ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 We have always wanted it abolished as far back as I can remember. And I've never understood why. Pretty much all federated states have upper and lower legislative assemblies, with the general idea that one be constituted purely by popular vote, while the other guaranteeing the regions, provinces or states have representation at the federal level. It is a sound practice in political theory, acting as a check on the powers on the popularly-elected lower house. I can't argue that the way the Senate is chosen is suboptimal, though to be fair the Fathers of Confederation viewed the upper house's role as being more expansive than just simply a house of provincial representation, which is why they gave it powers nearly equal in most regards to the Commons. But outright abolishment of the Senate would remove any notion of provincial representation in Ottawa. In essence, the Provinces would cease to be partners in Confederation, and simply become glorified municipal governments, with the Federal Parliament completely locked away from them. It was a stupid idea when the CCF floated it, and it hasn't got any better now. Beyond the critical fact that such major constitutional changes are pretty much impossible right now, I can't imagine why generally sensible people are so keen to advocate such a foolish and ill-conceived notion as making Parliament unicameral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 And I've never understood why. Pretty much all federated states have upper and lower legislative assemblies, with the general idea that one be constituted purely by popular vote, while the other guaranteeing the regions, provinces or states have representation at the federal level. It is a sound practice in political theory, acting as a check on the powers on the popularly-elected lower house. I can't argue that the way the Senate is chosen is suboptimal, though to be fair the Fathers of Confederation viewed the upper house's role as being more expansive than just simply a house of provincial representation, which is why they gave it powers nearly equal in most regards to the Commons. But outright abolishment of the Senate would remove any notion of provincial representation in Ottawa. In essence, the Provinces would cease to be partners in Confederation, and simply become glorified municipal governments, with the Federal Parliament completely locked away from them. It was a stupid idea when the CCF floated it, and it hasn't got any better now. Beyond the critical fact that such major constitutional changes are pretty much impossible right now, I can't imagine why generally sensible people are so keen to advocate such a foolish and ill-conceived notion as making Parliament unicameral. While the idea of a Senate might be sound it has never worked that way. When have you ever seen Duffy hold a bill and say "This bill isn't good for PEI?" Never because all the Senators live in Ottawa, so they aren't regional representation at all. There lies the problem doesn't it? So if they are just to act as a rubber stamp I would rather save the 500 million a year they cost us. It aint chump change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 [A]ll the Senators live in Ottawa, so they aren't regional representation at all. There lies the problem doesn't it? So if they are just to act as a rubber stamp I would rather save the 500 million a year they cost us. It aint chump change. That might be an argument for reform, but it isn't a rational reason to consider abolishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 That might be an argument for reform, but it isn't a rational reason to consider abolishment. It might be or the if Canada has operated this long with out real regional representation then why not just keep it that way and save us 500 million a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) While the idea of a Senate might be sound it has never worked that way. When have you ever seen Duffy hold a bill and say "This bill isn't good for PEI?" Never because all the Senators live in Ottawa, so they aren't regional representation at all. There lies the problem doesn't it? So if they are just to act as a rubber stamp I would rather save the 500 million a year they cost us. It aint chump change. I already said I thought the current method were suboptimal. It made considerably more sense 144 years ago when Canada was much smaller and part of the rationale was to duplicate the functions of the British House of Lords, to give the "aristocratic" classes (in Canada, read that as the merchant and moneyed) a voice in government, considering that in an age before income taxes, these groups were responsible for a good deal of the new country's revenues. So, let's say antiquated rather than suboptimal. So let's talk about Senate reform. Rather than foolishly throwing the baby out with the bathwater and doing serious damage to the way our country should work, let's talk about making it a proper provincial-based upper house, like the US Senate is. I'm not sure I like the idea of a directly-elected upper house or short term limits, as I think one of the values of the Senate could be its insulation from the day-to-day politics, but I'm bendable on that one providing the terms are rather long (say eight or ten years, covering at least two to two and a half Commons electoral cycles). You need to get past the problems that exist currently and look at the actual value of a bicameral Parliament in a country like Canada. The Provinces are not going to give up their voice in Parliament just because the Prime Minister has too much influence over the choice of Senators. To even ask them to, apart from the foolishness of trying to create a unicameral legislature in a federated nation, is to basically ask them to degrade the position of the Provinces. The Senate is their foot in the door, and we should be looking to find ways to assure the Provinces that they will not lose that. It will be hard enough to convince Eastern Canada to go along with this, but what could possibly offer any and all of the Provinces to basically kill one of the key