Senate reform or abolition

[Smallc]

Liberal 'strategy' doesn't matter here, they are the guy walking behind the elephant with a shovel at this parade.

They've been upstaged by Harper and Layton on the Senate.

What the public sees from the Liberals, and what Harper is going to make sure is front and center really soon, is that the .

Dion can cry that the Senate is not under his control, but nobody will believe that it is nothing more than petulance at not being allowed to govern, as they see their Natural Right. Expressions of support won't mean anything, the horse has already left the barn. If the Liberals wanted to enact change, they had an opportunity in over a decade of majority govt. See, the 'do-nothing' attituide of Chretien comes back to haunt....

Harper, I hope and pray, won't revert to the practice the Liberals loved of referring things to the Suipreme Court so they could make laws. They, like the Senate , are unelected and that is not their job.

But all of this is secondary anyway.

Harper has no burning desire to reform the Senate.

What he wants is to call an election ASAP. This is a great, safe issue and an obvious lever to do what the Liberals wont' do - force an election. So: refer legislation - more of it, lots of it- to the Senate- and hope they continue their current obstruction. First whiff of it, declare a constitutional crisis, dissolve his own govt and go to the polls. Oh yeah, tack on a Senate referendum.

The supreme court should not be elected. Justice should have nothing to do with public opinion. They are there to make sure that parliament is not trampling on rights. In my view, the senate should me made up of independents elected by the people to make sure that the laws of parliament took everything into consideration.

[jdobbin]

Liberal 'strategy' doesn't matter here, they are the guy walking behind the elephant with a shovel at this parade.

They've been upstaged by Harper and Layton on the Senate.

What the public sees from the Liberals, and what Harper is going to make sure is front and center really soon, is that the .

I think the next confidence vote on any motion will probably lead to an election. Dion is not going to let the Senate be responsible for a confidence measure. He'll pull the plug himself.

So far, I haven't see a poll that shows the Tories are in a commanding spot to win a majority so I expect we'll see a repeat of the last election unless there has been a major change of support. The last poll after the mini-budget actually showed the Tories down one point so go figure.

Edited November 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I think the next confidence vote on any motion will probably lead to an election. Dion is not going to let the Senate be responsible for a confidence measure. He'll pull the plug himself.

So far, I haven't see a poll that shows the Tories are in a commanding spot to win a majority so I expect we'll see a repeat of the last election unless there has been a major change of support. The last poll after the mini-budget actually showed the Tories down one point so go figure.

A 'commanding spot' to win a majority.

Man, the Liberals are reaching these days. Zero shot at winning. And using terms like 'commanding spot' still means that a majority is a real possibility.

A two point swing to the Conservatives wouldn't entail a major change of support but it would be enough for a majority.

[Fain]

Why doesn't Dion want some reform??? Surely he has to see those over-paid farts in Ottawa all the time. Dion earned leader of the opposition through a democratic vote. He should be on-board with removing these unelected tax burdens.

[jdobbin]

Why doesn't Dion want some reform??? Surely he has to see those over-paid farts in Ottawa all the time. Dion earned leader of the opposition through a democratic vote. He should be on-board with removing these unelected tax burdens.

Who said Dion doesn't want reform? He just wasn't going to entrench an elected system where the Maritimes have 30 elected seats and the west has 24 seats.

[Fain]

Who said Dion doesn't want reform? He just wasn't going to entrench an elected system where the Maritimes have 30 elected seats and the west has 24 seats.

Why not abolish it? Is he on board for that??? What's his stance? As an MP he voted against senate reform before.

[jdobbin]

Why not abolish it? Is he on board for that??? What's his stance? As an MP he voted against senate reform before.

As an MP, he voted against the Tory plan for Senate reform which was for elections which would entrench an imbalance in representation. If the Tories want to reform the Senate, they should open up the Constitution.

As for abolition, many Liberals support the idea.

[Fain]

As an MP, he voted against the Tory plan for Senate reform which was for elections which would entrench an imbalance in representation. If the Tories want to reform the Senate, they should open up the Constitution.

As for abolition, many Liberals support the idea.

Yeah?? Is that so? I don't see much of a movement to abolish it within the liberal party. It's not good enough, it's a waste of money.

[jdobbin]

Yeah?? Is that so? I don't see much of a movement to abolish it within the liberal party. It's not good enough, it's a waste of money.

Since you are not a Liberal member, I fully expect that you haven't see the movement to either change or abolish the Senate.

The position of the Liberals in recent years is that they do not want to tear the country apart in a constitutional debate (also a huge expenditure) over something like Senate changes. The Tories cannot abolish the Senate by an act of House of Commons legislation. They have to go to the provinces.

And the Liberals are not going to support elections if the system doesn't offer balance in seats.

[Michael Bluth]

Why doesn't Dion want some reform??? Surely he has to see those over-paid farts in Ottawa all the time. Dion earned leader of the opposition through a democratic vote. He should be on-board with removing these unelected tax burdens.

Because it means fewer seats for the Atlantic provinces. The only region in the country the Liberals have any real strength in.

Remember, most of those unelected tax burdens sit as Liberals.

