CPC Hijacking The Senate?

punked · July 8, 2009

There are several amending formulas. For a change such as abolition, there would maybe have to be unanimous agreement among the provinces, the Senate, the House, and the Crown. Also, by convention (as created by the Charlottetown Accord) the people may need to be consulted.
The 7/50 rule is also possible, but because it would affect this:

( B ) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

it may not be.

There would not have to be agreement by the Senate, or the crown. The House maybe, 7 of 10 provinces yes, referendum in all provinces yes, and probably the Supreme court becuase it would be challenged. Either way this is our country and personally I don't want to be represented by appointed members. A Senator has as much say and an elected MP? Seriously? I think if this was put to a referendum there would be very little on the keep it how it is side.

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

I really need to study this but that does not sound right. I really think it is 7 provinces that must agree making up over half the countries population. Anyway we need to get rid of the upper house and it is a fight worth fighting for.

As I said, it would have to be 10 out of 10. And Quebec has already said it does not want change. It would be hard to proceed past that.

Moreover, if the issue of the Senate comes up, I guarantee that every other constitutional issues would somehow come as well such as the Quebec, First Nations, etc.

It could be the constitutional chaos of years earlier.

Smallc · July 8, 2009

There would not have to be agreement by the Senate, or the crown.

Yes, there would. That's an integral component of both the general amendment formula and the unanimous consent formula.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · July 8, 2009

Either way this is our country and personally I don't want to be represented by appointed members.

No, you want to abolish them, which is silly. Electing them with the power that they currently posses is just as silly.

punked · July 8, 2009

No, you want to abolish them, which is silly. Electing them with the power that they currently posses is just as silly.

Tell to the provinces who saw them as a bunch of guys who just get in the way 100 years ago.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2009

There would not have to be agreement by the Senate, or the crown. The House maybe, 7 of 10 provinces yes, referendum in all provinces yes, and probably the Supreme court becuase it would be challenged. Either way this is our country and personally I don't want to be represented by appointed members. A Senator has as much say and an elected MP? Seriously? I think if this was put to a referendum there would be very little on the keep it how it is side.

Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes would, I suspect, cling to the current system. This has always been the problem with constitutional reform. The West wants it desperately because they see the system having been heavily tilted towards the original Confederation.

So, the short answer is no, you will not see the Senate abolished. Not in your lifetime. It would have been slightly more possible to reform it, but there isn't a politician in the land who wants to replay Meech Lake and Charlottetown, no matter what they tell the faithful at pancake breakfasts.

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

Either way this is our country and personally I don't want to be represented by appointed members.

I suggest you do some research on excessive democracy, tyranny of the majority, and the like. It might dispel your notions that democratic systems function solely on direct elections.

ToadBrother · July 8, 2009

I suggest you do some research on excessive democracy, tyranny of the majority, and the like. It might dispel your notions that democratic systems function solely on direct elections.

I still think the American system is incredibly elegant in this regard. The Senate and the House of Representatives both share a number of powers, so they create a check on each other, while each has some unique powers. The Founding Fathers were very much interested in avoiding a tyranny by any particular element of the government. Representatives are purely rep by pop, the Senate rep by state, and the President is elected by an electoral college, which, as we all discovered in 2000, can create some anomalies, but still servers the purpose of somewhat reigning in the majority.

The Senate in our system is supposed to serve the purpose of sober second thought. While it's powers are indeed limited, the fact that no Senator, once they're in, is actually beholden to anyone. It's still a politicized body, of course, moreso right now because the Commons is such a mess. But I'm not so sure I like the idea of simply having a House of Commons, with little or nothing to act as a brake. Bicameral legislatures were invented precisely to prevent this.

punked · July 8, 2009

I suggest you do some research on excessive democracy, tyranny of the majority, and the like. It might dispel your notions that democratic systems function solely on direct elections.

I suggest you do some research on oligarchy or "rule of the minority" because that is what senate is. We have the Charter of rights and freedoms and the Supreme court to check the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have those things.

