What happened to that so desired reform?

[Smallc]

As you have stated so well in this and your prior post.

The reason it's so difficult as far too many in the GTA and Quebec just can't stand the thought that there might be equality among the provinces. "It's not democratic!" "You mean PEI would be equal to Ontario?" They, like the LPC, want all the power in their hands; we in the West and Atlantic Canada can just go f--k ourselves. :angry:

But you see, I think there would have to be a trade off in order to counter this. We would need to promise that true rep by pop would be brought in (don't try to do it at the same time - hell, maybe do it first). You would have one representative per 125K people, rounded to the nearest representative. So, under this scenario, PEI would have 10 Senators, and so would Ontario. Ontario would also have 104 MPs though, and PEI would have 1. Pass things one piece at a time, always making clear what's coming next.

Equal senators for each province -> True rep by pop in HoC -> Elected senators -> 8 year non renewable terms for senators = Complete. That's 4 separate bills over 4 years.

Oh, and don't have a referendum. That would just be a disaster. If the premiers and the PM who don't like the Senate are serious about this, be leaders, and get it done. The first thing on the list that I made would actually improve things. The other things on my list may or may not.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Smallc

[Sandy MacNab]

But you see, I think there would have to be a trade off in order to counter this. We would need to promise that true rep by pop would be brought in (don't try to do it at the same time - hell, maybe do it first). You would have one representative per 125K people, rounded to the nearest representative. So, under this scenario, PEI would have 10 Senators, and so would Ontario. Ontario would also have 104 MPs though, and PEI would have 1. Pass things one piece at a time, always making clear what's coming next.

Equal senators for each province -> True rep by pop in HoC -> Elected senators -> 8 year non renewable terms for senators = Complete. That's 4 separate bills over 4 years.

Oh, and don't have a referendum. That would just be a disaster. If the premiers and the PM who don't like the Senate are serious about this, be leaders, and get it done. The first thing on the list that I made would actually improve things. The other things on my list may or may not.

I also agree with full rep by pop but I'd saw it off at a minimum of 2 MPs - just to give the other MP some company. I also think that 10 senators per pro/terr is about 5 too many. I also think that Ontario and Quebec would be far more formidible than you appear to believe.

[Smallc]

I also agree with full rep by pop but I'd saw it off at a minimum of 2 MPs - just to give the other MP some company. I also think that 10 senators per pro/terr is about 5 too many. I also think that Ontario and Quebec would be far more formidible than you appear to believe.

According to what I've read, in order to do its work, the Senate needs at least 80 - 90 people. That's why I went for having 100 Senators (I don't think the territories should have any. The Senate is the house of the provinces, and they aren't provinces). Under this scenario, Ontario and Quebec would grow their proportional power in the Commons, as would BC and Alberta. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would lose power, and I'm fine with that (I live in Manitoba).

[cybercoma]

I'm all about giving the first nations senate seats equal to the representation from each province. They fall entirely under federal jurisdiction and ought to have a say in how they are governed and ought to have a voice in policies that can affect them.

[Benz]

I am not 100% against the idea of equal number of senators per provinces but, I wonder if it is the best solution.

We all know that Ontario will be very opposed. It gives them 10 senators while it gives the maritimes 40 senators. It drops out the concept of regions and I wonder if it is the best solution for everyone. For historical reasons, PEI, NB and NS are different provinces but, they could merge into one province and it wouldn't change much. I'm not saying it's the thing to do but, for the maritimes, the reality of today is very different from 1867's. I mean, why PEI is a province while vancouver island isn't. There 5 times more people in the last one. We don't need to force anyone to merge but, do we need to adapt the senate according to the concept of provinces rather than regions?

I'm afraid it will just not pass because of the weigh Ontario has and probably Québec also. IMO, instead of 4 regions, we should have 5 by spliting up the west in two. Pacific and the Pairies. I am sure it would be a reasonable improvement for the westeners.

But again, I'm not necessarly against, I just lack in reasons to support the idea among my fellows. Perhaps someone can bring me a good massive point.

Another point, I often hear about complaints that we are too often in elections. In several countries, the senators are chosen, not elected, by the region they represent. IMO, the region/province would chose its senators for a 6 years mandat. 8 is too much if you ask me and 4 allows the next government to change too fast the senators. Electing senators is fine also. Perhaps not necessary.

[g_bambino]

No. Otherwise, the constitution would be fine. Get lost with your fiction. This is reality.

