Harpers Conservative Senate Appointment

Wilber · February 4, 2009

Yes, and that's the exact opposite idea of the Canadian Federal government. It was supposed to have as much power as possible in order to avoid a situation like the US Civil War. The irony is, over time, the US Federal Government has become stronger and the Canadian Federal Government weaker. Provinces already have a lot of power. They don't even use all of the power that they have. The senate isn't meant to represent provinces, but rather, geographic and language regions. West, central, Quebec, maritime. Because N & L came on board later, it was simply tacked on. That is really the only part I don't like, but its not really a deal breaker for me.

Well, I object to being lumped in with you as a region. BC has about as much in common with Manitoba as it does with New Brunswick who incidentaly has 66% more senators than BC or Manitoba. Who's ass were they kissing when this abortion was dreamed up?

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Well, I object to being lumped in with you as a region.

The Senate does too. They want to fix it. They want BC to be its own region.

I'll tell you the truth, I'm fine with the idea of equal representation for provinces as it really changes nothing...but not election...it defeats the entire purpose. I have no problem with senate reform, but first, its important to understand that the Canadian Senate is not the US Senate, that's not the way it was designed, and that's not the way it functions.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Oh, and also, the whole opening the Constitution thing scares me.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

The Senate does too. They want to fix it. They want BC to be its own region.
I'll tell you the truth, I'm fine with the idea of equal representation for provinces as it really changes nothing...but not election...it defeats the entire purpose. I have no problem with senate reform, but first, its important to understand that the Canadian Senate is not the US Senate, that's not the way it was designed, and that's not the way it functions.

Like I said before, I don't want BC to become a region as that would just compound the stupidity of the system we already have. It would only fix it in their minds. Whoopee, more seats, more money for nothing, more political hacks at the trough. If every province had 5 senators you could cut the number of trough feeders in half. If you made it a full time job as for an MP, 50 of them should be plenty. If equal representation would change nothing, why are the provinces which have the most lop sided representation most opposed to it. I understand that the Canadian senate is not the US senate and its powers would likely have to be defined in a different way but that doesn't take away from the absurdness of the present house as part of a so called democratic institution.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

50 of them should be plenty.

According to what I have heard, there were almost too few Senators to run the Committees when there were 18 missing. I can't imagine what it would be like if their numbers were cut in half.

the absurdness of the present house as part of a so called democratic institution.

I disagree. As I have said, the Senate was never supposed to be democratic and it works as designed. There isn't a real problem besides the fact that some don't like the way it is now.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Oh, and also, the whole opening the Constitution thing scares me.

Why, it was never done right to begin with. Trudeau's constitution was a farse we already had one under the B&A act. The thing needs to be changed.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Trudeau's constitution was a farse

Well that's pure opinion. I like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I don't want anyone getting their hands anywhere near it....unless they plan to strengthen it.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Like I said before, I don't want BC to become a region as that would just compound the stupidity of the system we already have. It would only fix it in their minds. Whoopee, more seats, more money for nothing, more political hacks at the trough. If every province had 5 senators you could cut the number of trough feeders in half. If you made it a full time job as for an MP, 50 of them should be plenty. If equal representation would change nothing, why are the provinces which have the most lop sided representation most opposed to it. I understand that the Canadian senate is not the US senate and its powers would likely have to be defined in a different way but that doesn't take away from the absurdness of the present house as part of a so called democratic institution.

I wouldn't change things that much after a bill has been through 3 times to the house of commons I beleive the senate must endorse it.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Well that's pure opinion. I like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I don't want anyone getting their hands anywhere near it....unless they plan to strengthen it.

We had that in the B&A act it was already entrenched in our common law.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

We had that in the B&A act it was already entrenched in our common law.

We didn't have it in the BNA act...and law is not Constitution.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

We didn't have it in the BNA act...and law is not Constitution.

Law s consitution where are consitutional matters argued?

Why such fear a amending a flawed document?

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Law s consitution where are consitutional matters argued?

The Constitution is law...law is not the Constitution.

Why such fear a amending a flawed document?

Because I don't fine it nearly as flawed as you do.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

The Constitution is law...law is not the Constitution.
Because I don't fine it nearly as flawed as you do.

Do you not realize the B&A act was our constitution it was the law of the country?

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Do you not realize the B&A act was our constitution it was the law of the country?

The Constitution Act, 1867, (or BNA act) makes up our constitutional law, but it doesn't make up the entire law of our country.

You do realize that the Constitution Act, 1867, makes up the majority of the Canadian Constitution even today, don't you? The Constitution Acts that followed (1960, 1965, 1982, etc.) continued to build on it.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Smallc

Wilber · February 4, 2009

I wouldn't change things that much after a bill has been through 3 times to the house of commons I beleive the senate must endorse it.

