SHOULD Canada break up?

[Frank]

Oohh.. a conspiracy theorist!

Are you serious??? Open your eyes and ears to reality.

I would like nothing more than to live in a democratic country, but voting them into office is just about the last say we get in anything unless we threaten to vote 'em out.

If our politicians spent as much energy DOING their jobs, as they do on spinning the truth, we might actually have a system that does work effectively.

Instead we are inundated with voter friendly sound bites and politicians who masterfully avoid saying anything that they may be held accountable for.

I would prefer a government full of skirt chasing, booze hounds that tell it like it is, rather than our current crop of pretenders who talk about what the people want only to prove time and again that they have no idea what we want or need.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Frank

[g_bambino]

I would like nothing more than to live in a democratic country, but voting them into office is just about the last say we get in anything unless we threaten to vote 'em out.

I specifically quoted your claims about the federal viceroy and partisanship because it was to that which I was responding.

[ed. to differentiate fed. from prov. viceroys]

Edited December 1, 2008 by g_bambino

[Frank]

Ok.....you do realize that the crown in set up to be above politics, right?

OK....do YOU realize that most of our political institutions(including GG) were set up to serve the country and NOT the occupants of said institutions?

[Wilber]

Democracy doesn't mean that every part of government needs to be elected. The people have their representatives in the Commons.

The Senate is not the government. The government is the PM and Cabinet, we are talking about our representatives and yes they all do need to be elected.

[Smallc]

OK....do YOU realize that most of our political institutions(including GG) were set up to serve the country and NOT the occupants of said institutions?

[blueblood]

What on earth are you talking about? An unwieldly mass of people is too volitile to be in charge of everything; do you want a national vote on all minutae of government? Systems that are balaced best tend to work best, and the proof is in the pudding of history that governments with a balance between elected and unelected elements work quite successfully.

And an unaccountable, unfireable, mass of senators is too dangerous to be in charge of anything. We have a national vote, we elect people who we think would run the country the best. It works pretty good if you ask me, no need for an unelected senate. They have something like that in the USA, works pretty good there too.

[Smallc]

It works pretty good if you ask me,

It does work pretty good....right now....with an appointed senate.

[blueblood]

It does work pretty good....right now....with an appointed senate.

Like I said, I'm a business man. Settling for good enough is not an option. Everything can be better. The senate being tossed or elected is one of them. Settling for good enough is one of the reasons that socialism sucks and that the USSR fell.

[Smallc]

Like I said, I'm a business man. Settling for good enough is not an option. Everything can be better. The senate being tossed or elected is one of them. Settling for good enough is one of the reasons that socialism sucks and that the USSR fell.

That makes no sense. We have no idea if your proposal would make things better....this also have nothing to do with the USSR.

[g_bambino]

The Senate is not the government. The government is the PM and Cabinet, we are talking about our representatives and yes they all do need to be elected.

Actually, no. In all reality it is the Queen, as advised by her Privy Council, who is the government. Both bodies, as well as the monarch's representative) are unelected, and therefore apolitical. However, by convention, those appointed by the Governor General to serve in the Privy Council as Ministers of the Crown generally come from the House of Commons, made up of individuals elected to represent the populace, and who therefore are political. This strikes a balance in the executive between a group representing the ever-shifting political attitudes of the people and a body representing the more enduring monolith of the state. Works pretty well, too; better than in most places where that non-partisan element has been replaced by yet another elected individual.

[g_bambino]

And an unaccountable, unfireable, mass of senators is too dangerous to be in charge of anything.

Too dangerous to be in charge of everything, yes. In charge of anything, no.

We have a national vote, we elect people who we think would run the country the best. It works pretty good if you ask me, no need for an unelected senate. They have something like that in the USA, works pretty good there too.

Er, putting aside the point that what you think works pretty good doesn't actually happen, you speak as though the addition of a senate were being debated. The US system is not really comparable, even if what you're trying to say about it was more clear.

[ed. to refine clarity]

Edited December 1, 2008 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

Actually, no. In all reality it is the Queen, as advised by her Privy Council, who is the government. Both bodies, as well as the monarch's representative) are unelected, and therefore apolitical. However, by convention, those appointed by the Governor General to serve in the Privy Council as Ministers of the Crown generally come from the House of Commons, made up of individuals elected to represent the populace, and who therefore are political. This strikes a balance in the executive between a group representing the ever-shifting political attitudes of the people and a body representing the more enduring monolith of the state. Works pretty well, too; better than in most places where that non-partisan element has been replaced by yet another elected individual.

Same thing, in our world the Privy council is the PM and Cabinet and they call the shots with the PM appointing everyone including the Senate who are not from the Commons and are supposed to represent the people. This might not be too bad if the Senate wasn't so prone to acting along party lines which results in a non elected house playing party politics. Unacceptable.

[blueblood]

That makes no sense. We have no idea if your proposal would make things better....this also have nothing to do with the USSR.

Non elected, unaccountable members that swallow up tax dollars doing essentially nothing = unacceptable

[Smallc]

doing essentially nothing

Senate committees are working all of the time. The senate even work when parliament doesn't.

[blueblood]

Senate committees are working all of the time. The senate even work when parliament doesn't.

If their work isn't needed, then it's nothing. IMO they do nothing. Stressing IMO.

