Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Smallc]

Giving provinces equal representation supposes that the provinces were meant to be more powerful than the federal government and therefore each deserved to have a seat at the table. That's NOT how the federal government was designed.

Actually, that's false. The provinces are equal partners in Confederation. In terms of veto ability on certain issues, Prince Edward Island has as much say as Quebec.

[nicky10013]

Actually, that's false. The provinces are equal partners in Confederation. In terms of veto ability on certain issues, Prince Edward Island has as much say as Quebec.

In changing the constitution. The federal government in terms of power is above the provinces.

[Smallc]

In some ways yes, but each of the provinces is technically a sovereign jurisdiction. They are simply tied together by Confederation and the Constitution.

[nicky10013]

In some ways yes, but each of the provinces is technically a sovereign jurisdiction. They are simply tied together by Confederation and the Constitution.

No doubt. The institution that turns the constitution and confederation into something tangible is Parliament. In that institution we're Canadian. The provincial governments can stand up and are powerful enough to defend their own rights. The federal government is there to represent Canadians.

[Wild Bill]

As for the triple E senate, how can anyone actually agree to that. Set aside elected for a minute, how could ANYONE support equal? Giving provinces equal representation supposes that the provinces were meant to be more powerful than the federal government and therefore each deserved to have a seat at the table. That's NOT how the federal government was designed. Anything other than rep by pop would be HORRIBLY unequal. With an equal sente you disenfranchise millions of others.

You have the same tired out misconception about how the Senate is supposed to work that I've been hearing since Reform first broached the concept back in the late 80's. Listen up and once again we'll go through Civics 101. Don't they teach you anything in school anymore, BTW? This is pretty basic stuff for someone who wants to debate politics!

Most parliamentary democracies, which includes of course Britain, Canada, the USA, Australia and a host of others, use a two House system of goverment. One house, as with our Commons, represents the population as a whole. This presumably would represent the will of the majority. Here is where you have your "representation by population".

However, you need a check on such a house. (All government systems work with checks and balances on power, don't you know?) Issues can come up where it can be convenient for regions with more voters to have Bills passed that take advantage of smaller regions. Or a few regions can gang up on just one. This is very unfair. Examples would be some of the things done to the West over the years, such as the NEP, the Crow Rate, or the hydro-electric power scam Quebec enjoys that is a mindboggling ripoff of Newfoundland!

So you have an upper House, as with our Senate. The idea of this house is "Representation by Region". Each region gets the same number of Senators. For example, in the States tiny Rhode Island gets the same number of Senators as New York or California. This ensures that while the lower House which is ruled by "rep by population" gets to initiate legislation it has to be passed by an upper House ruled by regions, which ensures that the "little regions" don't get screwed by the big ones!

So nobody who actually understands what's going on is suggesting that the Senate DUPLICATE the Commons and be formed by "rep by population"! What would be the earthly point of such a thing?

In Canada we have the worst of all worlds. We have a Senate that is unelected, so it's members are dependent on their parties for their existence and vote accordingly. We have a Senate that that is unequal, since smaller regions or provinces don't have equal power to the bigger ones. And last, most of the time our Senate is not very effective anyway.

Lastly, our country WAS designed as a confederation of provinces, all equal in power! We are NOT a republic, like the USA! Our federal government is supposed to be supreme ONLY in certain areas, such as international defense and trade that affect the country as a whole!

Where you get this idea that Ottawa is supposed to be supreme in EVERYTHING is beyond me! Even a republic like the USA still has differences between state and federal rights, some states more than others. Take a look at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example.

I don't blame you. I blame your teachers. Obviously, they suck!

Edited January 10, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No doubt. The institution that turns the constitution and confederation into something tangible is Parliament. In that institution we're Canadian. The provincial governments can stand up and are powerful enough to defend their own rights. The federal government is there to represent Canadians.

Bullshit! The federal government is there to represent their partisan faction, nothing else and nothing more. That is how they got to be the damned government having enough PARTISAN members to constitute a working administration whether it be a minority or a majority. Its all about partisan factions and has not a single thing to do with the citizens at large. If it did then I would imagine a Parliament filled with proportional representative that impose the popular vote formula through appointed representatives of get this the damned partisan factions that chose them.

[ToadBrother]

Their wasn`t precedent for what happened in 2008 but likely the decision that was made held the country together.

Nothing partisan about correcting the information being flung by the left on what prorogation is and how it effects our democratic rights.

