jdobbin Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 You guys are reading way too much into this.The whole affair is a collaboration and semi red herring by Layton and Harper to enable harper to fire himself and call an election. It brings the focus on the Senate and how they are stopping Parlianment from doing their jobs. Senate is the fall guy..... Whatever the referendum decides, it will get pushed way back on the priority list - after the election. A referendum on the Senate is likely to be greeted with hostility in Quebec. Not exactly the mood that Harper wants to cultivate in that province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 A referendum on the Senate is likely to be greeted with hostility in Quebec. Not exactly the mood that Harper wants to cultivate in that province. Do you really think Quebec cares? The Senate does nothing anyways, really, it's not like it actually gives Quebec more power. The change can pass without Quebec. I'm unconvinced that those planning to vote CPC in Quebec are the types that viciously defend the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 Do you really think Quebec cares? The Senate does nothing anyways, really, it's not like it actually gives Quebec more power.The change can pass without Quebec. I'm unconvinced that those planning to vote CPC in Quebec are the types that viciously defend the Senate. I don't know that you will convince Quebecers that changes to the Senate will not somehow rob them of power in Ottawa. Given the hostility of past governments in Quebec, PQ or Liberal, to changes in Senate composition, I don't know that you can say it will be a popular measure in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...lPwW6Hofo3Ni3Gw The Tory government is resurrecting its plan to reform the Senate even as Prime Minister Stephen Harper flirts with abolition of the unelected chamber.The government has served notice that when the House of Commons resumes sitting Tuesday it will reintroduce two Senate reform bills that went nowhere during the last session of Parliament. That's the same day the NDP hopes to introduce a motion calling for a referendum during the next election on abolition of the Senate. Harper has hinted strongly that his party may support the motion, which may yet be delayed. The prime minister appears to hope that the prospect of a referendum on abolition will pressure Liberals in both parliamentary chambers to grudgingly accept his reform measures. Harper reiterated earlier this week during a speech in Vancouver that Senate reform remains his preferred option. But he warned: "If it cannot be reformed, I think most British Columbians, like most Canadians, will eventually conclude that it will have to be abolished." Harper's reforms are intended to be modest, incremental steps toward a complete overhaul of the Senate. Hmm. That is firmly straddling the fence. So which one does he make a confidence measure? All of them would be contradictory. Harper said there would be no more confidence measures till the end of the year. EDIT This was the opening post of the thread: Harper to Re-introduce Senate Reform at the same time as he votes for abolition Edited November 10, 2007 by Charles Anthony merged redundant thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...lPwW6Hofo3Ni3GwHmm. That is firmly straddling the fence. So which one does he make a confidence measure? All of them would be contradictory. Harper said there would be no more confidence measures till the end of the year. It's not really contradictory. He is using the one to reform the senate now, and the other to put it to a vote later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 It's not really contradictory. He is using the one to reform the senate now, and the other to put it to a vote later. He'll have to pick one horse to back. Senate reform is going to require seven provinces to agree and if he is not willing to do work hard to do that then he is really not committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) He'll have to pick one horse to back. Senate reform is going to require seven provinces to agree and if he is not willing to do work hard to do that then he is really not committed. does he need the provinces to limit the term? Edited November 10, 2007 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 does he need the provinces to limit the term? No he doesn't. He also never voted for abolition. Add two more falsifications to the list of our resident misrepresentor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 does he need the provinces to limit the term? No one is certain about because it hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court. Four provinces object to term limits. They could challenge the legislation if it did pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071113/...l/senate_reform The federal Conservative government has reintroduced two Senate reform bills, warning that it will support abolition of the upper chamber if the changes are blocked once again.One bill imposes a term limit of eight years on senators while the other creates a process to elect senators. "(The bills) will allow Canadians to pass judgment on the conduct of senators," said Peter Van Loan, the minister responsible for democratic reform. "Senators will now have to be accountable for the decisions they make, the work they do and the pay they receive. Accountability - the basis of democracy - will finally come to the Senate." With one exception, the bills are identical to those introduced in the last session of Parliament, which stalled in the face of objections from opposition parties and provinces. No confidence is attached to either of these motions. I think they should be defeated since they probably wouldn't stand the test of a constitutional challenge. As for the abolition bill, it will pass in the House if the NDP and Tories support it but once again with no confidence attached to it, the Senate should refer it to the Supreme Court as per their right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 What gets me about the rhetoric is when during the press conference today van Loon referred to the Senate as an outdated institution, yet he and the Conservatives apparently has no problems with the FPTP electoral system that also dates from that era. If the Senate was stacked with Conservatives, Senate reform/abolishment would not be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 No one is certain about because it hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court. Four provinces object to term limits. They could challenge the legislation if it did pass. The government has successfully limited terms to 75 years old without opening the constitution. Term limits are fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 If the Senate was stacked with Conservatives, Senate reform/abolishment would not be an issue. Not true. Senate reform was a conservative issue even when the Senate was held by conservatives. Layton said it best. Why do we allow a body of legislatures to be appointed by PM's that are run out of office, only to have their shadow over parliament for decades to come. The Canadian Senate doesn't even really fit