Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[Oleg Bach]

SENATORS are just a bunch of rich guys..who did well in buisness and effected the government from the side lines and back rooms of the nation - then they give them a position of honour that none deserve on a moral level - it's all finacial.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

SENATORS are just a bunch of rich guys..who did well in buisness and effected the government from the side lines and back rooms of the nation - then they give them a position of honour that none deserve on a moral level - it's all finacial.

I will suggest it is all very political.

[ZZelda]

Is there anything wrong with these figures. Senators Quebec 24, Ontario 24, N.B. 10, N.S. 10, Newfoundland 6, Manitoba 6, Sask. 6, Alberta 6, B.C. 6 PEI. 4 and the north with 3.

[Mr.Canada]

Is there anything wrong with these figures. Senators Quebec 24, Ontario 24, N.B. 10, N.S. 10, Newfoundland 6, Manitoba 6, Sask. 6, Alberta 6, B.C. 6 PEI. 4 and the north with 3.

I tired this argument before. They said it's in the Constitution or some such thing. The numbers are set in stone pretty much.

[ToadBrother]

I tired this argument before. They said it's in the Constitution or some such thing. The numbers are set in stone pretty much.

Which is why they need to follow the appropriate amending formula. If support is as high as some people say, then surely Parliament can initiate negotiations with the Provinces to amend the Constitution, right?

[ZZelda]

Which is why they need to follow the appropriate amending formula. If support is as high as some people say, then surely Parliament can initiate negotiations with the Provinces to amend the Constitution, right?

Dont think so Quebec may have a veto rights

[Mr.Canada]

Dont think so Quebec may have a veto rights

I was in full support of them leaving and still am. Kick them the hell out of Canada and they can take their portion of the debt with them. See how long they last on their own without any help from Ottawa.

[ToadBrother]

Dont think so Quebec may have a veto rights

Why is Quebec being singled out. Ontario has viewed the Triple-E Senate proposals as being toxic as well. It isn't a Franco-Anglo debate, it's an East-West debate.

[Smallc]

Is there anything wrong with these figures. Senators Quebec 24, Ontario 24, N.B. 10, N.S. 10, Newfoundland 6, Manitoba 6, Sask. 6, Alberta 6, B.C. 6 PEI. 4 and the north with 3.

When the Senate was formed, the country was divided by region: West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritime. Because Newfoundland was added later, it formed it's own, smaller region. The territories are completely separate, as the should be. It could be argued that as they are not sovereign partners in confederation, they should actually have no Senators.

[Smallc]

I was in full support of them leaving and still am. Kick them the hell out of Canada and they can take their portion of the debt with them. See how long they last on their own without any help from Ottawa.

Mr. Canada indeed. I think we'd be better served by kicking you out. Didn't you say you were leaving?

[Smallc]

Dont think so Quebec may have a veto rights

Quebec has no such right unless it can convince enough other provinces to go along with it.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

Mr. Canada indeed. I think we'd be better served by kicking you out. Didn't you say you were leaving?

Yeah, at some point I will. I'm only 35 now so still some time to go yet. Sorry to disappoint.

[Smallc]

Yeah, at some point I will. I'm only 35 now so still some time to go yet. Sorry to disappoint.

Well, the majority of Quebecers don't want to leave. It isn't up to you to kick them out.

[Wilber]

The idea of the referendum is to gauge public support for such an important change. If people actually want the change, then the likelihood of the provinces standing in the way is much smaller.

I don't see the point of a referendum when polling would accomplish the same thing. Anything other than something set in stone wouldn't mean very much. Change anything after the referendum and all bets are off because you know very well that is when the real campaigning will begin on reform and it will be the second referendum on the actual act which will determine what each province will support when the time comes to sign.

Have a referendum if you want but I think it would be a waste of money.

[Smallc]

I don't see the point of a referendum when polling would accomplish the same thing.

Polling isn't a wide definitive result. People can say that a poll is just a poll. They can't say the same thing about even a non binding referendum. Put your plan in place and ask the public. Live with the result.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Polling isn't a wide definitive result. People can say that a poll is just a poll. They can't say the same thing about even a non binding referendum. Put your plan in place and ask the public. Live with the result.

Have your referendum but don't be surprised if the public wants nothing to do with the final result, regardless of what they may say in a non binding referendum before negotiations begin.

[Smallc]

Have your referendum but don't be surprised if the public wants nothing to do with the final result, regardless of what they may say in a non binding referendum before negotiations begin.

