What happened to that so desired reform?

[g_bambino]

Our demands never were excessive.

And what demands were those, exactly?

[cybercoma]

Stephen Harper had the chance to institute Senate reform anyway. He doesn't need to open the Constitution and he doesn't need to pass legislation. He could simply ask the provinces who they would like as a senator. Instead, he went against everything he stood for by making patronage apponitments, which he vowed to put an end to.

Remember this?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/687743

Harper named nine new senators, including Doug Finley (Ontario), his campaign chair; Carolyn Stewart-Olsen (New Brunswick), his long-time communications assistant; and Don Plett (Manitoba), president of the Conservative Party of Canada.

[snip]

"He is unequalled in Canadian history as the only prime minister to have made 27 Senate appointments in a single year and he beat (Conservative prime minister) Robert Borden who made 26 (in 1917)," [Dosanjh] said.

Harper lied. Full stop.

[g_bambino]

He doesn't need to open the Constitution and he doesn't need to pass legislation. He could simply ask the provinces who they would like as a senator.

Simply ask "the provinces"? What does that mean? Ask the Governor-in-Council in each province? Have each province hold a senatorial election each time there's a vacancy? He can't force anyone to participate in such plans, and what if provincial governments don't want to participate? The provinces aren't subordinates to Ottawa and must do its bidding.

[c/e]

Edited May 5, 2011 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Stephen Harper had the chance to institute Senate reform anyway. He doesn't need to open the Constitution and he doesn't need to pass legislation. He could simply ask the provinces who they would like as a senator. Instead, he went against everything he stood for by making patronage apponitments, which he vowed to put an end to.

Remember this?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/687743

Harper lied. Full stop.

I echo g_bambino here. How would he have asked? Who would he have asked? The Premiers? The legislatures? The Lieutenant Governors? Would he send them a friendly letter saying "Hi, who would you like in the Senate"? And what would come of that? That's just pushing the question down to the next level. Once again, it's this shoddy "let's amend the constitution but not amend the constitution" line.

The Constitution requires that Senate vacancies be filled by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. I guess the PM could pick up the phone to the province in question and ask the Premier who he would like, and I'll wager, to some extent, that probably happens anyways. But a formalized process is going to require altering the constitution, which means actually going to the provinces and negotiating a new method, whatever we decide that to be.

[Benz]

Be careful what you wish for, mon ami! You might get it!

You see, what you are really saying is that if the system sucks that badly then Quebec could just do what it wants. It could decide to separate however it wants, ignoring any laws to the contrary that are inconvenient.

That could happen, I agree. However, the sword has two edges. If Quebec were to ignore the legalities then TROC would certainly do the same.

Things could get rather ugly!

Or... you can just stop ignoring us and respect us. By us, I mean both the sovereignists and the federalists who beleive you will someday accept the reality.

The ball is in your hand. You have been told enough. I have seen few english canadians even here that do understand what we are saying for the last 40 years. The others are just keep the head in the sand.

[ToadBrother]

Or... you can just stop ignoring us and respect us. By us, I mean both the sovereignists and the federalists who beleive you will someday accept the reality.

Stop ignoring you? How could anybody stop ignoring Quebec. The only other province with nearly as big a chip on its shoulder and desire to blame everyone else for its internal problems is Alberta.

The ball is in your hand. You have been told enough. I have seen few english canadians even here that do understand what we are saying for the last 40 years. The others are just keep the head in the sand.

Told enough what? Two referendums have been held, neither have given the separatists the results they want. What's more, no one is quite clear what it is they want, and that was made very very clear in the leadup to the 1995 referendum when the major advocates spent a good deal of time saying very very little about the actual practicalities of secession (let's use the real word here, not weasel words like sovereignty or separatism). When the First Nations and the non-Quebecois communities in Montreal made it clear that they weren't just going to leave Canada because Quebecers wanted to, they were treated to a drunken Parizeau basically blaming them for the defeat.

