SHOULD Canada break up?

[Wild Bill]

Constitutional monarchy, just like us; Senators are appointed by the King on the advice of his prime minister, who is responsible to the elected Chamber of Deputies.

That's right, none elected.

Yes, most are appointed, not elected.

As I said, Canada is not the only country with an unelected upper chamber, and there are a number more besides the above examples.

Mea culpa. Still, are you not picking apart my model instead of my point?

[g_bambino]

Still, are you not picking apart my model instead of my point?

I thought I was addressing your point: there are countries out there that have unelected (or partly unelected) elements of their legislatures, yet are still considered democracies. One doesn't ignore the existence of the Queen, the House of Lords, the Queen's Bench, etc., etc., in order to qualify the United Kingdom as a democratic state; the institutions are part and parcel with the country's legislative and governing processes.

[Wilber]

Constitutional monarchy, just like us; Senators are appointed by the King on the advice of his prime minister, who is responsible to the elected Chamber of Deputies.

Not quite, in 2001 the King suspended parliament for two years during which time he passed 110 laws.

That's right, none elected.

That's right, only 11 appointed by the PM

Yes, most are appointed, not elected.

Yes but more than a quarter are elected.

As I said, Canada is not the only country with an unelected upper chamber, and there are a number more besides the above examples.

Nothing at all to be proud of in a democratic country. Of the two Commonwealth countries with whom we have the most in common, Australia and New Zealand, one has an elected senate and the other has none at all. New Zealand considered an elected senate at one point but decided no senate was better.

[g_bambino]

Of the two Commonwealth countries with whom we have the most in common, Australia and New Zealand, one has an elected senate and the other has none at all. New Zealand considered an elected senate at one point but decided no senate was better.

You forgot the UK.

[Smallc]

You forgot the UK.

Yes, their democracy seems to have worked for about 600 years.

[Jack Weber]

Canada should't break up, neo-cons should just wake up.

It is amazing what can happen in the UK, then in the USA, and now in Canada.

Why do these people continue to get support? A failed Ontario Finance Minister named Federal Finance Minister was just one of many red flags to help people take notice. Maybe I am just too rational though.

Here,here...

This Con debacle has Harrisite Bully Boy,Guy Giorno,written all over it.A stupid ideological gamble has blown up in the Harris types face.

Looks good on them.

[Wilber]

You forgot the UK.

No, we do not have a hereditary aristocracy, neither do Australia and New Zealand.

[Smallc]

No, we do not have a hereditary aristocracy, neither do Australia and New Zealand.

The House of Lords isn't like that anymore.

[Wilber]

The House of Lords isn't like that anymore.

Actually it is. Yes new people who receive peerages are entitled to sit in the Lords but so are hereditary peers. One reason Churchill always refused a peerage is because he wouldn't be allowed to sit in the Commons if he had.

[Smallc]

Actually it is. Yes new people who receive peerages are entitled to sit in the Lords but so are hereditary peers. One reason Churchill always refused a peerage is because he wouldn't be allowed to sit in the Commons if he had.

No, almost all members are now appointed....hmmm....just like here.

[Wilber]

No, almost all members are now appointed....hmmm....just like here.

Interesting how the Brits have been able to reform their upper house but we can't.

[Smallc]

Interesting how the Brits have been able to reform their upper house but we can't.

Ok, we'll change to what they have if you like it so much....oh....wait.

[Wilber]

Ok, we'll change to what they have if you like it so much....oh....wait.

I don't, I'm just pointing out that they could and we can't. Hooray for us.

[IMASINNER]

I think it is interesting that no one has tried to argue or debate the really well put together argument Wild Bill put out.

Time for some basics here.

The most popular design for a parliamentary democracy involves balancing off the wishes of majorities of citizens against the individual regions of a country.

This is done by having two Houses, such as a Commons and a Senate. The commons has its members elected by winning by numbers to represent local ridings. Thus provinces or states with larger populations tend to command the lion's share of power in the Commons House.

To protect a smaller region from a bigger one you have an Upper House, or Senate. The idea here is that every province or state has an equal number of Senators. So if California got the idea to pave over little Rhode Island it could be blocked in the Senate, despite California's larger population giving it much more clout in the Commons.

This structure is true in Britain, Australia, the USA and virtually every other parliamentary democracy in the world. Their Upper Houses are elected, equal and effective. They have some differences of course like proportional systems of electing but essentially they all are true to this principle.

Canada is the ONLY exception!

Our Senate can not initiate legislation. All it can do is pass or delay Bills from the Commons. So it has limited power.

Our Senate is not equal. Some provinces have more Senators than others. So little provinces have less protection.

Our Senate is not elected. We can nitpick about the legalities but in the real world the PM appoints whoever he wishes, for life! Trudeau thought so little of the Senate he actually appointed his chauffeur! Go ahead, google for yourselves!

Since Senators are appointed for life, the Liberals have had the opportunity by being more often in power to stack it with their own loyalists, who can be counted on to give any Tory PM a hard time!

That's the real world scenario in Canada. Period and end of story. As I say, we can nitpick about the fine points of constitutional texts but who cares? The world is what it is and we have to deal with it.

Since we are the ONLY country that has such a system, I guess we must be "special".

I believe that to be much more likely than "smarter". Or maybe not. It's been a great system for those parties that have won government most often. It gives a PM incredible power, that other world leaders such as American presidents and British PMs have commented on as beyond their own wildest dreams!

It makes me think that some of the more "outspoken" posters here only will debate posts that are easily debatable. There are not as many well put together arguments on this site (i have spent a lot of time reading before I joined) that i thought there would be. This is very well put together, and hard to argue, based on people ignoring his post. So people who are arguing "the senate" go at him.

[g_bambino]

No, we do not have a hereditary aristocracy, neither do Australia and New Zealand.

I was under the impression your beef was with unelected institutions in politics. Either I'm wrong on that, or I'm incorrect in believing the House of Lords to be occupied by unelected individuals. Which is it?

[minor copyed.]

Edited December 2, 2008 by g_bambino

[ThatGuy]

I have no idea why, but when I entered this thread I started to think about Hal Johnson and Joanne McLoed

[Wilber]

I was under the impression your beef was with unelected institutions in politics. Either I'm wrong on that, or I'm incorrect in believing the House of Lords to be occupied by unelected individuals. Which is it?

[minor copyed.]

My beef is wth unelected legislatures. I was just pointing out that other countries have been able to reform theirs but we can't. Hooray for us.

BC has 685,000 people per senator, Alberta has 548,000, Ontario 506,000, Quebec 314,000, Nova Scotia 91,000, New Brunswick 73,000,

PEI 33,000 and the imbalance grows yearly. smallc's idea of senate reform is to give PEI 6 senators or 24,500 per senator. How long do you two think this bullshit is going to fly?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Wilber

[ThatGuy]

My beef is wth unelected legislatures. I was just pointing out that other countries have been able to reform theirs but we can't. Hooray for us.

BC has 685,000 people per senator, Alberta has 548,000, Ontario 506,000, Quebec 314,000, Nova Scotia 91,000, New Brunswick 73,000,

PEI 33,000 and the imbalance grows yearly. smallc's idea of senate reform is to give PEI 6 senators or 24,500 per senator. How long do you two think this bullshit is going to fly?

The constitution writers couldn't have forseen or vast expansion west, especially with such a strong nation to the south.

[Smallc]

My beef is wth unelected legislatures. I was just pointing out that other countries have been able to reform theirs but we can't. Hooray for us.

BC has 685,000 people per senator, Alberta has 548,000, Ontario 506,000, Quebec 314,000, Nova Scotia 91,000, New Brunswick 73,000,

PEI 33,000 and the imbalance grows yearly. smallc's idea of senate reform is to give PEI 6 senators or 24,500 per senator. How long do you two think this bullshit is going to fly?

Didn't you want all provinces to be equal? I was trying to move closer to that.

[Wilber]

The constitution writers couldn't have forseen or vast expansion west, especially with such a strong nation to the south.

So what, does that mean the west gets screwed forever?

[g_bambino]

My beef is wth unelected legislatures. I was just pointing out that other countries have been able to reform theirs but we can't. Hooray for us. BC has 685,000 people per senator, Alberta has 548,000, Ontario 506,000, Quebec 314,000, Nova Scotia 91,000, New Brunswick 73,000, PEI 33,000 and the imbalance grows yearly. smallc's idea of senate reform is to give PEI 6 senators or 24,500 per senator. How long do you two think this bullshit is going to fly?

You mean unelected chambers in legislatures, don't you? I would think, then, that the make-up of the Senate would be of lesser importance to you while the institution remains unelected; both aspects can be altered, there's just a process that must be followed, as it is in other countries (though some systems make is easier than others).

Australia has always had an elected senate, by the way; their constitution is about as difficult to alter as ours.

[Smallc]

So what, does that mean the west gets screwed forever?

The west is getting more seats in the commons very soon, but I suppose they're getting screwed in that too.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Didn't you want all provinces to be equal? I was trying to move closer to that.

Then you should have no problem with all provinces having only six senators.

[IMASINNER]

The constitution writers couldn't have forseen or vast expansion west, especially with such a strong nation to the south.

All the more reason for senate reform.

[jdobbin]

Then you should have no problem with all provinces having only six senators.

I'd prefer 0 senators. That is equal.