Have the negotiations before hand. Don't ask the public until later....or form a plan on your own at the federal level, ask the people, and if the result is in your favour....I'd like to see the provinces try to stand in the way.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

There is nothing democratic about an appointment.

I believe that's true only if you have a very narrow definition of "democratic" that isn't manifested anywhere in the real world.

[Wilber]

Have the negotiations before hand. Don't ask the public until later....or form a plan on your own at the federal level, ask the people, and if the result is in your favour....I'd like to see the provinces try to stand in the way.

It wouldn't be a matter of the provinces standing in the way. The amending formula calls for approval by two thirds of the provinces comprising of over 50% of the population. Several provinces, including BC require that any amendments be subject to a referendum. It doesn't matter how people voted in a non binding referendum, only the binding one would count, the one on the actual act. It doesn't matter what you presented to them beforehand because the final result after negotiations will likely be very different. But go ahead, have a referendum, it might prod politicians into doing something. On the other hand it might generate such a crap storm that they won't want to go near it for another 50 years.

[Wilber]

I believe that's true only if you have a very narrow definition of "democratic" that isn't manifested anywhere in the real world.

I think it is much ado about nothing.

[ToadBrother]

It wouldn't be a matter of the provinces standing in the way. The amending formula calls for approval by two thirds of the provinces comprising of over 50% of the population. Several provinces, including BC require that any amendments be subject to a referendum. It doesn't matter how people voted in a non binding referendum, only the binding one would count, the one on the actual act. It doesn't matter what you presented to them beforehand because the final result after negotiations will likely be very different. But go ahead, have a referendum, it might prod politicians into doing something. On the other hand it might generate such a crap storm that they won't want to go near it for another 50 years.

I tend to agree here. If this is as important as the Tories think, they need to go to the Provinces and negotiate. Quasi-constitutional amendments that wouldn't stand up ten seconds in the Supreme Court, or referendums that might end up with a disastrous near-plurality vote that once again inflames the constitutional storms of the 1980s seems to me be worse than useless.

The only reason right now that I can think the Tories are doing this is in part to placate the Reform wing of the party which has been growing increasingly disgruntled with the lack of work on their agenda by the Harper government, and in part to try to embarrass the opposition by creating a situation where they can go into an election with the declaration "the Opposition is against democracy".

There does seem to be some doubt that this bill will ever make it into law, so it could just be posturing. And I still can't figure out why Senator terms, of all things, should be the start of the reform process. I would think the most key complaint against the Senate is how its members are selected, closely followed by the lack of adequate representation of some provinces. The length of time a Senator gets to sit seems the least important change.

[Dave_ON]

The US elects its head of state specifically and historically because you can't....God Save the Queen.

Precisely, it's all part of the "We're not Brittish" mentality their country was founded on. Completely irrelevant in Canadian Politics.

"Send Her victorious, Happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save the Queen."

[ToadBrother]

Precisely, it's all part of the "We're not Brittish" mentality their country was founded on. Completely irrelevant in Canadian Politics.

"Send Her victorious, Happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save the Queen."

It should be noted as well that the division of powers in the American system is considerably different than in systems based on the Westminster model (even those that have an elected head of state). It's very hard to compare our system to the French or American styles of governance, because we follow a weak executive model (the executive has large theoretical powers, much larger in many cases than the French or American presidents, but almost always exercised on the advice of the Government).

[Wilber]

There does seem to be some doubt that this bill will ever make it into law, so it could just be posturing. And I still can't figure out why Senator terms, of all things, should be the start of the reform process. I would think the most key complaint against the Senate is how its members are selected, closely followed by the lack of adequate representation of some provinces. The length of time a Senator gets to sit seems the least important change.

Shortening terms would mean you wouldn't have to carry the dead wood for as long before they were dumped and it would allow for more rapid changes in the political makeup of the Senate.

The first is good, the second is questionable and as you say, neither addresses the biggest complaints about the Senate.

[Dave_ON]

Shortening terms would mean you wouldn't have to carry the dead wood for as long before they were dumped and it would allow for more rapid changes in the political makeup of the Senate.

The first is good, the second is questionable and as you say, neither addresses the biggest complaints about the Senate.

The problem is shortening the term limits will not even begin to address the concerns you, and those who share your view, have over the current state of the senate. As Small C pointed out this would only serve to further concentrate power in the PMO as he could stack it sooner rather than later. Term limits in the form suggested are useless and anyone who favours senate reform should be upset by this move rather than happy with it. It's little more than window dressing and its sole purpose is to make it appear as though the CPC is doing "something" to make good on their reform promises.