What happened to that so desired reform?

[g_bambino]

To come back to the initial topic... There's one thing to do with the Senate.... Abolish it.

And eliminate one of the checks on the populist House of Commons? Lose regional representation in the federal legislature? No thanks. There isn't a federated state on the planet that doesn't have a bicameral parliament. I don't think Canada will magically manage to be the first.

[+]

Edited April 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bryan]

And eliminate one of the checks on the populist House of Commons? No thanks. There isn't a federated state on the planet that doesn't have a bicameral parliament. I don't think Canada will magically manage to be the first.

Agreed. There has to be SOME kind of second chamber, no matter how much one disagrees about how it is formed or how it could be reformed.

The method I'd prefer (although this likely would require some constitutional confetti) is to make it like jury duty, where random people from all walks of life are essentially "drafted" into the senate to be that true 'man/woman of the people' making that sober second thought. There are all kinds of problems (legal and logistical) with this, I concede, but at least it takes away partisanship for the most part.

[Harry]

To come back to the initial topic... There's one thing to do with the Senate.... Abolish it.

I agree. They are not elected - just a slush fund for Harper and the other PMs before him.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[WWWTT]

Agreed. There has to be SOME kind of second chamber, no matter how much one disagrees about how it is formed or how it could be reformed.

The method I'd prefer (although this likely would require some constitutional confetti) is to make it like jury duty, where random people from all walks of life are essentially "drafted" into the senate to be that true 'man/woman of the people' making that sober second thought. There are all kinds of problems (legal and logistical) with this, I concede, but at least it takes away partisanship for the most part.

Absolutely brilliant!

This is the best idea I have ever come across on any forum!

This would finally bring legitamecey to the government and finaly bury any critisism that the senate has bein a magnate for.

After all if you then critisize the senate you would then be critisizing normal Canadian citizens!

WWWTT

Edited April 18, 2011 by WWWTT

[g_bambino]

No. Secularity, yes.

So, you don't believe in freedom of choice and freedom of religion. Got it.

Several provinces adopted the Official Language Act that made illigal to have public french schools and other represive laws against the french.

Even if true (which it mostly isn't), that has nothing to do with the constitution.

To change the 1867's constitution, you need the support of 75%. Cartier beleived we will be mathematically safe... Once we will be under the 25% line, the english canada will be able to change the constitution without us and set rules against our will. In 1981, as soon as Québec was under the 25% line, the ROC changed the constitution to kick definitly Québec out of the constitution team. The new rules were changed from 75% to 50%+1 and 7 provinces out of them. Even if Québec raises its population to 26%, the rules of 1867 do not apply anymore. We are screwed. The english can set the rules without the french.

There was no amending forumla in the British North America Act 1867. It wasn't until 1982 that one was written into the Constitution Act of that year and it has everything to do with provinces, little relation to population numbers, and nothing to do with language. Some changes require only the approval of the federal parliament; some need the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, together, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces; and some call for the agreement of the federal legislature and those of all the provinces. So, contrary to what you claim, Quebec has never been eliminated from the constitutional process; it has guaranteed representation both in the parliament in Ottawa and, for some considered amendments, at the constitutional conference table, just like every other province. If you want to be sure that Franophones play a role, then it's up to you to keep the numbers up in the country, whether in Quebec or elsewhere.

The number of senators are set by regions. Equal number of senators per regions. West, Ontario, Québec and East. I would keep it as is but the senetors would no longer be chosen by the prime minister of Canada. They will be chosen by the regional leaders. Easy to define for Ontario and Québec. For the east and the west, I guess it can be an equal number per provinces. At this point, it's just details. I would let them decide what's good for them and debate about it.

One wonders who this "them" is that's going to improve the structures of governance in favour of Quebec, given that you're under the delusion that Quebec has been shut out of all future constitutional talks.

Regardless, I'm not opposed to Senate reform, and there is something to the idea of allowing the regions/provinces more input into the selection of senators. I am, though, against the idea of even considering changes that are based on the kind of misinformation and revisionism you've dropped above. Nobody's going to take you seriously when you arrive at meetings hurling baseless, ignorant accusations at the very people you want to sit down and collaborate with.

[c/e]

Edited April 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

And eliminate one of the checks on the populist House of Commons? Lose regional representation in the federal legislature? No thanks. There isn't a federated state on the planet that doesn't have a bicameral parliament. I don't think Canada will magically manage to be the first.

[+]

What can I say? I believe in one prson, one vote, period.

[g_bambino]

What can I say? I believe in one prson, one vote, period.

You'll have to be more specific...

[CANADIEN]

You'll have to be more specific...

I do not believe in elected, or non-elected, law-making bodies where seats are distributed equally by state, region, province, whatsoever. All citizens should be representated equally, that is either one member per x number of citizens or seats attributed to parties in proportion to the number of votes received.

[g_bambino]

I do not believe in elected, or non-elected, law-making bodies where seats are distributed equally by state, region, province, whatsoever. All citizens should be representated equally, that is either one member per x number of citizens or seats attributed to parties in proportion to the number of votes received.

That won't go over too well when the majority of popular representatives have a desire that affects a certain region but runs counter to the opinion held by the majority in that region, or when a party that commands a majority in the lower house passes legislation that serves the party and not the country. Like I said, there isn't a federated country on the planet that doesn't have a bicameral legislature. Do you not think there's a reason for that?

[c/e]

Edited April 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

That won't go over too well when the majority of voters nationally have a desire that runs counter to that which is held by the majority in a region, or when a party that commands a majority in the lower house passes legislation that serves the party and not the country. Like I said, there isn't a federated country on the planet that doesn't have a bicameral legislature. Do you not think there's a reason for that?

It is better, I suppose, when part of the country can block policies that the rest of the country favour? The only limit to the democratic will of the majority should be the individual rights of the citizens, and a regime of laws (Constitutions) based on citizen's rights).

Regional imbalance (which is what "equal" upper house creates)is not the appropriate response to the risk of a majority trampling over individual rights. Nor does it offer protection against the possibility of a central government usurping the powers of other levels of government.

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[ToadBrother]

To come back to the initial topic... There's one thing to do with the Senate.... Abolish it.

Because no other federated state has an upper house... oh wait, they all do!

[ToadBrother]

Regional imbalance (which is what "equal" upper house creates)is not the appropriate response to the risk of a majority trampling over individual rights. Nor does it offer protection against the possibility of a central government usurping the powers of other levels of government.

That would fly in the face of centuries of experience on building up federated states. Because each jurisdiction (province or state) is in some respects semi-autonomous, there has to be a way of guaranteeing regional representation in the national legislature.

I'm not even sure what you're complaint is. Look at the US or France, they both have bicameral legislatures, and it certainly doesn't undermine the one-vote principle.

Besides, the senate will never be abolished. Reformed, probably in time, but the provinces will never allow it to be killed, so you might as toss the idea.

[CANADIEN]

Because no other federated state has an upper house... oh wait, they all do!

That they all have one does not mean one hould exist - nor it is, of course, an argument against it. If that's all you have as an argument, and quite frankly I doubt that's the case, then you don't have much.

[CANADIEN]

That would fly in the face of centuries of experience on building up federated states. Because each jurisdiction (province or state) is in some respects semi-autonomous, there has to be a way of guaranteeing regional representation in the national legislature.

Fine, as long as the representation is proportional to the population.

I'm not even sure what you're complaint is. Look at the US or France, they both have bicameral legislatures, and it certainly doesn't undermine the one-vote principle.

One person one vote means more than one (or in the cases you mention, two) ballots. It means each person's ballot having an equal weight. To take the American example, the ballots of a person living in California has less weight than the ballot of someone living in Delaware because where he/she lives. That may be fair to the State of Delaware, it is not fair to the person living in California. Between the state and the person, I'll put the person first.

As for the fact the Senate is very unlikely to go, that it will stay doesn't mean that I have to like it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fine, as long as the representation is proportional to the population.

One person one vote means more than one (or in the cases you mention, two) ballots. It means each person's ballot having an equal weight. To take the American example, the ballots of a person living in California has less weight than the ballot of someone living in Delaware because where he/she lives. That may be fair to the State of Delaware, it is not fair to the person living in California. Between the state and the person, I'll put the person first.

As for the fact the Senate is very unlikely to go, that it will stay doesn't mean that I have to like it.

The Senate need not go, nor should we want it to go. What we should want is a leader that wants to make the Senate a more functional democratic tool of government. The Senate is SUPPOSED to be a system of regional representation. That was the original intent of the design. It can be enhanced to finally fulfill that role in a manner that is beneficial to all citizens. The Senate can be given a specific roll to play by having defined responsibilities more closely integrated to the purpose of regional representation. By this I mean to say that the Provinces can have a voice, through their representatives to the Senate in Legislative matters. This would at least serve to limit the powers of the PMO within the supposedly separate branch of government. It is a small step, yet one that is intended to become foundational in a system of reforms. Reform must come from the top down in a planned manner. Restricting the power of the PMO must be considered one of the primary goals in any type of democratic reform.

[Wild Bill]

Fine, as long as the representation is proportional to the population.

One person one vote means more than one (or in the cases you mention, two) ballots. It means each person's ballot having an equal weight. To take the American example, the ballots of a person living in California has less weight than the ballot of someone living in Delaware because where he/she lives. That may be fair to the State of Delaware, it is not fair to the person living in California. Between the state and the person, I'll put the person first.

As for the fact the Senate is very unlikely to go, that it will stay doesn't mean that I have to like it.

I'm not sure about your complaint here. Our system already has "rep by pop" in the House of Commons. True, the individual ridings are locally based but the number of ridings is established mainly by population density. Over the years that can change and we see areas underrepresented, like B.C. being short a few seats for their increased population and Quebec having extra due to population loss. Harper tried to address that but of course there was opposition from those who LIKE the status quo!

The very reason for having a 2 House Parliament is to have one based on population and one based on geography. This provides a check and balance system, so that a big region cannot easily screw a small one. Since we have such an ineffective and unequal Senate it is no wonder we have such deep resentments in many of the smaller provinces.

You seem to see the situation as simply a vast, amorphous electorate, from "Sea to Shining Sea". You talk about percentage of the popular vote as if regional representation is irrelevant. You are entitled to your view but I submit that most Canadians find it VERY relevant! They WANT a representative from their own area who understands their needs!

Your idea sounds like the very epitome of what the Reformers fought against - the idea that an MP should represent his riding's views to Ottawa and not Ottawa's views back to the riding. Unless you have a good explanation up your sleeve, your political model seems extremely "top down".

[CANADIEN]

I'm not sure about your complaint here. Our system already has "rep by pop" in the House of Commons.

Not a complaint. Simply the notion that one House where representation is proportional to population.

Over the years that can change and we see areas underrepresented, like B.C. being short a few seats for their increased population and Quebec having extra due to population loss. Harper tried to address that but of course there was opposition from those who LIKE the status

Do you actually believe that I think that BC, or my own province, Ontario, should have less representation in Parliament that what their population warrant?

You seem to see the situation as simply a vast, amorphous electorate, from "Sea to Shining Sea".

Not one bit.

You talk about percentage of the popular vote as if regional representation is irrelevant. You are entitled to your view but I submit that most Canadians find it VERY relevant! They WANT a representative from their own area who understands their needs!

And who said regional representation is irrelevant? Not me. What I said if that it should be proportional to population. And BTW, there is nothing that prevents people from electing people who share their vision of what their region needs.

Your idea sounds like the very epitome of what the Reformers fought against - the idea that an MP should represent his riding's views to Ottawa and not Ottawa's views back to the riding. Unless you have a good explanation up your sleeve, your political model seems extremely "top down".

Each person's vote having the same weight is a top-down model? It means MPPs representing Ottawa's views to their riding instead of what it should be, the opposite? Excuse me while I'm laughing at the absurdity of the idea. Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

It is better, I suppose, when part of the country can block policies that the rest of the country favour?

If the policies adversely affect that region, then yes.

Why should a region be bullied by the others, or a smaller one trampled on by a larger one? We need representation by population, yes - which we have in the Commmons - but, since Canada is a federated state, which is an amalgam of semi-autonomous states agreeing to cooperate with one another, each should have a say in the laws that affect it and all the others.

The only limit to the democratic will of the majority should be the individual rights of the citizens, and a regime of laws (Constitutions) based on citizen's rights).

Yet, you're arguing that it should be easier for the popular majority to alter, ignore, or eliminate the rights of a minority, quite possibly for no other reason than immediate political gain, given the nature of the House of Commons and its inhabitants.

Regional imbalance (which is what "equal" upper house creates)is not the appropriate response to the risk of a majority trampling over individual rights. Nor does it offer protection against the possibility of a central government usurping the powers of other levels of government.

What does this have to do with individual rights? It's about federalism, and a legislative chamber that represents the regions of a federation is indeed a check on a governing party that passes through the lower house any legislation that adversely affects a region or province.

[CANADIEN]

Yet, you're arguing that it should be easier for the popular majority to alter, ignore, or eliminate the rights of a minority, quite possibly for no other reason than immediate political gain, given the nature of the House of Commons and its inhabitants.

You know very well that's not what I am arguing at all.

As for the argument that an elected chamber with equal representation by province would be more amenable to minority rights - do you think that such a chamber would have been more likely to support SSM than the House of commons, to name one example?

And do you think that an elected Upper Chamber would be less partisan, with its members less concerned with immediate political gain?

I don't.