components of Confederation? Edited March 2, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 It might be or the if Canada has operated this long with out real regional representation then why not just keep it that way and save us 500 million a year. A functioning system of government isn't cheap, but that hardly means it isn't worth it. Since abolition is pretty much a non-starter, as there is no way you will ever get the Provinces to go along with that, and in particular Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes, why not see where we can go with reforms? Maybe reopening the constitution, if it were on a point by point basis, rather than a big package of reforms like Mulroney tried, might work. Heck, we could do some innovative things, like maybe give Aboriginal peoples some seats in the Senate, giving them at least a limited equivalence to the Provinces. That could go a helluva long way towards mending some fences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 A functioning system of government isn't cheap, but that hardly means it isn't worth it. Since abolition is pretty much a non-starter, as there is no way you will ever get the Provinces to go along with that, and in particular Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes, why not see where we can go with reforms? Maybe reopening the constitution, if it were on a point by point basis, rather than a big package of reforms like Mulroney tried, might work. Heck, we could do some innovative things, like maybe give Aboriginal peoples some seats in the Senate, giving them at least a limited equivalence to the Provinces. That could go a helluva long way towards mending some fences. OR we could take the broken Senate and through it out the window and the government will run the same way but be 500 million a year cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 OR we could take the broken Senate and through it out the window and the government will run the same way but be 500 million a year cheaper. Are you deaf or something? YOu can't just throw it out the window. The Constitution requires that both houses of Parliament, all the Provinces and the Governor General agree to it. If even so much as one province refuses to go along with your referendum idea, it's done, it's dead, and the Senate remains. Rather than advocating moronic unachievable policies, why not work towards workable and at least potentially possible solutions? Or is this just empty posturing? I'm beginning to think you're just as unrealistic and unwilling to accept reality as Myata. I'm not much interested these days in the mindless disciples of empty dogmatic proclamations of political parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 What are you talking about? Stop acting like is this a new idea or the first time the NDP has asked for this. I will be the first to acknowledge that the NDP have been clueless for decades...but the spin...by passing the law, the constitution, the provinces ...that is new. And clueless so at least there is continuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Because Bob Rae is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to NDP provincial governments. NDP governments in SK and MB have run balanced budgets many times since the 30s. (xpost) Balancing the budget is easy when your taxes are so high... Manitoba 10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, + 12.75% on the next $36,000, + 17.4% on the amount over $67,000 Saskatchewan 11% on the first $40,919 of taxable income, + 13% on the next $75,992, + 15% on the amount over $116,911 http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html Any wonder why most of the directors of Potash do not live is Sask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I will be the first to acknowledge that the NDP have been clueless for decades...but the spin...by passing the law, the constitution, the provinces ...that is new. And clueless so at least there is continuity. A-blood-men! This is the equivalent of saying "Our car is only running on three cylinders, so let's just throw the car down a cliff and walk the rest of the way." Yes, the Senate does not fulfill in any efficient manner one of its functions to act as a regional/provincial check on the power of the House of Commons, but such a check is still important, so it hardly makes sense, even if you could, to simply throw out the upper house and limp by without even the benefit of a malfunctioning check. It was a stupid policy sixty years ago, and it hasn't got any better. A smart political movement realizes that it has a policy point that is ludicrous or impossible and tempers or outright excises it. Not the NDP. Their political platform is treated like the Bible and every utterance of Tommy Douglas and the other early CCFers is treated like it was the words of Buddha and Jesus Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Balancing the budget is easy when your taxes are so high... http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html Any wonder why most of the directors of Potash do not live is Sask? Hmmm, I'm no NDPer, far from it, BUT, if it's so easy why don't the FEDS try it, I wouldn't mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hmmm, I'm no NDPer, far from it, BUT, if it's so easy why don't the FEDS try it, I wouldn't mind? What? raise taxes? Yeah...that will spur growth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 A-blood-men! This is the equivalent of saying "Our car is only running on three cylinders, so let's just throw the car down a cliff and walk the rest of the way." Yes, the Senate does not fulfill in any efficient manner one of its functions to act as a regional/provincial check on the power of the House of Commons, but such a check is still important, so it hardly makes sense, even if you could, to simply throw out the upper house and limp by without even the benefit of a malfunctioning check. It was a stupid policy sixty years ago, and it hasn't got any better. A smart political movement realizes that it has a policy point that is ludicrous or impossible and tempers or outright excises it. Not the NDP. Their political