But there is something partisan about saying a minority government "saved the country" by evading a confidence motion. It ain't never been done before, it's a horrible precedent as it now delivers to any minority government (not just in Canada, but potentially in the Commonwealth, our systems are all similar enough that constitutional experts tend to look at one situation to inform the other) the ability to evade to the will of Parliament.

[Smallc]

In Canada we have the worst of all worlds. We have a Senate that is unelected,

For someone who was just giving a civics lecture, this is a very strange statement. The Senate is unelected so that it is a different check on the house. Not only does it give representation by region, but it also gives a perspective that doesn't involve most of the political game playing or the worry about doing something just because it's popular.

so it's members are dependent on their parties for their existence and vote accordingly.

That makes absolutely zero sense. The Senators aren't dependent on their parties after they're appointed. They can vote however they want.

We have a Senate that that is unequal, since smaller regions or provinces don't have equal power to the bigger ones.

I can see that complaint. When the Senate was set up, the country was divided into four regions. N + L was added later, and so it couldn't easily be added in. I can understand why people push for an equal Senate, but on the other hand, the difficulties that are required to bring that about hardly seem worth the effort given that very little (if any) gain would come out of it.

And last, most of the time our Senate is not very effective anyway.

That's your own perspective. It's not necessarily factual. As the house of sober second thought, the Senate often does a very good job by editing bills to make them legal and Constitutional.

[whowhere]

Bullshit! The federal government is there to represent their partisan faction, nothing else and nothing more. That is how they got to be the damned government having enough PARTISAN members to constitute a working administration whether it be a minority or a majority. Its all about partisan factions and has not a single thing to do with the citizens at large. If it did then I would imagine a Parliament filled with proportional representative that impose the popular vote formula through appointed representatives of get this the damned partisan factions that chose them.

You don't want the popular vote. If popular vote ruled, regions such as Toronto and Vancouver which are immigrant cess pools would sway this vote to their agenda. The electoral college while not perfect is more democratic. Also if proportional votes gave additional indirect seats to a particular party would also be a blight to the country because the mob would rule. Canada is indeed a partisan corrupt country bent on feathering the nests of the party at the expense of Canadians. They have sold out Canada and will continue to sell out Canada for their own ends until people rally to get rid of the corrupt Conservatives and the Liberal Cancer that has plagued Canada.

[ToadBrother]

You don't want the popular vote. If popular vote ruled, regions such as Toronto and Vancouver which are immigrant cess pools would sway this vote to their agenda. The electoral college while not perfect is more democratic. Also if proportional votes gave additional indirect seats to a particular party would also be a blight to the country because the mob would rule. Canada is indeed a partisan corrupt country bent on feathering the nests of the party at the expense of Canadians. They have sold out Canada and will continue to sell out Canada for their own ends until people rally to get rid of the corrupt Conservatives and the Liberal Cancer that has plagued Canada.

Translation: Democracy is bad because people don't vote the way I want.

Edited January 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

You have the same tired out misconception about how the Senate is supposed to work that I've been hearing since Reform first broached the concept back in the late 80's. Listen up and once again we'll go through Civics 101. Don't they teach you anything in school anymore, BTW? This is pretty basic stuff for someone who wants to debate politics!

Most parliamentary democracies, which includes of course Britain, Canada, the USA, Australia and a host of others, use a two House system of goverment. One house, as with our Commons, represents the population as a whole. This presumably would represent the will of the majority. Here is where you have your "representation by population".

However, you need a check on such a house. (All government systems work with checks and balances on power, don't you know?) Issues can come up where it can be convenient for regions with more voters to have Bills passed that take advantage of smaller regions. Or a few regions can gang up on just one. This is very unfair. Examples would be some of the things done to the West over the years, such as the NEP, the Crow Rate, or the hydro-electric power scam Quebec enjoys that is a mindboggling ripoff of Newfoundland!

So you have an upper House, as with our Senate. The idea of this house is "Representation by Region". Each region gets the same number of Senators. For example, in the States tiny Rhode Island gets the same number of Senators as New York or California. This ensures that while the lower House which is ruled by "rep by population" gets to initiate legislation it has to be passed by an upper House ruled by regions, which ensures that the "little regions" don't get screwed by the big ones!

So nobody who actually understands what's going on is suggesting that the Senate DUPLICATE the Commons and be formed by "rep by population"! What would be the earthly point of such a thing?

In Canada we have the worst of all worlds. We have a Senate that is unelected, so it's members are dependent on their parties for their existence and vote accordingly. We have a Senate that that is unequal, since smaller regions or provinces don't have equal power to the bigger ones. And last, most of the time our Senate is not very effective anyway.