[fellowtraveller]

The various regions have evolved into dramatically different cultures. Alberta is quite conservative, B.C. is very socialist, the Maritimes are a mix of Liberal and the old PC, which is essentially the same thing. (That's what caused the great Reform schism, after all)

I don't agree with much, if any, of that. You're stuck on stereotypes that are long past. For example, Abertas govt spends massive amounts on social programs like education and health care, and is socially progressive. What part of that is 'conservative'?

BC is not socialist, after the ruinous NDP years they have apparently seen the light.

I do agree that the country has devolved into a bunch of intensely self centered regions, but of coursse this has little to do wiuth culture and a lot to do with getting money for themselves. We've now had a couple of generations of politicians giving Quebec a disproportionate share of the gravy, so it can hardly come as a surprise that every other province sees the wisdom of this approach and vigorously puts forward their selfish self interest front and center, ahead of the common good.

It is our tradition, after all.

And that is what makes this current situation so compelling. The Bloc has thrived on the utter stupidity and weakness of our leadership to the disproportionate benefit of Quebec, and now is poised to essentially take control of Parliament with a fraction of the seats normally required, no investment of any kind suince their entire existence is eagerly suppported by those they have vowed to dismantle, and not a shot fired. It is all quite civilized, and all entirely ludicrous.

[Wild Bill]

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!

[Smallc]

This structure is true in Britain,

you think so huh.

[g_bambino]

Same thing, in our world the Privy council is the PM and Cabinet and they call the shots with the PM appointing everyone including the Senate who are not from the Commons and are supposed to represent the people. This might not be too bad if the Senate wasn't so prone to acting along party lines which results in a non elected house playing party politics. Unacceptable.

Yes, you are correct that Senators work in a partisan manner; this dispels my inference that "unelected" equals "apolitical". They are, however, less political than their Commons counterparts because of how they attain their position; Smallc had it right when he said that removing the need to appeal to an electorate meant less political gaming and pandering, hence the more "sober" thought. Senators, also, are supposed to represent regions, more broad in area and concept than ridings. An unelected upper house has worked in the UK for centuries, and here for more than one, and similar bodies exist in a number of other countries, including Jordan, Ireland, and Malaysia. I see little wrong with it.

[Wilber]

Yes, you are correct that Senators work in a partisan manner; this dispels my inference that "unelected" equals "apolitical". They are, however, less political than their Commons counterparts because of how they attain their position; Smallc had it right when he said that removing the need to appeal to an electorate meant less political gaming and pandering, hence the more "sober" thought. Senators, also, are supposed to represent regions, more broad in area and concept than ridings. An unelected upper house has worked in the UK for centuries, and here for more than one, and similar bodies exist in a number of other countries, including Jordan, Ireland, and Malaysia. I see little wrong with it.

They are political animals because they owe their positions to the politicians who put them there. Senators do not represent regions. If Ontario and Quebec are regions on their own then so is BC. It is a bastard house built according to Quebec and Ontario's view of Canada. BC has 60% the population of Quebec but only 25% the number of senators, because Central Canada has decided that BC is part of a region and therefore not their equal. As demographics continue to change, this attitude will not be sustainable.

Jordan: All senators are appointed by the King and the Jordanian king is no figurehead but a Monarch with real powers. Very democratic.

Ireland: Senators are appointed in a variety of ways including six by universities. Of the sixty, only eleven are appointed by the PM.

Malaysia: 26 are elected by state assemblies and 40 are appointed by the King. All only sit for 3 year terms.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Wilber

[Oleg Bach]

To answer the orignial question. It appears that Canada was "broken up" from the get go. To have the Nation of Quebec rammed into the centre of Canada was the stupidist idea that came out of confederation - It was as smart as creating Pakistan for the Muslims in India - problem after problem will continue to emerge - The problem with Quebec will continue till Canada no longer exists. It might be better if we started to think of cutting the nation into regions...western - central and eastern . and name them as such...To continue to encourage and support Quebec - is akin to setting up an Asian nation in the centre of Canada and calling it Chinabec. Then we could describe them as a distinct society and a nation within a nation...what a bunch of crap - Lets make Canada one...and if Quebec does not like it our American buddies can invade the place and force it into submission - but then France would probably declare war.

[fellowtraveller]

The former is true, the latter is nonsense. The Liberals had been in the fetal position since Harper took power in 06. They got kicked around pretty good in the election of 08 and the only thing certain, was they were going to remain in the fetal position. I cannot blame anyone when lying on the ground in a ball and crying like a baby. But leave it to Harper to try to Take one swift kick at the head of a downed near unconscious opponent.

Payback is a bitch.

I see only oneside to blame for this self inflicted political crises.

Well, at least you are honest in that this coup has nothing at all to do with the fiscasl update or any lack of confidence in the government. The 'kick in the head' was the threat to Liberal dependence on funding.

Power play, pure and simple.

I'd respect that, except that the NDP/Libs are bringing the Bloc into it. That changes everything, and what respect I had for Dion and Layton is now formally zero.

[ThatGuy]

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.

[g_bambino]

Jordan: All senators are appointed by the King and the Jordanian king is no figurehead but a Monarch with real powers. Very democratic.

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.

Ireland: Senators are appointed in a variety of ways including six by universities. Of the sixty, only eleven are appointed by the PM.

That's right, none elected.

Malaysia: 26 are elected by state assemblies and 40 are appointed by the King. All only sit for 3 year terms.

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.

[Wild Bill]

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

Well, I'm sure that if you just keep scolding them like that and wait long enough then of course it will happen.

Meanwhile, you might consider that they have REASONS why they don't agree with folks like you and unless you stop calling them names and satisfy their arguments then you'll have a very, very long wait.