platform is treated like the Bible and every utterance of Tommy Douglas and the other early CCFers is treated like it was the words of Buddha and Jesus Christ. I firmly believe the upper house should be reformed. I think reform should be discussed, a consensus found and the mechanics of change set in motion. This is everyone is agreeable should take no longer than 25 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I firmly believe the upper house should be reformed. I think reform should be discussed, a consensus found and the mechanics of change set in motion. This is everyone is agreeable should take no longer than 25 years... You won't get any argument from me, but it's going to have been done the hard way. You can't just hold a referendum, and you can't just pass term limits legislation. The BNA Act with its amendments states how the Senate will be constituted and the Constitution Act, 1982 says how that has to be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Balancing the budget is easy when your taxes are so high... Makes sense to me... In any case, we agree about the Senate and the foolishness of this particular stunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (Clearly, if they're able to balance their budgets, it seems that those tax rates are not hampering productivity to the point where revenue is actually diminished.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (Clearly, if they're able to balance their budgets, it seems that those tax rates are not hampering productivity to the point where revenue is actually diminished.) THAT was the POINT I was making... You know, truth be told, I've never seen a single job created by a "tax cut", have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 THAT was the POINT I was making... You know, truth be told, I've never seen a single job created by a "tax cut", have you? I've actually seen several hundred jobs disappear IN SPITE OF tax cuts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I've actually seen several hundred jobs disappear IN SPITE OF tax cuts... The government already has enough employees, they need not hire anymore. So its up to the private sector to take advantage of tax laws to influence decisions on corporate spending practices, meaning hire new people. From a business perspective the first question is why do you need to hire anybody? Just take the money and run..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The government already has enough employees, they need not hire anymore. So its up to the private sector to take advantage of tax laws to influence decisions on corporate spending practices, meaning hire new people. From a business perspective the first question is why do you need to hire anybody? Just take the money and run..... A quite common practice among those that receive those "tax cuts"... Generally speaking it's added to the Corporations' "profitability" margins and distributed in the form of dividends, increased share prices, and huge bonuses to those directly responsible for said rise in "profitability"... IF any jobs are created they are usually NOT in Canada (or US if US Corps) but rather in cheap labour countries... Having an actual NEGATIVE EFFECT on jobs rather than said "job creation"... The "public side" is really not much different than the "private side" when it comes to labour practices in that entity... The BIG DIFFERENCE is found at the top management level where the CEO, you me and the rest of the general public, doesn't do their job properly by letting the CFO, the PM, and department vice-presidents, ministers, run the company without us, the CEO, providing adequate direction... When the CEO of any entity fails in performing their duties properly by relying solely on the underlings to run the company bad financial results are bound to be the consequence... WE, the CEO, are the responsible party and no one else... WE hire the CFO and the rest of senior management... "If you learn from a defeat, you haven't really lost." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I've actually seen several hundred jobs disappear IN SPITE OF tax cuts... and I've seen a few shareholders make just a few sheckles more because of them. There comes a point when the tax cuts to corporations just don't make that big of difference, but boy does it have an impact on revenues generated by us, the government. Take a look at the Irish for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 and I've seen a few shareholders make just a few sheckles more because of them. There comes a point when the tax cuts to corporations just don't make that big of difference, but boy does it have an impact on revenues generated by us, the government. Take a look at the Irish for example. Now THAT I can agree with... STOP the TAX CUTS; PERIOD! Canada can't afford them... Hmmmm, I'm sounding like a Liberal now... "Whether you think you can or think you can't - you are right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Jack is an out of date socialist..........I met a socialist who stated.........."The means of production and it's profits must be under the control of the workers" ----------this dated mantra is bullshit - seeing that the chicken has flown the coup and the so called factories are in China and not here...so they are like someone screaming fire long after the building has cooled from the flames...........NDP are old hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Floundering in the polls and facing decimation if and when an election is called, The NDP brain trust struggle to come up with an issue that will galvanize their support, such that it is.... The economy....nope....no one trusts the NDP to run a hot dog stand... How about.....!!!! A referendum to abolish the senate! Yeah that's a great idea....even better, the emoting classes whom the NDP derive their support probably don't even know a referendum cannot abolish the senate...but that's not the point....the point is to get the NDP on the front page!!! Here's your ink, Jack We need an ELECTED Senate, but Ontario, for some odd reason, opposes this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.