Lastly, our country WAS designed as a confederation of provinces, all equal in power! We are NOT a republic, like the USA! Our federal government is supposed to be supreme ONLY in certain areas, such as international defense and trade that affect the country as a whole!

Where you get this idea that Ottawa is supposed to be supreme in EVERYTHING is beyond me! Even a republic like the USA still has differences between state and federal rights, some states more than others. Take a look at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example.

I don't blame you. I blame your teachers. Obviously, they suck!

Just because the US does it one way doesn't mean we shouldn't follow suit. Where I get the idea that the Federal government is supreme over the provinces is in the BNA act. In the US constitution all reserve powers (powers not specifically named in the constitution) fall to the states. That's why each state has it's own criminal code, etc. etc. etc. In Canada, reserve powers are delegated to the federal government and not the provinces. It's not hard to realize that the founding fathers of Canada wanted a stronger federal government to unite Canadians. Canada was created just 2 years after the US civil war. Coincidence?

Furthermore, you're right, we're a parliamentary democracy not a republic. We don't have checks and balances in the same way that the US has checks and balances. As Smallc mentioned, it's more about long term oversight than the actual ability to vote down legislation. What would happen in this country if the senate could vote down legislation? I don't even want to think about it. Nothing would get done. Parliament would become so inefficient that there wouldn't be any point of passing anything. Look at the US system. People say it's "more democratic" and theoretically they may be right. The problem is that it can't get anything done. In the end, democracy here is something entrenched. Do we need a couple procedural updates? Additions to tradition? Absolutely. The first place I'd start is making proroguement the subject of a vote. However, in the end, not having a check isn't the end of the world nor would it be the end of democracy. It allows the government to remain relevant in a world that is only moving faster and faster. The US system is practically collapsing in on itself. We complain of corruption here but in the states where it's easier to kill a bill than to pass one, no wonder congressmen are found every other week with cash in their freezer from a company who would've been hurt by a piece of legislation. And this is the type of government we want? Anybody can claim they want more democracy but we actually have to think of the implications of what we're arguing for. As much as people complain, the system isn't broken. Governments can pass laws and those laws can be repealed. We have the supreme court to ensure that those bills are constitutional. So tell me, other than the novelty of having an "elected" senate, what benefits would we get from it?

In the end, you give a civics lecture but do a horrible job of it. My teachers weren't high school teachers, again, I have a degree in political science from the best university in the country. If you want to patronize people about your so called knowledge of politics, you should do it with people who aren't educated.

[nicky10013]

Translation: Democracy is bad because people don't vote the way I want.

Essentially, but even then that's based on shaky evidence. You could paraphrase what he said throughout history.

The British didn't want to let the poor vote because they were afraid they'd elect socialists who would tax the rich to death.

In the American south, blacks weren't to get the vote because then there'd be revenge over slavery.

Of course these things never happened.

Nothing more than the same old stereotypical racist garbage.

[DrGreenthumb]

That's your own perspective. It's not necessarily factual. As the house of sober second thought, the Senate often does a very good job by editing bills to make them legal and Constitutional.

Yeah like changing C-6 so that the government would still need a warrant before searching Canadian's homes at their whim. The senate protected our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. They protected the sanctity of the Canadian home. Pissed Harper off, with his police state wet dreams being delayed.

You Conservatives should consider what would have happened if the government had this power to randomly search our homes when they passed the long-gun registry. Imagine if the government could have just gone on fishing trips to find "garlic pills" and discovered your unregistered 12 guage, or deer rifle? You think they would have just ignored the infraction?

You might not worry about the warrantless search powers when YOUR party is in charge but would you have still liked it if a Liberal, or NDP government had the right to barge into your home and rummage through your wife's underwear drawer?

Edited January 10, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Wild Bill]

Just because the US does it one way doesn't mean we shouldn't follow suit. Where I get the idea that the Federal government is supreme over the provinces is in the BNA act. In the US constitution all reserve powers (powers not specifically named in the constitution) fall to the states. That's why each state has it's own criminal code, etc. etc. etc. In Canada, reserve powers are delegated to the federal government and not the provinces. It's not hard to realize that the founding fathers of Canada wanted a stronger federal government to unite Canadians. Canada was created just 2 years after the US civil war. Coincidence?