Edited July 8, 2009 by punked

ToadBrother · July 8, 2009

I suggest you do some research on oligarchy or "rule of the minority" because that is what senate is. We have the Charter of rights and freedoms and the Supreme court to check the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have those things.

Oh give me a break. The Senate, as its constituted, can at best delay bills, and it has virtually no power over money bills. I'd hardly call that "rule of the minority".

punked · July 8, 2009

Oh give me a break. The Senate, as its constituted, can at best delay bills, and it has virtually no power over money bills. I'd hardly call that "rule of the minority".

The Senate has the power to reject legislation, and may veto. Yes they have very little control over money, but are equal to the house on laws passed in this country. The is rule of the minority.

A bill passed by the Commons restricting abortion (C-43), a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the Lester B. Pearson airport (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220).

Those are just some examples of bills the Senate has rejected. Tell me more about their "no" power again.

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

I suggest you do some research on oligarchy or "rule of the minority" because that is what senate is.

I suggest you read the Constitution Act 1867 and familiarise yourself with our constitutional conventions so as to dispel this belief of yours that the Senate is the government of Canada.

madmax · July 8, 2009

I suggest you read the Constitution Act 1867 and familiarise yourself with our constitutional conventions so as to dispel this belief of yours that the Senate is the government of Canada.

More reason to Abolish it.

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

More reason to Abolish it.

How?

punked · July 8, 2009

I suggest you read the Constitution Act 1867 and familiarise yourself with our constitutional conventions so as to dispel this belief of yours that the Senate is the government of Canada.

I gave examples of the Senate getting the way of bills, of which the elected government of Canada tried to pass. Seems to me they have power. There is no need for unelected officials to make real decisions about the laws of this land.

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

I gave examples of the Senate getting the way of bills, of which the elected government of Canada tried to pass. Seems to me they have power. There is no need for unelected officials to make real decisions about the laws of this land.

Enough talk. Tell me how the NDP would fulfill this promise of ending the Senate.

Edited July 8, 2009 by jdobbin

punked · July 8, 2009

Enough talk. Tell me how the NDP would fulfill this promise of ending the Senate.

Well it would require a vote in the House of Commons, and a referendum requiring 7 of 10 provinces comprising 50% of the population. Is it possible yes, does it require a lot of work yes, will it happen? Not with the Liberals around I don't think.

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

I gave examples of the Senate getting the way of bills, of which the elected government of Canada tried to pass.

That's irrelevant. You spoke about oligarchic rule. Amending proposed legislation is not ruling. Your mistakes lie in the belief that the Senate governs, and does so in a vacuum.

jdobbin · July 8, 2009

Well it would require a vote in the House of Commons, and a referendum requiring 7 of 10 provinces comprising 50% of the population. Is it possible yes, does it require a lot of work yes, will it happen? Not with the Liberals around I don't think.

Actually, no. As I said: 10 out of 10 for abolition. That's the constitution.

If the NDP can't deliver that, they would have no choice but to live with a Senate. And if they wouldn't appoint Senators, the Governor General would.

And if you want to get rid of the Governor General. Ditto. It requires 10 out of 10.

You are misinformed about 7 out of 10. That is for amendments not wholesale Constitutional change.

punked · July 8, 2009

That's irrelevant. You spoke about oligarchic rule. Amending proposed legislation is not ruling. Your mistakes lie in the belief that the Senate governs, and does so in a vacuum.

Although vetoing legislation and law is.

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

Although vetoing legislation and law is.

That's an incomplete sentence. Vetoing legislation is... what?

punked · July 8, 2009

That's an incomplete sentence. Vetoing legislation is... what?

Ruling, and governing.

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

Ruling, and governing.

No, it isn't. It's merely one part of the legislative process, which itself is but one part of governance. As I said, your mistake lies in believing the Senate is the sole organ of government.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 8, 2009

Failing a conversion to an elected Senate, why not just let it die out? Don't appoint anybody and sooner or latter there will be nobody left there right?

g_bambino · July 8, 2009

Failing a conversion to an elected Senate, why not just let it die out? Don't appoint anybody and sooner or latter there will be nobody left there right?

The Governor General is constitutionally required to summon people to the Senate.