves to further illustrate my point? You have only vapid sloganeering and nothing of merit to say whatsoever. You're not even particularly clever, nor are you the least bit entertaining. You are merely wasting everyone's time. Give us something of substance or at the very least have the wherewithal to keep from waxing childish at every turn. I suppose that's asking a lot from someone who has "FTW" in their name.

I'm afraid an act of parliament is utterly incapable of unilaterally altering the constitution. The senate must also pass such a motion and in terms of the monarchy it is likely we would need the 7/10 50% pop rule. to make a fundamental alteration to the constitution. Why must the executive, as it exists in Canada be elected? How does it benefit us to politicize the head of state? Why do we need a vice president, what purpose would that serve? Are you simply attempting to copy and paste the US executive into the parliamentary system? History has proven on many occasions that such botch jobs, result in more harm than good.

I think this sums up the situation rather well. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.

Give me an actual, well thought out plan on how we will replace it and I'll listen.

In all sincerity please try and show some maturity and keep your comments civil. If you want people to consider your POV, you should likely avoid name calling, (ie. Leftists, which is an utterly inaccurate generalization), as well as flippant and dismissive responses unless you want to be largely ignored by the patrons of this board. I'm not certain what type of board you're used to posting to, but many of us come here to engage in adult discourse, not to fling aspersions and conduct EPEEN contests.

Hmmm interesting how you never let the facts get in the way of your "opinion" Here's a link, perhaps you should educate yourself a bit further before posting your thoughts. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least have the wherewithal to backup your claims with some facts. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/Canada.aspx From the Official Monarchy website, it took me about 2 minutes to find. And I quote Hmmm now distinctive, now to me and most people distinctive means different not "same". Is this like "discrimination" for you whereby you choose the definition that suits your current POV? As to the residences, take your pick she has more then most anyone else does in the country... ignoring for a minute that citizenship laws don't apply to the monarch, based on your logic she's more Canadian than most anyone else in the Country She has an official residence in Rideau Hall as small C pointed out as well as an official residence in each of the 10 provinces. I'm not certain about the territories however. Again from the official website which you oft site but rarely read apparently. Other members of the royal family have also visited on numerous occasions. The Queen makes a habit of visiting all of her realms fairly regularly. The Monarch has served Canada very well in fact, you don't like them but that doesn't change the fact that she has fulfilled her role effectively. You imply disparity where none exists. You speak as if the UK is able to somehow overrule our own parliament, or that the Queen, because she is the same person that occupies the UK royal office, serves us in the same way she does the UK. This is a fallacy on your part, and one you clearly need to educate yourself on. Many of the questions you ask, demonstrate how little you understand our system of government or how the monarchy functions in Canada. As has been pointed out already, she is not British at all, she holds no citizenship in any of her realms. She doesn't serve one realm first over another. You still fail to see, that Queen of Canada, while the same person as the Queen of the UK, is not the same role. Each of her realms has a different role for her, and each of the realms chooses what the role is. We can choose whomever we wish to be our sovereign in all technicality, but at present why would we need to change the current line of succession? As for the British Commonwealth, well that's technically as inaccurate as you referring to the UK as "England". It's the Commonwealth of Nations. This I can forgive I suppose, as many people still mislabel it thus. It suffices as it is the commonwealth of nations that stemmed from the old British Empire. No we take the Queen of Canada, who also happens to be the Queen of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados and a host of others. You can get the complete list from the official Monarchy site, which you are so intimately acquainted with already. Further it is the constitution of Canada that names who our monarch is not the UK. As has been pointed out dozens of times, we could have a different sovereign than the UK. If they scrap it we could potentially keep it regardless of what they decide. The Queen actually resides in all her realms and not Britain, she can't be in all her realms simultaneously which where the role of the GG comes in.

I'm confused how is the Queen of Canada a foreign Monarch?