Then why have it at all but if we are to have it, at least let it respect the reality of the country and democratic principles.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Then why have it at all but if we are to have it, at least let it respect the reality of the country and democratic principles.

Because they have the ablity to send bills back to be re worked with recommendations in commitee.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Then why have it at all but if we are to have it, at least let it respect the reality of the country and democratic principles.

Because it is designed to make bills fit Canadian law, to make sure that it doesn't disadvantage minorities, and to make sure that it doesn't go against the constitution (along with other things). They read every bill and quite often change language to make it comply with whatever it needs to comply with. They will delay or block legislation if it is something very bad for the country as a whole.

Oh, and the Senate is part of the reality of Canada...and its democratic principles. Not every institution in a democratic country has to be democratic. The people have their representatives. The Senate is a check on those representatives.

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

This is Harpers Senate Choice???

What does this have to do with the title you gave this thread?

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

Because it is designed to make bills fit Canadian law, to make sure that it doesn't disadvantage minorities, and to make sure that it doesn't go against the constitution (along with other things). They read every bill and quite often change language to make it comply with whatever it needs to comply with. They will delay or block legislation if it is something very bad for the country as a whole.
Oh, and the Senate is part of the reality of Canada...and its democratic principles. Not every institution in a democratic country has to be democratic. The people have their representatives. The Senate is a check on those representatives.

Not really when they play partisan games though.

Wilber · February 4, 2009

According to what I have heard, there were almost too few Senators to run the Committees when there were 18 missing. I can't imagine what it would be like if their numbers were cut in half.

According to what you have heard from whom? How much of their time is actually being spent working on these committees? From my own personal life observations I would expect that a few do most of the heavy lifting, some do a share, some do a bit and some others do next to nothing.

I disagree. As I have said, the Senate was never supposed to be democratic and it works as designed. There isn't a real problem besides the fact that some don't like the way it is now.

Who's government is it anyway or does the Senate have the right to exist out of a sense of entitlement?

Because it is designed to make bills fit Canadian law, to make sure that it doesn't disadvantage minorities, and to make sure that it doesn't go against the constitution (along with other things). They read every bill and quite often change language to make it comply with whatever it needs to comply with. They will delay or block legislation if it is something very bad for the country as a whole.
Oh, and the Senate is part of the reality of Canada...and its democratic principles. Not every institution in a democratic country has to be democratic. The people have their representatives. The Senate is a check on those representatives.

There is no reason an elected Senate with equal representation from the provinces couldn't do the same thing. Again, the definition of the Senate's powers and duties have nothing to do with the manner in which it is composed. You seem to think that a bunch of political appointees are more appropriate in a parliamentary house of a country that claims to be a democracy than those chosen by the people. I must say that is very odd. If the people have their representatives in the Commons, who does the Senate then represent that the Charter and Supreme Court does not?

Smallc · February 4, 2009

Not really when they play partisan games though.

I agree with that. They should be working above politics and in the best interests of the country.

Alta4ever · February 4, 2009

I agree with that. They should be working above politics and in the best interests of the country.

When the members of both parties attend caucus meetings and work for the betterment of their respective parties what the senate was ment to be doesn't happen in the political reality.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

Not really when they play partisan games though.

Partisanship is based on generating opportunities for re-election. If they adjust laws as not to disadvantage minorities, it is not because they care about those of minor consequence...It's because the want the vote of those minority members of the herd. Partisan game playing is strickly self serving and does not serve the general public..they are not interested in doing what is right for EVERYBODY.. If they were interested in maintaining fairness then the Human Rights Commisson would not need to exist. There would be justice from the bottom of the system to the top. I guess what I am saying is that politics is no longer a mission of service that it once was...It's about glory - power and the partisan battle at achieving selfish personal success.

Smallc · February 4, 2009

When the members of both parties attend caucus meetings and work for the betterment of their respective parties what the senate was ment to be doesn't happen in the political reality.

To some extent that is true. Much of the time though, the Senate is much more likely to come to a consensus on issues and to move forward from there. It is far less political than the HoC, but it is still political to some extent.

g_bambino · February 4, 2009

You seem to think that a bunch of political appointees are more appropriate in a parliamentary house of a country that claims to be a democracy than those chosen by the people. I must say that is very odd. If the people have their representatives in the Commons, who does the Senate then represent that the Charter and Supreme Court does not?

And yet, neither the Charter nor Supreme Court justices were selected via the mob rule process you espouse for choosing senators. I must say that's what seems odd to me.