Look, if you want to talk amendments, let's talk them. But I warn you that out-and-out veto power isn't some panacea for Quebec, particularly as the rest of Confederation would insist upon similar powers and you could have even more of a deadlock than you have now. Our constitution has been kicked around like a football by both sides with little appreciation of long-term consequences. But hey, if Quebec wants to open that chapter again, then so be it. Thus far, however, that constitution that Quebecers, or rather, a rather cranky Levesque, rejected has given Quebec a helluva lot of internal power over its affairs, and with the added bonus that there is this big Federal government willing to shelter it from the costs and responsibilities of actual sovereign nationhood.

No country is a perfect place, but for most of Confederation's history, even when it would have been in Quebec's interests to have outsiders fix the governing problems of the province, it has been allowed far greater freedoms than many cultural enclaves in other countries. It hasn't been that bad. I mean, Quebec could have ended up like Louisiana or Maine, with the French cultural groups little more than tourist attractions.

Edited May 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

The others are just keep the head in the sand.

It would be lovely if you actually answered my questions instead of ignoring them and then complaining about how I have my head in the sand.

[Benz]

Told enough what? Two referendums have been held, neither have given the separatists the results they want.

So what? How many times the Québec federalists tried to negociate with you and you shut the door in their face having the result that Québec is left alone and out of the constitution team.

What's more, no one is quite clear what it is they want

We are clear. Cannot be more clear than that.

not weasel words like sovereignty or separatism

You have to respect the Québécois that beleive in you. They are not coming in a forum like this one and see how much stubborn and selfish you are. They beleive it is possible to convince you that we can share this country. They don't know your true colours. Sovereignty means, the people of Québec has the last word regarding their future. So far, you had the last word. If after we become sovereign you still refuse our partnership offer, then it is total independence. But as long as we are not sovereign and you can choose to refuse without the direct consequences, we are wasting our time.

Look, if you want to talk amendments, let's talk them.

I said what are the main amendments we (both sovereignist and federalist) want. In this thread and the other one regarding the Bloc. Do you need more precisions? If so, on what part?

But I warn you that out-and-out veto power isn't some panacea for Quebec, particularly as the rest of Confederation would insist upon similar powers

Look... if it is to be this way, then be it. So far, english Canada always been against the principle. No provinces every claim such a veto. The 9 provinces are english and Québec is the only french, that's why only Québec needs a veto. However, I'd rather have all provinces with a veto than no veto for Québec.

and you could have even more of a deadlock than you have now.

Maybe, but at least the constitution would be what we would have negociated in first place. Cannot be worst than a constitution made by anglos only. I'm not saying that because I don't like you, I'm saying that because we have different opinions and we must negociate and agree on something.

No country is a perfect place, but for most of Confederation's history, even when it would have been in Quebec's interests to have outsiders fix the governing problems of the province, it has been allowed far greater freedoms than many cultural enclaves in other countries.

We do not have the mindset to benchmark ourselves with those in a worst situation. We are heading for what is best for everyone, including you.

I mean, Quebec could have ended up like Louisiana or Maine, with the French cultural groups little more than tourist attractions.

This is not a justification to keep it as is.

If the Europeans can manage to get along in a confederation with total respect of every member's sovereignty, even if they are over 20 different cultures, languages and economies, why can't we? We are just two. English and French.

The time of imperialism is over. It's ok to accept us as we are. It's ok to share the decision regarding the supreme rules of the country. All we are asking is to make things right so we can move on and build this thing together and leave the old english against french far behind.

[g_bambino]

The time of imperialism is over.

Well, it's better that you realised that late than never. Hopefully now you can stop complaining about things you invented in your head.

[Smallc]

If Harper really wants Senate reform, he should do it the right way, and do it piece by piece. He's starting with the wrong piece. If your goal is EEE, then the first E should be your first goal. Make the numbers Senators equal first, then make them elected, and then, put term limits in place. He's doing it in the wrong order. Putting in place 8 year non renewable terms allow the PM to replace the entire Senate within 8 years.

