Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[punked]

Sure it can but it can't ammend the constitution with one unless the provinces approve. If you want to waste a few hundred million on a pointless referendum, count me out.

Wouldn't be a waste of any money if you pass an act that the next election you add another ballot with the question on it. Then there is no extra cost. Then you would get something that would tell you what the people of each province think and the information can be done with as will.

[Smallc]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29865/most_canadians_want_to_elect_their_senators/

There was another that I can't find that said people in all provinces favoured it.

[punked]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29865/most_canadians_want_to_elect_their_senators/

There was another that I can't find that said people in all provinces favoured it.

I can understand how getting rid of the Senate would be an uphill fight, but just changing the system seems to poll really well.

[Moonlight Graham]

Name me one benefit of an elected head of state...

1) It would be elected and actually accountable to the people. What if the next King/Queen is an arse and wanted to muck with Canada's policies? Not much we could do.

2) It would provide for a much needed democratic check on the PM's vast power.

[punked]

1) It would be elected and actually accountable to the people. What if the next King/Queen is an arse and wanted to muck with Canada's policies? Not much we could do.

2) It would provide for a much needed democratic check on the PM's vast power.

Where are the "we need less government" right wingers when you need them. We don't need the queen and we don't need a president. The PM has worked great for us for the last 70 years when the GG hasn't done anything anyway.

[Moonlight Graham]

And I blame the Conservatives most of all for not moving it forward. There's no reason for them to have not had a referendum on the subject.

We've been debating Senate reform for 100 years. This is far from a new issue. No single party is to blame for not getting this issue squared away. I blame all the ruling parties for doing mostly squat. Its sad though the CPC have done nothing since it seemed to be a legit concern for them when they 1st were elected.

[Smallc]

1) It would be elected and actually accountable to the people. What if the next King/Queen is an arse and wanted to muck with Canada's policies? Not much we could do.

2) It would provide for a much needed democratic check on the PM's vast power.

That's not how parliamentary system's work, whether there is a monarch or an elected president. Sometimes, the elected president will exercise power (like recently in Iceland), but usually, it works the same way as here. A head of state is meant to represent the people and lead the country. Lowering them to the level of politics often doesn't work well. As for putting a check on the PMs power, well, the Parliament can do much of that, but simply hasn't because the power hasn't been much of a problem until recently.

A PM and a president clashing would be a constitutional crisis BTW.

[Smallc]

Its sad though the CPC have done nothing since it seemed to be a legit concern for them when they 1st were elected.

That's why I blame them.

[Wilber]

The fact that it was used to attempt to amend the Constitution is now possibly conventional.

Yes it was used with the approval of the provinces. The amending formula calls for approval by two thirds of the province containing more than 50% of the population. Period. Some of the provinces require that an referendum be held for that province to give it's approval. That's just the method they have chosen rather than leave it up to their legislature. Charlottetown didn't pass because the referendum didn't pass in enough provinces.

[Smallc]

Charlottetown didn't pass because the referendum didn't pass in enough provinces.

That's irrelevant here though. Polls show that a referendum would pass.

[Moonlight Graham]

Where are the "we need less government" right wingers when you need them. We don't need the queen and we don't need a president. The PM has worked great for us for the last 70 years when the GG hasn't done anything anyway.

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?!? The PM has way too much power. Unlimited terms they can serve. Appoints the GG. Appoints all judges, appoints all Senators. In a majority government, has virtually ultimate control on policy/legislation (ie: controls how all MP's in their party vote or risk expulsion from the party...which has happened recently). If the PM went completely crazy they obviously wouldn`t last long, but a strong and not entirely corrupt PM can control so much in this country.

I`m no fan of the monarch, but at least the GG serves as some kind of check on the PM`s power, as does the Senate (though each rarely use it).

[Wilber]

Wouldn't be a waste of any money if you pass an act that the next election you add another ballot with the question on it. Then there is no extra cost. Then you would get something that would tell you what the people of each province think and the information can be done with as will.

You can't pass anything without the approval of enough provinces with enough population. If you aren't quite sure you have that beforehand, it would just be a waste of money.

[Smallc]

Where are the "we need less government" right wingers when you need them. We don't need the queen and we don't need a president. The PM has worked great for us for the last 70 years when the GG hasn't done anything anyway.

You really have no idea how Canadian government works.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

You can't pass anything without the approval of enough provinces with enough population. If you aren't quite sure you have that beforehand, it would just be a waste of money.