38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

( resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.Revocation of dissent

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

...

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

( the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

© subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

...

43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and

( any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

....

45. Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.

Constitution Act 1982

There's reality for you. So, your persistent whinging about Quebec being on the verge of annihilation by the rest of the country relies entirely upon the pretence that either the clauses of the Constitution Act quoted above don't exist or Quebec isn't a province with a government and legislative assembly. Shocked? I thought you would be.

Read the whole thread again. I answered you and you in particular.

I'm aware of the content of the thread; I've been participating in it, so I know you haven't yet done what I asked of you. Again: I'm almost positive you can't.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

A major downside to a reformed senate is that the senate might assume reform amounted to a mandate to actually do something. Nobody wants that.

The only reason people tolerate the senate is that the senators don't rock the boat.

The only reason this is true now is that a non-elected senate has no legitimacy ?

-k

[Benz]

There's reality for you.

Poor bambino. I am aware that two articles of the constitution requires the approval of the provinces including mine. Articles 38 and 43. But Québec is not a small province that don't care about the rest. Québec cares about the rest. It's the other way around, almost all articles need the approval of Québec, except perhaps few.

I'm aware of the content of the thread; I've been participating in it, so I know you haven't yet done what I asked of you. Again: I'm almost positive you can't.

You are very childish. Despite everything I said, you answer stupidily that only two articles need our approval. You are just making my point, poor little boy.

Among every thing I said Québec wants, now look thru the articles again and try to figure which ones that concern us and we want to have a say. Not as a tiny province like this others, as a nation.

[g_bambino]

I am aware that two articles of the constitution requires the approval of the provinces including mine.

There is no way Quebec can be affected by a constitutional amendment that didn't have the prior approval of the majority in Quebec's legislature; either the amendment proposal dies without Quebec's support or it doesn't apply to Quebec without Quebec's consent. Which leads me, again, to the next point:

Among every thing I said Québec wants...

I didn't ask what you think Quebec wants. I asked you to be specific about the threat Quebec faces from the other ten partners in Confederation that requires Quebec to hold either a unique veto or full independence. The more you evade the question, the more and more you affirm that you can't satisfy it.

[-]

Edited May 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[Molly]

I have not been carefully following this thread, so I have to ask.. four regions? Was that discussed here? Benz, you spoke of 5 regions instead of a presumption of 4... Did I miss that chunk of this discussion?

4 seems like an unlikely number- one I've never seen proposed before (or rather, it sounds like the number that would have been proposed in 1867- four or 3.), so I'm wondering where that number came from, and what those 4 regions would be.

[Oleg Bach]

Actually the senate manages itself it just can't alter the constituent structure .. example who are members or eligible for seating... and the means of seating - as it would be unconstititutional... otherthan this it is a very fuzzy situation on standing orders... they pretty much manage themselves... it is sort of complex. But both the commons and senate can say how they operate by standing orders and house rules.

Reform is pretty much dead, most of it has retired, now it is mostly provincial Progressive Conservatives gone up to the federal level, and few others.

Well now that the cons control the senate it will be interesting to see what happens after the election

What harper said in the past is not relevant about today -- just ask how many of those WE WILL NOT TAKE PENSIONS people are taking the pensions.They are oppourtunists and crooks not people who actually intend to do what got your vote. They lie, they steal , they cheat, you know the deal.

Why change something you control?

Harper's mentality (and the large part of the CPC aristocracy) is destroy what you don't control, divide and conquer.

That cruel stiff upper British lip generated an empire that once stretched across the planet. Of couse the old school conservative mind set is to destroy what you can not control - and stiffle any person that is truely intelligent - so what else is new..............how do you expect those in power to maintain their wealth and influence........they do what they do - get used to it.

[Benz]

I have not been carefully following this thread, so I have to ask.. four regions? Was that discussed here? Benz, you spoke of 5 regions instead of a presumption of 4... Did I miss that chunk of this discussion?

4 seems like an unlikely number- one I've never seen proposed before (or rather, it sounds like the number that would have been proposed in 1867- four or 3.), so I'm wondering where that number came from, and what those 4 regions would be.

I don't remember when in the canadian history it was decided to be 4. This is how it actually works for sometime. I suggested 5 as a in between solution from 4 to 10. Because I know 10 will never be accepted by Ontario and 4 seems unfair for the growing western provinces. I'm speeking for myself though. It's not an official position I heard.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Benz

[Benz]

I asked you to be specific about the threat Quebec faces from the other ten (nine) partners in Confederation (federation)that requires Quebec to hold either a unique veto or full independence. The more you evade the question, the more and more you affirm that you can't satisfy it.