[g_bambino]

Putting in place 8 year non renewable terms allow the PM to replace the entire Senate within 8 years.

I'm a little baffled about the purpose of this change, as well. Besides the turnover rate (which negatively affects institutional memory), what's going to be different than before? And, as you note, even if the amendment is made to limit senators' terms to eight years, well, that's the end of the line for changes to the upper chamber, before having to bring the provinces in, that is. Very odd.

[ToadBrother]

If Harper really wants Senate reform, he should do it the right way, and do it piece by piece. He's starting with the wrong piece. If your goal is EEE, then the first E should be your first goal. Make the numbers Senators equal first, then make them elected, and then, put term limits in place. He's doing it in the wrong order. Putting in place 8 year non renewable terms allow the PM to replace the entire Senate within 8 years.

That first E is by far the most difficult. I think you should do the opposite and start with something easy.

[ToadBrother]

You have to respect the Québécois that beleive in you. They are not coming in a forum like this one and see how much stubborn and selfish you are. They beleive it is possible to convince you that we can share this country. They don't know your true colours. Sovereignty means, the people of Québec has the last word regarding their future. So far, you had the last word. If after we become sovereign you still refuse our partnership offer, then it is total independence. But as long as we are not sovereign and you can choose to refuse without the direct consequences, we are wasting our time.

Translation: Somehow we still think we can have our cake and eat it too.

Edited May 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Translation: Somehow we still think we can have our cake and eat it too.

More than that, it's: You will give us our cake and we will eat it too, otherwise we'll use our special veto to deny you anything and everything you want. Can you imagine the backlash from the other ten partners in Confederation? Actually, strike "partners"; "subordinates", would be more apt.

All this because Benz (and I imagine the separatists that think like him) believes 1) the only people who speak predominantly French in Canada are Quebecers; 2) people who speak predominantly French (read: Quebecers) and people who speak predominantly English (read: the entire remainder of the country) each have a distinct, monolithic culture that is diametrically opposed to the other; 3) Quebecers were forced into Confederation against their will by Anglo imperialists; 4) the Constitution Act 1982 was a further twist of the vice in which Quebec is held by said imperialists (though exactly what Quebec lost or what it has suffered has yet to be explained by Benz); 5) Quebec has no say in any constitutional amendments, especially those affecting it (despite what's written in the constitution itself); and 6) he speaks for all Quebecers and the correct response to not getting what he says Quebecers want is separation on Quebec's terms only, Anglophone Quebecers and First Nations within the present borders of Quebec shut up and be damned, otherwise there will be armed conflict.

I feel sorry for any federalist politician who has to deal with this kind of emotive, paranoid nationalism and still maintain a straight, diplomatic demeanour.

[sp]

Edited May 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

That first E is by far the most difficult. I think you should do the opposite and start with something easy.

Yes, it is the most difficult, but it's the least dangerous. 8 year non renewable terms will lead to senate stacking. Elected senators who now suddenly feel emboldened with power are going to use that power. That means that Ontario and Quebec will have far more say, and that's definitely not what the proponents of EEE want. The first E may be the most difficult, but it is the most necessary if reform is going to work.

[Benz]

More than that, it's: You will give us our cake and we will eat it too, otherwise we'll use our special veto to deny you anything and everything you want. Can you imagine the backlash from the other ten partners in Confederation? Actually, strike "partners"; "subordinates", would be more apt.

What a beautiful boogeyman you are. I will help you to make your brain work properly. Your logic must goes on both ways. If Québec blocks any further modifications for no intelligent reasons. How the heck Québec will be able to pass its propositions? The englis Canada will block it as a revenge. You are like that. Not us.

I feel sorry for any federalist politician who has to deal with this kind of emotive, paranoid nationalism and still maintain a straight, diplomatic demeanour.

[sp]

Poor you. The federalists want a veto. The independentists are fedup waiting after you.