What does this have to do with individual rights? It's about federalism, and a legislative chamber that represents the regions of a federation is indeed a check on a governing party that passes through the lower house any legislation that adversely affects a region or province.

Individual rights are paramount. Between the rights of the individual and the rights of the province (or more exactly of the Government of that province), I will choose the rights of the individual.

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

You know very well that's not what I am arguing at all.

Well, I imagine you don't mean to intentionally argue in favour of that. But, by saying to abolish the Senate, you're saying that Canada's regions should cease to have a voice in federal lawmaking, leaving only the populist House of Commons - the occupants of which are concerned only with what's poitically advantageous at the moment - to make laws, including those that could negatively affect a region and its inhabitants to the benefit of another or others in the immediate and/or long term. That upsets the balance of Confederation by removing the right of a region and its populace to equal status with the other regions in the partnership.

And do you think that an elected Upper Chamber would be less partisan, with its members less concerned with immediate political gain?

No, I don't, which is why I'm not an automatic supporter of an elected Senate. I believe senators should be at least less, if not completely un-, concerned with matters like party politics, campaigning, and re-election.

[c/e]

Edited April 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited April 18, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Well, I imagine you don't mean to intentionally argue in favour of that. But, by saying to abolish the Senate, you're saying that Canada's regions should cease to have a voice in federal lawmaking

Because you think they do right now?

And I never said, or hinted, or came to the conclusion that the citizens of each and every province should not be involved in lawmaking at the federal level.. They should, thorough their elected representatives, in proportion to the population of each province.

leaving only the populist House of Commons - the occupants of which are concerned only with what's poitically advantageous at the moment - to make laws

and you would rather have either:

- an unelected Senate, populated by cronies selected by the federal (or provincial) governments, with no accountability whatsoever to the citizens, unless they could be removed by the government(s), in which case they have the same concerns about doing what it takes to keep their jobs

- or an elected Senate, which would have the same issues and concnerns as the members of the House of Commons.

BTW, what's the emphasis of regions. Canada is made up of people first, then provinces. Not regions.

[g_bambino]

And I never said, or hinted, or came to the conclusion that the citizens of each and every province should not be involved in lawmaking at the federal level..

That isn't, though, what I said you said.

and you would rather have either:

- an unelected Senate, populated by cronies selected by the federal (or provincial) governments, with no accountability whatsoever to the citizens, unless they could be removed by the government(s), in which case they have the same concerns about doing what it takes to keep their jobs

- or an elected Senate, which would have the same issues and concnerns as the members of the House of Commons.

No.

[CANADIEN]

That isn't, though, what I said you said.

The voice of a province is ultimately the voice of its citizens. Since I have never said that the population of a given province should not have a say in the making in federal laws, the argument that I have said, or claimed, or hinted, or thought that provinces should not have a say falls flat on its face.

No.

If there is a Senate, either its members are elected, or its members are not elected. If there is a way of choosing members of the Senate that involves them being neither elected or non-elected, I would like to know what it is.

[g_bambino]

The voice of a province is ultimately the voice of its citizens. Since I have never said that the population of a given province should not have a say in the making in federal laws, the argument that I have said, or claimed, or hinted, or thought that provinces should not have a say falls flat on its face.

As I said, I didn't say otherwise. I said you're arguing in favour of fully subjecting regions with smaller populations to the whims of the majority in regions that have the biggest populations, upsetting the balance of Confederation by diminishing the equality that's supposed to exist between the eleven jurisdictions that make up this federation. Those in the Maritimes, for instance, would likely not take too kindly to being subject to federal laws that favour Central Canada, which is represented in the House of Commons by 145 more seats than PEI, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick put together because of the population difference. The Senate provides the chamber where the regions are represented equally - 24 seats each (except for the 6 for latecomer Newfoundland and one each for the non-sovereign territories) - regardless of population, and legislation can be reviewed with focus on regional and constitutional matters, rather than party politics and appeasing the biggest number of voters possible come the next election.

I'm not against changing up the number of seats or the way they're divided up. An equal number for each province is a possibility, and seems to make sense on the surface of it, considering the way Confederation is supposed to work. But, perhaps others could present a convincing enough argument to turn me off the idea.

If there is a Senate, either its members are elected, or its members are not elected. If there is a way of choosing members of the Senate that involves them being neither elected or non-elected, I would like to know what it is.

Was there some questioning of the fact that senators can only either be elected or not elected? I just don't favour an elected upper chamber, for the aforementioned reasons. That doesn't mean, though, that I think appointment equates with "no accountability whatsoever to the citizens" and approve of it.