kengs333 Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 What does that matter? I point out a fantastic example of a reformed Senate in an almost identical system and it's irrelevant?Do you think our Senate is a superior model to Australia's? It matters a whole heck of a lot. Our senate works fine, and the only problem with it in the eyes of the Conservatives is that it is dominated by the Liberals at the moment. Floating the idea that the Senate could be abolished is consistant with Harper's authoritarian personality. Not only do we have someone who muzzle's his MPs, tries to control how the media deals with him, kisses American ass, blows too much money on the military, now we have someone who wants to scrap an integral aspect of the Canadian democratic system. Harper is systematically doing away with Canada, and Canadians, as usual, just complacently let it all happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 It matters a whole heck of a lot. Our senate works fine, and the only problem with it in the eyes of the Conservatives is that it is dominated by the Liberals at the moment. Floating the idea that the Senate could be abolished is consistant with Harper's authoritarian personality. Not only do we have someone who muzzle's his MPs, tries to control how the media deals with him, kisses American ass, blows too much money on the military, now we have someone who wants to scrap an integral aspect of the Canadian democratic system. Harper is systematically doing away with Canada, and Canadians, as usual, just complacently let it all happen. Ok its not that bad. I agree, the senate works as it should (though I believe it should be independent rather than party dominated), but we aren't losing Canada for him. As for the Military, Martin was increasing the money there too. The equipment and manpower is useful not only abroad, but at home during times of disaster. The money needed to be spent and more needs to be spent. Its not like we don't have the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 (edited) You keep saying this but we all have seen is all they need is 7 provinces to do it. Only the Liberals are fapping theing gums saying differently, and they are wrong as usual. Just because you repaet it over and over does not make it right, and as you keep saying that the opposing privnces can take it to the SCC. Of course they can, and just also is a fact that the SCC can refuse to hear them. I can take a parking ticket to the SCC if I had the wil and the money. It does not mean I would get my day or win my case. It really does not matter whethere they accept the changes or not, but the fact is they do not need all provinces to agree, and yes I would imagine that they will fight to no end to try and get more and more power, but that pie is only so large, and if they can not agree on how to divide things up, they can all be given the same number, therfore reducing the power so theyb are all equall, and then work from there. ( is that the Liberals choking on their food ) Again saying that a constitutional challenge may follow, you never quit but again it is wrong, wrong, wrong wrong and it is wrong. The Senate proposal on term limits and elected Senators will not pass the House of Commons. There will not even be a need for a constitutional challenge on this. Harper could make it a confidence motion but he won't when two polls have shown that he has fallen back to 33% in the polls. The referendum of abolition act will not pass the Senate. Harper could take this a confidence measure as well but support for Senate reform is split amongst the nation. Ontarians want no change. Quebecers want abolition. The Ontario government supports abolition. The Quebec government wants to change. Harper has already said there will be no more confidence motions this year. It isn't like he has flip flopped before but on this issue there is not a lot of support one way or the other. Edited November 15, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 This may have been said already, I an't gonna back read through all 9 pages to find out. I am currently an NDP member and supporter due to their position on drug law reform but I am against senate reform and abolition. I think the senate should stay how it is. It is a very important check on the tyranny of the majority. The senate is the house of sober second thought and we need it to ensure that no laws can be passed on the whim of the political climate of the time. I am very glad we have the senate to prevent any conservative majority from passing any wrongheaded, racsist laws, that would do long term irreversable damage to Canada. I hope we can count on the senate to block the theocon crime bill c-26. Canada does not need mandatory minimums and certainly does not need a ramped up war on Cannabis to please the cons US masters. Hopefully the same senate that wrote the 2002 senate report on the non-medical use of drugs will see clearly enough the futility of the conservative approach to not allow this bill to pass. The 2002 senate report looked at ALL the relevant information, even the drivel provided by the Randywhiteosaur, and concluded that the prohibiton of cannabis causes far more harm to Canadians than the substance itself ever could. They also concluded that cannabis should be legalized and regulated like alcohol and that anyone over the age of 16 should be allowed by law to possess it. I'm glad that we have the senate to limit the damage that Harper can inflict on our citizens. Why is it that given the info in the 2002 senate report the cons would want to increase the sanctions on Canabis? Why do conservatives want to harm Canadians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 What does that matter? I point out a fantastic example of a reformed Senate in an almost identical system and it's irrelevant?Do you think our Senate is a superior model to Australia's? There's the rub Geoff. It's not about proposing solutions for Canadians. It's about obstruction no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I agree that Senate in its present form does not exactly agree with what can be expected of a democratic institution in this century. However simply disbanding it would mean losing its valuable function of expert evaluation of legislation which it has been playing till now quite well. Making its elected would bring partisan politics even more, and negatively affect its only function that is of benefit to the society. Maybe appointment of senators should given entirely to the decision of provinces? Along with limitation of the term to some reasonable limit, it may be a simple solution that would preserve the benifit of senate while making it more up to date with the state of democracy in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I agree that Senate in its present form does not exactly agree with what can be expected of a democratic institution in this century. However simply disbanding it would mean losing its valuable function of expert evaluation of legislation which it has been playing till now quite well. So you can see the value of compromise short of perfect democratic ideals with respect to the Senate, but still obtusely hammer away at that point on the dead-in-the-water Kyoto protocol. Care to explain the hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) So you can see the value of compromise short of perfect democratic ideals with respect to the Senate, but still obtusely hammer away at that point on the dead-in-the-water Kyoto protocol.Care to explain the hypocrisy? Because it's not relevant to the topic, I'll keep it very short. There's compromise and a compromise. There can be no compromise on the principle that a law of the land must be observed by everybody. It's a foundation of democracy and a compromise on it would mean one thing: lawlessness. And no, it's not hipocrisy. Simply that one solution cannot be good for all situations. Edited December 5, 2007 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Because it's not relevant to the topic, I'll keep it very short. There's compromise and a compromise. There can be no compromise on the principle that a law of the land must be observed by everybody. It's a foundation of democracy and a compromise on it would mean one thing: lawlessness.And no, it's not hipocrisy. Simply that one solution cannot be good for all situations. Go to federal tax court and quit proving how uninformed you are about the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 It matters a whole heck of a lot. Our senate works fine, and the only problem with it in the eyes of the Conservatives is that it is dominated by the Liberals at the moment. Floating the idea that the Senate could be abolished is consistant with Harper's authoritarian personality. Not only do we have someone who muzzle's his MPs, tries to control how the media deals with him, kisses American ass, blows too much money on the military, now we have someone who wants to scrap an integral aspect of the Canadian democratic system. Harper is systematically doing away with Canada, and Canadians, as usual, just complacently let it all happen. Let's fast forward 10 years and imagine a Senate dominated by CONSERVATIVES! Now tell me again that you think "Our senate works fine". Times change and that's why we need a good structure and system, not a fortunate happenstance for those of us who happen to hate Conservatives at the moment. Something tells me that if Harper held the stacked deck you'd be whining louder than anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natalja_68 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I admit, I have not been on www.mapleleafweb.com in a long time however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Is there any country in the world which has a federal system of government but would have a unicameral legislature? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Is there any country in the world which has a federal system of government but would have a unicameral legislature? I don't think so. I think maybe Greece does ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Is the Hellenic Republic federal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Is the Hellenic Republic federal? No, it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.