[Smallc]

As an MP, he voted against the Tory plan for Senate reform which was for elections which would entrench an imbalance in representation. If the Tories want to reform the Senate, they should open up the Constitution.

As for abolition, many Liberals support the idea.

Well, truth be told we already have an imbalance of representation in the HoC.

[jdobbin]

Well, truth be told we already have an imbalance of representation in the HoC.

Yes, Ontario has fewer seats than they should have. However, Harper wants to put more seats in B.C. and not in Ontario.

[Smallc]

Yes, Ontario has fewer seats than they should have. However, Harper wants to put more seats in B.C. and not in Ontario.

Ontario and Alberta should have more, MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, PEI and the Territories should have less, BC, QC should stay the same. About 100000 people per MP.

[jdobbin]

Ontario and Alberta should have more, MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, PEI and the Territories should have less, BC, QC should stay the same. About 100000 people per MP.

I think that the Constitution prevents there being fewer seats in some provinces but it doesn't preclude more seats for provinces with growing populations. Ontario has been most screwed in that capacity.

[Smallc]

I think that the Constitution prevents there being fewer seats in some provinces but it doesn't preclude more seats for provinces with growing populations. Ontario has been most screwed in that capacity.

Thats stupid, there's no way my province and SK should have 14 seats each. We should have 12 and SK about 10.

[Smallc]

As an MP, he voted against the Tory plan for Senate reform which was for elections which would entrench an imbalance in representation. If the Tories want to reform the Senate, they should open up the Constitution.

As for abolition, many Liberals support the idea.

The senate isn't supposed to be balanced. It gives some power to smaller provinces, just like in the US. In reality its pretty well set up in terms of numbers.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

The senate isn't supposed to be balanced. It gives some power to smaller provinces, just like in the US. In reality its pretty well set up in terms of numbers.

By balanced, most people mean an equal amount of Senators per province. 24 Senators for Ontario and 6 for Alberta is not very balanced.

[Smallc]

By balanced, most people mean an equal amount of Senators per province. 24 Senators for Ontario and 6 for Alberta is not very balanced.

Its by region, not by province.

The Senate consists of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each region receiving twenty-four seats. The regions are: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators serve until they reach the age of seventy-five.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Its by region, not by province.

Newfoundland should be included with the east, then it would be good. The 24 could be divided in 4 for 6 each. Then it would be equal.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

Newfoundland should be included with the east, then it would be good.

However, it indeed cannot be separated from the rest of the Atlantic provinces based on convenience. It is 30 seats versus 24 for the west.

Likewise, all talk of reform does not lump the west and the Atlantic provinces as one group. The provinces that want reform, want a triple E Senate. One of these Es stands for equal which means the same amount of seats per province.

An elected Senate would give the Senate a much higher profile and would likely result in a stronger challenge to the House of Commons than the present body. The Senate would also be able to block further changes to the Senate and not risk anything in a federal election because they would not have an election at the same time as the House of Commons if they had terms different from the lower house.

[Smallc]

However, it indeed cannot be separated from the rest of the Atlantic provinces based on convenience. It is 30 seats versus 24 for the west.

Likewise, all talk of reform does not lump the west and the Atlantic provinces as one group. The provinces that want reform, want a triple E Senate. One of these Es stands for equal which means the same amount of seats per province.

An elected Senate would give the Senate a much higher profile and would likely result in a stronger challenge to the House of Commons than the present body. The Senate would also be able to block further changes to the Senate and not risk anything in a federal election because they would not have an election at the same time as the House of Commons if they had terms different from the lower house.

No, sorry, you misunderstood. I meant for N & L to be grouped with the Atlantic. It is currently not grouped with anyone. Also, NS and NB has too many senators, PEI too few. These things would have to be fixed. And I don't think we should have a triple E senate until we have a triple E HoC.

[jdobbin]

No, sorry, you misunderstood. I meant for N & L to be grouped with the Atlantic. It is currently not grouped with anyone. Also, NS and NB has too many senators, PEI too few. These things would have to be fixed. And I don't think we should have a triple E senate until we have a triple E HoC.

The House of Commons should be based on population. It isn't, as you say.

The Senate should be about equality for the provinces if it is to be reformed.

I think the House of Commons problem should take priority in terms of correcting.

[Smallc]

The House of Commons should be based on population. It isn't, as you say.

The Senate should be about equality for the provinces if it is to be reformed.

I think the House of Commons problem should take priority in terms of correcting.

Thats exactly what I'm saying, but the stupidity in the Constitution acts of 1965 ad 85 prevent that from being possible.

[jbg]

How long can anybody take the repeated shame of saying one thing(decrying everyhting the govt does), then doing the opposite (voting for it).

Forever, if it means going into an election the LPOC cannot win, and then by tradition standing down as leader. He certainly won't be Cabinet material in any future government. He'll be too old.

An election will ignominiously end his days in the sun.

[jbg]

The supreme court should not be elected. Justice should have nothing to do with public opinion. They are there to make sure that parliament is not trampling on rights. In my view, the senate should me made up of independents elected by the people to make sure that the laws of parliament took everything into consideration.

Even the US SCT, which has long history of extreme independence, is known to "follow the election returns".