[g_bambino]

If Québec blocks any further modifications for no intelligent reasons. How the heck Québec will be able to pass its propositions? The englis Canada will block it as a revenge.

The very backlash from the other ten parts of Confederation I spoke about; the whole thing becomes entirely unworkable, exactly as I said. Thank you for agreeing.

The federalists want a veto

There are some matters in which all partners should be involved and some that relate only to a couple or a few. Like all the other provinces, Quebec already has the ability to say no to a constitutional amendment that affects it directly. If anyone believes Quebec should have any more of a veto than that - a special power to accept or reject amendments relating only to other provinces or specific to the federal field (aside from the Crown) - they have a hugely distorted concept of Quebec's importance.

You keep going on and on as though the Québécois (whom you misname as "Quebec") face some impending doom at the hands of Canada's Anglophones (whom you misname as "the English Canada") and need either special powers or independence to protect themselves. Yet, still, not once have you been specific about what this supposed threat is. I'm quite convinced you can't.

[+]

Edited May 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

I'm a little baffled about the purpose of this change, as well. Besides the turnover rate (which negatively affects institutional memory), what's going to be different than before? And, as you note, even if the amendment is made to limit senators' terms to eight years, well, that's the end of the line for changes to the upper chamber, before having to bring the provinces in, that is. Very odd.

The purpose is obvious. It's something that can be sold as progress, "no more 'cash for life' patronage positions." However, it allows the PM to do exactly what Smallc said, flip the entire Senate in just 8 years. This ensures that the Senate is stacked with party supporters and makes them even less accountable than they are now. Term limits only work if the Senate is elected or chosen by the provinces somehow (lieutenant governors, premiers, elections, whatever).

[g_bambino]

The purpose is obvious. It's something that can be sold as progress, "no more 'cash for life' patronage positions."

Are you sure? Appointments occur as before, appointee serves eight years with salary, appointee receives pension upon departure from Senate. What's the difference, again?

Term limits only work if the Senate is elected or chosen by the provinces somehow (lieutenant governors, premiers, elections, whatever).

It's not term limits (which we already have), it's where are they set? And it's a question almost apart from that of the selection process; whether elected or not, senators are meant to sit longer than their counterparts in the Commons. Is eight years enough of a difference? As has already been rightly pointed out, ministers and MPs can easily be in office longer than that. Plus, there's the matter of institutional memory that I talked about; at no time would any one senator have been in the upper chamber for more than eight years, the expertise of those who'd served that long would be consistently lost.

I can't say I like the idea very much at all.

[cybercoma]

The expertise of male models, former pro-athletes and ex-journalists. That's rich.

[g_bambino]

The expertise of male models, former pro-athletes and ex-journalists. That's rich.

And that list is pretty disingenuous.

[cybercoma]

Look, we agree that it shouldn't be flipped within 8 years, but for different reasons. Let's just leave it at that.

[g_bambino]

Let's just leave it at that.

Fair enough.

[Benz]

The very backlash from the other ten parts of Confederation I spoke about; the whole thing becomes entirely unworkable, exactly as I said. Thank you for agreeing.

Conclusion, english people are full of sh-- and it is not possible to work it out with them. Over 20 different european nations can get along but the english canadians just can't. This is what you are saying. You fail and I will not approve.

Quebec already has the ability to say no to a constitutional amendment that affects it directly

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

You keep going on and on as though the Québécois (whom you misname as "Quebec") face some impending doom at the hands of Canada's Anglophones (whom you misname as "the English Canada") and need either special powers or independence to protect themselves. Yet, still, not once have you been specific about what this supposed threat is. I'm quite convinced you can't.

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

[Sandy MacNab]

Yes, it is the most difficult, but it's the least dangerous. 8 year non renewable terms will lead to senate stacking. Elected senators who now suddenly feel emboldened with power are going to use that power. That means that Ontario and Quebec will have far more say, and that's definitely not what the proponents of EEE want. The first E may be the most difficult, but it is the most necessary if reform is going to work.

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: