Senate Reform - How To Do It Wrong

[punked]

In its present form. Yes.

See there is our referendum right there lets not make it overly complicated.

[Smallc]

See there is our referendum right there lets not make it overly complicated.

That isn't the question that the Conservatives want to ask. That's the question that the NDP wants to ask.

[ToadBrother]

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.

There seems to be some differing opinion on that. But to my mind, a referendum might be disastrous, particularly if it came too close to plurality. I mean, what happens if its 52.5% in favor, but you have, say, the bulk of Ontario rejecting it? It's one thing if 65% or 70% say "Yes", it's quite another if we create another situation like we had in 1982 when Quebec effectively stood outside. Senate reform, particularly the lofty goal of the Triple-E senate is too difficult and finicky a question to roll up into a referendum. To assure that it is legitimate in every respect, as it is essentially a major revamping of Upper House and of one its key functions as a regional representative body to simply try to get it through on a ballot.

[Wilber]

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.

Do all that and then take your polls. Until then, they don't mean anything. Balanced budget legislation is just that, legislation. It is not the Constitution. The federal government cannot arbitrarily hold a referendum that binds a provincial government to something that is within the provinces jurisdiction.

[punked]

That isn't the question that the Conservatives want to ask. That's the question that the NDP wants to ask.

Yah I know, irks me everytime.

[Smallc]

Do all that and then take your polls. Until then, they don't mean anything. Balanced budget legislation is just that, legislation. It is not the Constitution. The federal government cannot arbitrarily hold a referendum that binds a provincial government to something that is within the provinces jurisdiction.

I did't say the the referendum would bind anyone, it would more nudge, and when I talked about changing laws, I was talking about the laws in the provinces that require constitutional questions to be put to the people (something not required).

As for the question, EEE was the question on both polls that I've seen.

[Wilber]

I did't say the the referendum would bind anyone, it would more nudge, and when I talked about changing laws, I was talking about the laws in the provinces that require constitutional questions to be put to the people (something not required).

As for the question, EEE was the question on both polls that I've seen.

How the the province arrives at its decision isn't really relevant, the point is, it is up to the province, not the feds. EEE sounds great when you hang it out there but what were the nuts and bolts, because that is what it will come down to in the end.

[g_bambino]

He is right...

He is?

[Smallc]

So we shouldn't try? I don't care either way, but you do.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Moonlight Graham]

It's simple. No reform vs the reform that the Conservatives want, the oft cited EEE.

Its not that simple. Equal, effective, and elected are very broad terms and different reform proposals show this. What kind of elections, what kind of voting system is used? How long are the terms? When are the elections held?

What powers does the Senate retain and which do they give up? How do we resolve legislative gridlock?

What should equal mean? How many Senators per Prov? Should ON and QC get more than the rest? How many should PEI and the 3 territories get compared to the other Provs?

[Smallc]

Its not that simple. Equal, effective, and elected are very broad terms and different reform proposals show this. What kind of elections, what kind of voting system is used? How long are the terms? When are the elections held?

What powers does the Senate retain and which do they give up? How do we resolve legislative gridlock?

Australia has models for both of these things which is interesting. It doesn't really matter though, because it's up to the government to come up with the question.

What should equal mean? How many Senators per Prov? Should ON and QC get more than the rest? How many should PEI and the 3 territories get compared to the other Provs?

That one's simple. Each province gets the same numbers being as they are all equal partners in confederation. PEI is not the same as the territories. Arguably, the territories get none.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

The news keeps saying that the Tories can do it because their lawyers say they can without amending the Constitution. Are you guys against 8 year limits or for them? So far the only thing I can tell is that you're against PM Harper but that is beyond the scope of this topic.

[DrGreenthumb]

With very few exceptions it is appointed from elected members.

yeah the only exeption I know of is the Harper appointed senator that Harper appointed to the senate so that he could appoint him to a cabinet position.

[DrGreenthumb]

Would you like to get rid of the Senate?

Yes

No

Absolutely NOT! That is the ONE part of the NDP platform that I absolutely disagree with. Thank God we had a senate to protect us from the idiot laws that Harper got past the weak Liberal opposition in the last session.

[Mr.Canada]

Absolutely NOT! That is the ONE part of the NDP platform that I absolutely disagree with. Thank God we had a senate to protect us from the idiot laws that Harper got past the weak Liberal opposition in the last session.

Yeah being tough on criminals is a terrible thing. We shoud let them go free without punishment as long as they promise not to do it again right Dr.?

[Smallc]

Are you guys against 8 year limits or for them?

Yes. The 8 year term is thew worst thing to do first.

[Wilber]

He is?

Sure he is, ministers are appointed, not elected. There is nothing democratic about an appointment. The closest a PM can come is appointing a representative who was elected to another position, MP. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes. The 8 year term is thew worst thing to do first.

I see you're trying to be cute with your answer. So you are for the 8 year term limit. Thank you.

[Smallc]

I see you're trying to be cute with your answer. So you are for the 8 year term limit. Thank you.

No, I'm not. A non renewable term limit (stupid in itself) without elections allows a Prime Minister to completely stack a Senate within 8 years of taking office.

[Wilber]

See there is our referendum right there lets not make it overly complicated.

But without the approval of the provinces according to the amending formula, it has no weight. You have to get that first otherwise you would just be opening a can of worms over what is nothing more than a poll. I'm not saying don't do it, just don't do it backwards.

[Smallc]

I'm not saying don't do it, just don't do it backwards.

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.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure you're getting this. If the population of the provinces agree with the amendment, as a poll or two showed that they would, why would the provincial governments stand in the way?

I think that's the argument of some constitutional scholars, that basically a general referendum that showed strong for an initiative would make it politically very difficult for any of the Provinces to stand in the way. But let's say my previous example holds and you have, say, 55% support for it, but very low support in Ontario or Quebec. We end up right back where we started after 1982, and that set off a decade of further constitutional wrangling that got us to the 1995 Quebec referendum, and I personally have no desire to go through those spasms again even to reform the Upper House.

[Smallc]

I think that's the argument of some constitutional scholars, that basically a general referendum that showed strong for an initiative would make it politically very difficult for any of the Provinces to stand in the way. But let's say my previous example holds and you have, say, 55% support for it, but very low support in Ontario or Quebec. We end up right back where we started after 1982, and that set off a decade of further constitutional wrangling that got us to the 1995 Quebec referendum, and I personally have no desire to go through those spasms again even to reform the Upper House.

If there is low support in Ontario, no problem really. In Quebec...problem. I don't see it though. I can't find the poll, but it showed majority support for the Conservative plan in every province.

[ToadBrother]

If there is low support in Ontario, no problem really. In Quebec...problem. I don't see it though. I can't find the poll, but it showed majority support for the Conservative plan in every province.

Still, this is a constitutional amendment. How the Tories are proposing to do it is invalid.

[Smallc]

Still, this is a constitutional amendment. How the Tories are proposing to do it is invalid.

Definitely. I don't have any respect for what they're trying to do. They're also supposed to introduce a bill for indirect elections that aren't really elections but kind of.