The referendum would tell you if you had that.

[g_bambino]

It would be elected and actually accountable to the people.

T-shirt sloganeering.

What if the next King/Queen is an arse and wanted to muck with Canada's policies? Not much we could do.

You could start by checking a history book. Have a look particularly at why Canada had three kings in 1936.

[Wilber]

The fact that it was used to attempt to amend the Constitution is now possibly conventional.

OOPS

Edited March 30, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

That's irrelevant here though. Polls show that a referendum would pass.

It's totally relevant. It's the law. A referendum on what, some fuzzy concept of Senate reform? Let's see some precise wording then see what the polls say. Charlottetown seemed like a good idea until people actually read the final agreement.

[Smallc]

It's totally relevant. It's the law. A referendum on what, some fuzzy concept of Senate reform? Let's see some precise wording then see what the polls say. Charlottetown seemed like a good idea until people actually read the final agreement.

It's simple. No reform vs the reform that the Conservatives want, the oft cited EEE. How many senators per province and determination of constituency would have to be determined ahead of time, before the referendum, but that doesn't seem overly difficult. Provincial laws, BTW, are easily changed given that each of the provinces in question has a majority.. Just look at the balanced budget laws in so many provinces.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

It's totally relevant. It's the law. A referendum on what, some fuzzy concept of Senate reform? Let's see some precise wording then see what the polls say. Charlottetown seemed like a good idea until people actually read the final agreement.

Would you like to get rid of the Senate?

Yes

No

[Wilber]

Wouldn't be a waste of any money if you pass an act that the next election you add another ballot with the question on it. Then there is no extra cost. Then you would get something that would tell you what the people of each province think and the information can be done with as will.

The referendum would have to be on the exact act you plan to pass. You would also have to deal with the possibility of a changing political landscape with different provincial governments when it came time to pass the act. Regardless of any referendum, you would still need the support of the provinces when the time came because the referendum would just be a poll and have no legal weight.

[g_bambino]

Cabinet is made up of members of Parliament.

Cabinet is made up of Privy Councillors; typically ministers of the Crown are also MPs, but not always. The point is, though, that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform implied that appointed positions have no democratic mandate, which is odd, given that his own position is an appointed one.

[Wilber]

Would you like to get rid of the Senate?

Yes

No

In its present form. Yes.

[ToadBrother]

I did not once claim that her position grants her independence of action in the vast majority of situations. She does have that ability to act independently in extraordinary circumstances, but often, she exercises her power on the advice of the prime minister(and is theoretically bound to). It's still the power of the Crown that is being used, it isn't power that the Prime Minister possesses. He simply has the power to advise. She usually complies.

That's not quite true. Since the Glorious Revolution the Sovereign (or vice-regal in our case) is pretty much required, constitutionally, to act only on the advice of government. It's certianly much more than convention that binds the GG. There are a limited number of situations where the Sovereign or their representative can act without the advice of Government; mainly in a situation where a government loses a confidence motion, in which case there is no government to advise the Sovereign. Other powers, such as dismissal of Minister of the Crown or refusal of Royal Assent are there as safeguards, but have been used so infrequently that you can probably count the number of instances on one hand. As I recall, those would be the King-Byng Affair, John Bowen's refusal of assent to bills put forward by the Alberta Social Credit Party in 1937 and the 1975 Australian Constitutional. In the first case, Lord Byng deemed the Tories capable of forming a government, and refused King's request to dissolve Parliament. In the second, two bills, one attempting to restrict the freedom of the press because of newspapers critical to the Social Credit government and another trying to create banking regulations which were clearly unconstitutional, were refused assent, and the third because of a deadlock due to the constitution of the Australian upper house which Sir John Kerr deemed could not be broken while the Labor Party was in power.

[Wilber]

Cabinet is made up of Privy Councillors; typically ministers of the Crown are also MPs, but not always. The point is, though, that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform implied that appointed positions have no democratic mandate, which is odd, given that his own position is an appointed one.

He is right but it is as close as we can get within our system so I'm not sure what his point is.

[Smallc]

That's not quite true. Since the Glorious Revolution the Sovereign (or vice-regal in our case) is pretty much required, constitutionally, to act only on the advice of government. It's certainly much more than convention that binds the GG.

Since I didn't say it was convention, and did say that theoretically, she is bound to follow the advise, I don't see how anything that I said was untrue.