[-]

What else do you want? You should start considering what I said in first place before asking for more. You fail and you ask me my to add more challenge.

I'll give you another chance and I will repeat again since have not the intellectual capacity to sum up what have been told to you.

-Confederation/Federation: This is not a confederation at all. It is a federation. We want it to be as decentralized as a confederation. Or, at least, being hybrid by allowing a province (all can have it if you want, at least Québec must has it), to have an opt out with full compensation. Why? Because Ottawa always put its nose where they do not belong. The other provinces are fine with that, we are not. It constantly generates problems. Even when we have federalists in Québec.

-The religion: One individual can choose and practice its religion of its choice as long as it doesn't interfere with the collective's choices. Like bringing concealed weapons at public schools. If you are fine with that, good for you. We are not at all. If you don't understand, I don't care. It's not of your business. Such thing is not in our values. Spending time, energy and funds to allow such thing is against our principles. The kids is free to go in a private school where it is allowed.

-The language: Although the rules are now good for one individual to claim its rights, the problem lies at one can claim its rights only if it can afford it. The program for the minorities have been killed by harper because there are no such thing in the constitution. When the people do have to fight individually against a system, it is way more difficult for them. Many do abend. We do not fear to happen, it happens.

-The Senate: This actual banana republic is outrageous. It is against the interest of the canadians that the prime minister chooses the senators. It appears once again that only Québec is CLEARLY against that. The regions should choose their own senators. Actually, the senate is useless.

I will let you digest that for now. Don't fail again. J'ai été très généreux dans mon temps consacré à t'expliquer à plusieurs reprises les revendications traditionnelles du Québec qui font l'actualité depuis plus de 40 ans. Enlève toi les doigts du nez.

Once the situation corrected, Québec needs a say on all those things so it won't happen again. Sometimes I wonder if Québec cares more about the improvement and perenity of Canada than the english canadians do.

[g_bambino]

Enlève toi les doigts du nez.

So, Quebec faces no threat that requires it to either possess a unique veto that no other province has or to leave Confederation. As I thought.

Québec needs a say on all those things so it won't happen again.

Quebec has a say on those things.

[+]

Edited May 9, 2011 by g_bambino

[Benz]

So, Quebec faces no threat that requires it to either possess a unique veto that no other province has or to leave Confederation. As I thought.

Quebec has a say on those things.

[+]

If I say I want you to stop walking on my foot. Will you understand that I want you to walk on my other foot to get them even?

bambino, the conversation between us is over. You are in total denial like an autistic child that cannot communicate with the outside world. I cannot help you. You need the aid of a professional psychanalist or something.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Benz

[bloodyminded]

If I say I want you to stop walking on my foot. Will you understand that I want you to walk on my other foot to get them even?

bambino, the conversation between us is over. You are in total denial like an autistic child that cannot communicate with the outside world. I cannot help you. You need the aid of a professional psychanalist or something.

Maybe he does. Or maybe--and bear with me--he simply disagrees with you, and this doesn't automatically determine that he has mental health problems.

[Benz]

Maybe he does. Or maybe--and bear with me--he simply disagrees with you, and this doesn't automatically determine that he has mental health problems.

He can desagree with me. I don't have a problem with that. But this not what he is saying.

Some canadians beleive it is out of question that a province is different from the others, even if the province IS different from the others. I respect that beleif and the only possible outcome for Québec is to just leave. There are no room for a province that is different from the others. Plain and simple. Although I don't agree, I respect that. Québec must then seperate, the problem is solved and the canadians will have their system with identical provinces.

But bambino denies everything. That's diffirent.

[g_bambino]

He can desagree with me. I don't have a problem with that. But this not what he is saying.

It is. You say Quebec requires a veto power over constitutional amendments that no other province has. I disagree. But, I still asked you to explain why you thought Quebec needs this veto, just so I could understand where you were coming from. You couldn't do it. All you could do was invent problems that were shown to not actually exist and proffer assertions that were demonstrated to be false.

Some canadians beleive it is out of question that a province is different from the others, even if the province IS different from the others.

Perhaps they do. What's at issue here, though, is a Canadian who insists Quebec is the only province in Canada that's different to all the others. That, too, is false.

[sp]

Edited May 9, 2011 by g_bambino