Furthermore, you're right, we're a parliamentary democracy not a republic. We don't have checks and balances in the same way that the US has checks and balances. As Smallc mentioned, it's more about long term oversight than the actual ability to vote down legislation. What would happen in this country if the senate could vote down legislation? I don't even want to think about it. Nothing would get done. Parliament would become so inefficient that there wouldn't be any point of passing anything. Look at the US system. People say it's "more democratic" and theoretically they may be right. The problem is that it can't get anything done. In the end, democracy here is something entrenched. Do we need a couple procedural updates? Additions to tradition? Absolutely. The first place I'd start is making proroguement the subject of a vote. However, in the end, not having a check isn't the end of the world nor would it be the end of democracy. It allows the government to remain relevant in a world that is only moving faster and faster. The US system is practically collapsing in on itself. We complain of corruption here but in the states where it's easier to kill a bill than to pass one, no wonder congressmen are found every other week with cash in their freezer from a company who would've been hurt by a piece of legislation. And this is the type of government we want? Anybody can claim they want more democracy but we actually have to think of the implications of what we're arguing for. As much as people complain, the system isn't broken. Governments can pass laws and those laws can be repealed. We have the supreme court to ensure that those bills are constitutional. So tell me, other than the novelty of having an "elected" senate, what benefits would we get from it?

In the end, you give a civics lecture but do a horrible job of it. My teachers weren't high school teachers, again, I have a degree in political science from the best university in the country. If you want to patronize people about your so called knowledge of politics, you should do it with people who aren't educated.

Interesting. You completely ignored how the Senate works in many, many countries. You only paid lip service to the idea that we are different by mentioning the Americans.

You also didn't say anything about how a two House system is supposed to ensure regional representation. In fact, you completely ignore the very idea! I wonder if you live in one of the smaller provinces. Most often, I find this view comes from people in Ontario or Quebec.

Oh well, that's obviously your view and you're entitled to it. I find it rather elitist and undemocratic but that's just my opinion.

And as for degrees, there are degrees and there are degrees. When I went to McMaster we all learned in the first year that with a number of left wing profs if you didn't agree with them you wouldn't pass. Hopefully your school operated at a higher standard.

You have a right to be elitist and undemocratic. I won't dispute it.

Perhaps if you had some better math teachers...

Edited January 10, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

What would happen in this country if the senate could vote down legislation?

Actually they can (except for money bills and Constitutional change involving the provinces - then they can only delay)...thankfully they don't. I imagine they would if they were elected.

[nicky10013]

Interesting. You completely ignored how the Senate works in many, many countries. You only paid lip service to the idea that we are different by mentioning the Americans.

You also didn't say anything about how a two House system is supposed to ensure regional representation. In fact, you completely ignore the very idea! I wonder if you live in one of the smaller provinces. Most often, I find this view comes from people in Ontario or Quebec.

Oh well, that's obviously your view and you're entitled to it. I find it rather elitist and undemocratic but that's just my opinion.

And as for degrees, there are degrees and there are degrees. When I went to McMaster we all learned in the first year that with a number of left wing profs if you didn't agree with them you wouldn't pass. Hopefully your school operated at a higher standard.

You have a right to be elitist and undemocratic. I won't dispute it.

Perhaps if you had some better math teachers...

I ignored it because it isn't what other countries besides the US are doing because they don't matter. In terms of governance we can't be looking for other countries on what to do. We need our own ideas and our own solutions. Even then, this would all matter if the system was broken which it isn't. Furthermore, using the US system as a comparison isn't paying lip service. The crippling inefficiency of congress is what would happen here.

You'd rather call me elitist than dispute my points which is all fine and good (I personally find it hilarious because half an hour ago I was an immature high school student that didn't know anything about politics), but unless we have serious problems we shouldn't be talking about serious solutions. What horrendous problem is the senate causing? I propose that there isn't any serious problem. It's all about the novelty of having an elected and equal senate for nothing more than actually having the ability to say that they're elected and equal. Democracies are strong in that they're hard to overthrow but fragile in that it's incredibly easy to upset the balance that would render the institutions inefficient. What we would be doing is throwing a giant wrench into our legislative system for nothing more than an exercise of vanity.

[Smallc]

It's all about the novelty of having an elected and equal senate for nothing more than actually having the ability to say that they're elected and equal.

Yes, and in the process possibly ripping the governing system and the country to shreds. If Senate change was easy and beneficial, I'd be all for it, but it isn't easy, and it may do more harm than good.

[Wild Bill]

You'd rather call me elitist than dispute my points which is all fine and good (I personally find it hilarious because half an hour ago I was an immature high school student that didn't know anything about politics), but unless we have serious problems we shouldn't be talking about serious solutions. What horrendous problem is the senate causing? I propose that there isn't any serious problem. It's all about the novelty of having an elected and equal senate for nothing more than actually having the ability to say that they're elected and equal. Democracies are strong in that they're hard to overthrow but fragile in that it's incredibly easy to upset the balance that would render the institutions inefficient. What we would be doing is throwing a giant wrench into our legislative system for nothing more than an exercise of vanity.

Yet for all your self-proclaimed education you thought that Senate reform was all about representation by population.

Anyhow, I would submit that Senate inequities and the failure to protect regional interests is one of the direct sources of separatist thought in this country. If you read about the history of the West and the many unfair things set up to favour central Canada, or what Newfoundland actually got many times for joining confederation you can't help but wonder why they've stuck around!

It's one thing for separatism to be simply an emotional feeling held by a small minority. When it is a logical reaction to a flawed system then you have an entirely different situation!

Thinking that the status quo is just fine is usually a belief from someone not negatively affected by it. The state of our Senate is great for central Canada but not really for anywhere else. Nobody likes to belong to a club where your only role is just to pay dues, for eternity!

[Smallc]

That of course requires the belief that separatist sentiment is strong, something that's very difficult to believe give various polls on the subject.

[nicky10013]

Yet for all your self-proclaimed education you thought that Senate reform was all about representation by population.

Anyhow, I would submit that Senate inequities and the failure to protect regional interests is one of the direct sources of separatist thought in this country. If you read about the history of the West and the many unfair things set up to favour central Canada, or what Newfoundland actually got many times for joining confederation you can't help but wonder why they've stuck around!

It's one thing for separatism to be simply an emotional feeling held by a small minority. When it is a logical reaction to a flawed system then you have an entirely different situation!

Thinking that the status quo is just fine is usually a belief from someone not negatively affected by it. The state of our Senate is great for central Canada but not really for anywhere else. Nobody likes to belong to a club where your only role is just to pay dues, for eternity!

I never claimed that was what senate reform was about. I claimed that you can't call senate reform equal if you think that 13 million Ontarians should have the same amount of representation as 3.5 million Albertans.

If the Senate was elected there wouldn't be a seperatist movement in Quebec? In the US there was an elected Senate yet the bloodiest war in US history was the civil war. Even then, your argument is that central Canada benefits the most. If Quebec seriously benefits from the way the senate is right now, it undermines your argument about seperatism, so what is it? If anything, an elected and partisan senate has the ability to enact a further divide. Liberals in Ontario vs. Conservatives from Alberta tearing each other apart. Because that's the solution to a non-existant problem. Right.

Furthermore, if the status quo in the senate is hurting Canadians, tell me how. I haven't heard a convincing argument yet.

[Smallc]

In the US there was an elected Senate yet the bloodiest war in US history was the civil war.

I didn't think that the US Senate was elected at that point.

[DrGreenthumb]

Questions for Conservatives. Would you have been more happy if the senate had NOT amended Bill C-6 to remove the provision that allowed warrantless searches of Canadian homes? Was it bad for the senate to do that even though the bill was passed unanimously by the house? Will it be better when a newly stacked Conservative senate passes that bill in its original form? What are your reasons for being willing to submit to this type of state intrusion into your home?

[nicky10013]

I didn't think that the US Senate was elected at that point.

You're right, my mistake. They were elected by state legislators.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I never claimed that was what senate reform was about. I claimed that you can't call senate reform equal if you think that 13 million Ontarians should have the same amount of representation as 3.5 million Albertans.

If the Senate was elected there wouldn't be a seperatist movement in Quebec? In the US there was an elected Senate yet the bloodiest war in US history was the civil war. Even then, your argument is that central Canada benefits the most. If Quebec seriously benefits from the way the senate is right now, it undermines your argument about seperatism, so what is it? If anything, an elected and partisan senate has the ability to enact a further divide. Liberals in Ontario vs. Conservatives from Alberta tearing each other apart. Because that's the solution to a non-existant problem. Right.

Furthermore, if the status quo in the senate is hurting Canadians, tell me how. I haven't heard a convincing argument yet.

The Yankees did not elect Senators until 1913. They were appointed by the States until then.

[eyeball]

...I think Canadians (secretly) want our federal politicians to be conniving and clever.

Clever sure but conniving too? That seems bizarre. I'm afraid it just doesn't scan at all.

...and the Left hates in a way that the Right doesn't.

Given your implied desire for conniving politicians I'd have to say the Right's hatred consists of a self-loathing that is peculiar to them alone.