in with any of the positives of the parliamentary system. I'm really unsure how anyone can support the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_bold&cold Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 The Liberal keep trying to say that reform can not be with just 7 provinces support, bu that is the way it reads in the laws and rules. The terms can limited without much problems and again the Liberals will howl but are really toothless. I do not even think that the SCC would hear the case on charter grounds, as it really is stretching the Charter to include this, and not all things need the SCC ruling to be valid. I personally think that we should get on with senate reform right away, as I would like it to be an issue in any coming election, that would come along. Harper and the CPC can handle a multi-issue platform with ease, where the Dion liberals struggle with finding one issue that has any grip with the voters. Hell they can not even make child poverty fly, as an issue, and you have to be pretty bad for that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 The government has successfully limited terms to 75 years old without opening the constitution. Term limits are fine. I know that is the opinion the Tories have but some experts say the provinces could still challenge it. I have no idea if they would win. In any case, I don't believe in term limits. It just creates lame ducks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) The Liberal keep trying to say that reform can not be with just 7 provinces support, bu that is the way it reads in the laws and rules. The terms can limited without much problems and again the Liberals will howl but are really toothless. I think the Liberals can oppose this with no problem and say they are listening to the provinces on the issue. There isn't any confidence attached. Don't think they Tories want an election this week with the polls tied like they are. Edited November 14, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 Not true. Senate reform was a conservative issue even when the Senate was held by conservatives.Layton said it best. Why do we allow a body of legislatures to be appointed by PM's that are run out of office, only to have their shadow over parliament for decades to come. The Canadian Senate doesn't even really fit in with any of the positives of the parliamentary system. I'm really unsure how anyone can support the status quo. I'm not familiar with the changing composition of the Senate, so when was this? I'm still not sure when the Senate has ever really proven itself to be a really problem to the Canadian democratic process. Will electing the Senate really improve things? Most voters are largely ignorant about Canadian politics, and now we should allow them to have a say in determining who will be a senator as well? As for abolishment of the Senate; how does that improve things? How does removing a democratic institution make things better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 How does removing a democratic institution make things better. How is the Senate a democratic institution? Putting party bagmen in a chair forever so they can be a thorn in the side of future governments is not democratic. Australia uses a very effective EEE Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 The government has successfully limited terms to 75 years old without opening the constitution. Term limits are fine. You're absolutely right on that score geoffrey, the Constitution Act, 1965 placed a mandatory retirement age of 75 on senators and it required no provincial approval. Eight year term limits would be in keeping with the concept of limiting terms of service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 Not true. Senate reform was a conservative issue even when the Senate was held by conservatives.The Canadian Senate doesn't even really fit in with any of the positives of the parliamentary system. I'm really unsure how anyone can support the status quo. Not true. The Conservatives showed little true interest in senate reform until its most recent incarnation. The Reform Party was ultimately born from the intransigence of the Conservatives on the issue of the Senate. The Canadian Senate doesn't even really fit in with any of the positives of the parliamentary system. I'm really unsure how anyone can support the status quo. The Senate has generally been a benign institution which in modern times has only exerted its power in the face of strong public opposition to Parliamentary endeavours (eg the GST); which is rather ironic as it was intended to be an institution that would insulate government from the inflamed public whim. Canadians largely accept the benign nature of the Senate or would be pleased to see it abolished. The number that would have it empowered and legitimized is a minority that continuously fails to make an effective case for an effective senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 Australia uses a very effective EEE Senate. For starters, Canada is not Australia. Nor is it the USA for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 For starters, Canada is not Australia. Nor is it the USA for that matter. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc 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? Well, did you see the laugh that the PM got when he said in the Aussie parliament that they did the senate better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin 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? The type of changes you want for the Canadian Senate would require changes in the Constitution. Quite simply put, it isn't likely to happen. A few of the Canadian provinces will accept no change to the numbers of their representatives. The Australian Senate is not one without problems either. In 2003, the government was deadlocked several times and wanted to make changes but had to back down since these type of checks are what the people seemed to like. It is possible that Harper might be able to set term limits but I think it could face a Constitutional challenge. My guess is that the term limits will not pass in the House of Commons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_bold&cold Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 The type of changes you want for the Canadian Senate would require changes in the Constitution. Quite simply put, it isn't likely to happen. 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. A few of the Canadian provinces will accept no change to the numbers of their representatives. 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 ) The Australian Senate is not one without problems either. In 2003, the government was deadlocked several times and wanted to make changes but had to back down since these type of checks are what the people seemed to like.It is possible that Harper might be able to set term limits but I think it could face a Constitutional challenge. My guess is that the term limits will not pass in the House of Commons. Again saying that a constitutional challenge may follow, you never quit but again it is wrong, wrong, wrong wrong and it is wrong. 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.