Senate appointments

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

Existing appointees would have to be grandfathered. New appointees would not have a choice.

Legislation would still have to pass through the Senate. Think they might be opposed. It would not be a pure economic change in legislation since it would, as you say, depend on new members accepting it.

And here's the rub: if someone was independently wealthy, they could stay in the Senate and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so under the scenario you outline.

I agree with most of your points about the difficulties inherent in senate reform, however, I think you overlook the power of unwritten convention within our constitutional framework. For example, we now have an unwritte convention that constitutional changes must be put to a public vote and that every province has a veto. A future government would find it very tough to ignore these conventions even if they are not written into constitution. For that reason, I think that it is possible to change some of the conventions surrounding the senate without opening the constitution.

It is only possibly if you get a very large consensus for making that change. I don't it see it, do you?

cybercoma · December 12, 2008

Something I believe in. The provinces got rid of all their upper houses. Time for the Feds to do the same thing.

The provinces don't need regional representation to balance the popular representation in the house. The federal government oth.....

blueblood · December 12, 2008

The provinces don't need regional representation to balance the popular representation in the house. The federal government oth.....

Really... BC, SK, MB, AB, NW ONT, PQ might disagree with you.

However the ridings in the current system already do that.

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

Really... BC, SK, MB, AB, NW ONT, PQ might disagree with you.

I don't think people think too much of the Senate one way or the other. It could be gone tomorrow and you would not hear a peep.

blueblood · December 12, 2008

I don't think people think too much of the Senate one way or the other. It could be gone tomorrow and you would not hear a peep.

No argument there, cybercoma was suggesting that there was no balance of population in these provinces, I disagreed.

cybercoma · December 12, 2008

No argument there, cybercoma was suggesting that there was no balance of population in these provinces, I disagreed.

I was suggesting that the senate serves the purpose of regional representation.

Shakeyhands · December 12, 2008

And John Turner was born in England. You point is you would rather make someone look bad by ignoring the facts then actually act Canadian. Great. Turner was our PM only 25 years ago now you are saying anyone born outside the country should not even be allowed to hold a Senate seat?

Dooood... nevermind all that! Did you know Harper was born in Toronto (GAAAAAAAAASP!!!!!)

In some peoples minds, this makes him unsuitable for the office....

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

This is only an issue because there will be some conservatives in the Senate. It has been Liberal dominated for decades and now the tide is turning. IF it was more Liberals being appointed you all would be applauding it. Get off your high horse please guys, the tide is turning and there's not much the Liberals or the left can do about it.

Typical Liberal-Left arrogance imo. You feel that only you know what Canadians want and the Tories are unfit to decide and are out of touch. Perhaps you're upset because the centre-right is the pulse of Canada whereas the Liberal-Left only has the guilt stick to wield and no substance.

punked · December 12, 2008

This is only an issue because there will be some conservatives in the Senate. It has been Liberal dominated for decades and now the tide is turning. IF it was more Liberals being appointed you all would be applauding it. Get off your high horse please guys, the tide is turning and there's not much the Liberals or the left can do about it.
Typical Liberal-Left arrogance imo. You feel that only you know what Canadians want and the Tories are unfit to decide and are out of touch. Perhaps you're upset because the centre-right is the pulse of Canada whereas the Liberal-Left only has the guilt stick to wield and no substance.

No it is an issue becuase Harper railed against Senate appointments for the last 8 years and now is doing it. Making him a liar.

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

No it is an issue becuase Harper railed against Senate appointments for the last 8 years and now is doing it. Making him a liar.

He cannot change the Senate until he gets majority in it in 2011. Then watch the fireworks.

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

He cannot change the Senate until he gets majority in it in 2011. Then watch the fireworks.

He can't even then. He can't force elections on provinces that don't want them. It would face a challenge Constitutionally.

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

He can't even then. He can't force elections on provinces that don't want them. It would face a challenge Constitutionally.

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I think it will be a drawbridge for some time to come. And the bridge is up and the moat below is full of snapping crocodiles.

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

I think it will be a drawbridge for some time to come. And the bridge is up and the moat below is full of snapping crocodiles.

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

That's the only reason that he can't have a triple E Senate? I think you need to read the amending formula.

punked · December 12, 2008

The reason he cannot change the Senate as yet is because the Liberals keep blocking him. It is silly for the Liberals to be out of power but to have control of the Senate.

No the reason is he killed his own plan when he called an election in October. Remember that? He had started the process of reform then called an election.

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

That's the only reason that he can't have a triple E Senate? I think you need to read the amending formula.

Well the Tories will have control of the Senate after decades of Liberal control. Get used to it.

punked · December 12, 2008

Well the Tories will have control of the Senate after decades of Liberal control. Get used to it.

He just let all the seats go unfilled then it would be no problem to not only get senate reform but also get ride of it like the NDP want too.

jdobbin · December 12, 2008

Well the Tories will have control of the Senate after decades of Liberal control. Get used to it.

Really? Going to take many more years of Harper in power for that to happen.

It still won't get him a triple E Senate even if he has a majority in both houses. You need the provinces on board and they just aren't.

Edited December 12, 2008 by jdobbin

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

Really? Going to take many more years of Harper in power for that to happen.

Now you're getting the picture dobs. Next election the Tories will have a majority. That will last three to four years into 2011 or 12. Canada needed change, Harper represents that change. Can't you just be happy we have a PM who has Canadians best interests at heart?

punked · December 12, 2008

Now you're getting the picture dobs. Next election the Tories will have a majority. That will last three to four years into 2011 or 12. Canada needed change, Harper represents that change. Can't you just be happy we have a PM who has Canadians best interests at heart?

PFFFTTTT you are dreaming.

LesterDC · December 12, 2008

Now you're getting the picture dobs. Next election the Tories will have a majority. That will last three to four years into 2011 or 12. Canada needed change, Harper represents that change. Can't you just be happy we have a PM who has Canadians best interests at heart?

Harper couldn't even get a majority with Dion as the main threat... What makes you think he will be able to get one next time?

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

Harper couldn't even get a majority with Dion as the main threat... What makes you think he will be able to get one next time?

Because now he can say that if I don';t get a majority, these guys will form a coalition and bully parliament into having a PM that you didn't vote for. Propped up by the separtists who will have veto power.

Don't forget 60% of Canada was against a coalition.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Mr.Canada

LesterDC · December 12, 2008

Because now he can say that if I don';t get a majority, these guys will form a coalition and bully parliament into having a PM that you didn't vote for. Propped up by the separtists who will have veto power.
Don't forget 60% of Canada was against a coalition.

Harper will never win over Quebec.. Also, with Ignatieff leading the Liberals, who knows what will happen to the coalition

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

Harper will never win over Quebec.. Also, with Ignatieff leading the Liberals, who knows what will happen to the coalition

He doesn't need any more seats in Quebec. He needs 12 seats. He will win more seats in the 905 and will win seats in the 416, likely 2. 2 seats in St. Johns and Vancouver.

Even though his numbers rose in Quebec. He's at what? 32% there in Quebec.