Conservative get ready for senate reform

[punked]

No it isn't. You just keep reiterating that same point over and over, without offering a supporting rationale and in deliberate ignorance of every explanation given to you as to why it's a bad idea.

That is because every explanation given DOES NOT look at the political realities of the situation. I don't care how the system is "suppose" to work I want to know how it does. In how it works right now we don't need a Senate. That is my point. I live in the real world not the world the fathers of Confederation envisioned, maybe you live in that world which is why you fail to address that point but me I'm in the real world.

[g_bambino]

In how it works right now we don't need a Senate.

We do if we want a workable federation.

Do you have an explanation for why every federation in the world has a bicameral parliament?

[c/e]

Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[punked]

We do if we want a workable federation.

Do you have an explanation for why every federation in the world has a bicameral parliament?

[c/e]

You do know that the provinces in Canada can be considered Federations correct?

Anyway just because we are a Federation does not mean we need to have a bicameral government. There are plenty of other ways this can be tackled like putting measures in the Constitution. Right now Senate does nothing to ensure that power is controlled in anyway. We have a defacto unicameral government accept we pay an extra 100 million a year so people like you can pretend the provinces are represented.

Again I point a recent and easy example of this. Mike Duffy Senator from PEI said that NS should not get a ship building contract and it should go to BC because the East didn't vote the right way. Even though PEI stands to make 100 million dollars in Spin offs if the contract goes to NS. Welcome our wonderful Senate where the provinces get no representation of any kind.

[g_bambino]

[J]ust because we are a Federation does not mean we need to have a bicameral government.

Do you have an explanation for why every federation in the world has a bicameral parliament?

[punked]

Do you have an explanation for why every federation in the world has a bicameral parliament?

Because most were modeled off the first ones. France, Britain etc. The countries who colonized the world.

Now you have to explain why "because it hasn't been done before" is an answer to why we must have one. Has been done and failed?

BTW New Zealand got rid of its bicameral structure in 1951 for the same reason I argue now we get rid of it. They found it did nothing and was a waste of money. They had roughly the same system then that we have now. It did not fall into the ocean.

Edited June 6, 2011 by punked

[g_bambino]

Because most were modeled off the first ones. France, Britain etc.

That's not an explanation as to why every federated country still has a bicameral parliament; many of these countries have had a century or more to dump what you define as costly dead weight. Yet, they haven't. I can assure you neither the United States nor Germany or any federation has a bicameral parliament for the sake of tradition.

BTW New Zealand got rid of its bicameral structure in 1951 for the same reason I argue now we get rid of it.

I'm aware of that. New Zealand, though, isn't a federation.

[+]

Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[punked]

That's not an explanation as to why every federated country still has a bicameral parliament; many of these countries have had a century or more to dump what you define as costly dead weight. Yet, they haven't. I can assure you neither the United States nor Germany or any federation has a bicameral parliament for the sake of tradition.

I am not talking about other countries though. There are plenty governments like that of the US in which bicameral governments are an essential part of their federation. That is not the case in Canada where the Senate does nothing to represent the provinces in the least. Heck even Nova Scotia had a bicameral government at one time to represent the various regions of their province. Guess what? They found it useless and expensive and got rid of it.

I'm aware of that. New Zealand, though, isn't a federation.

[+]

Never said it was. I said they got rid of their bicameral government because it didn't do anything much like our own. Like I said before Canada is Unicameral when you actually take into account the Senate doesn't do much, and even when they do the PM can use emergency measures to appoint an extra 8 Senators to bump through his will. Again I argue the reality you argue the hypothetical. Which is why we never agree. I see the Senate for what it is and you see if for what it was intended to be. I agree if the Senate was what it was intended to be it would be harder for me to argue my case but it isn't. It is a place where yes men go much like the Nova Scotia upper house was before the people got rid of it.

Edited June 7, 2011 by punked

[g_bambino]

I am not talking about other countries though, especially federated ones. There are plenty governments like that of the US in which bicameral governments are an essential part of their federation. That is not the case in Canada where the Senate does nothing to represent the provinces in the least.

You should be talking about other countries, though. They serve as examples to study. All federations require bicameral parliaments for the same reason: provide a regional, less partisan, less fickle voice in the legislative process that counterbalances the shifting and uneven politics of the nationally elected house. Just because you say the Canadian Senate doesn't currently do so doesn't make it so. The fact that it is weaker than the lower chamber and must always, ultimately, bend to its will isn't a unique characteristic; that is the case for almost all upper houses, save (I think) for those in presidential republics like the US (a system that comes with all its own inherent problems). But, the Senate still offers more reasoned input - via debate and committee work - into the drafting of laws and sends that information and recommended amendments back to the House of Commons for its consideration.

The way to make the Senate perform its role better isn't necessarily to abolish the Senate. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, removing it would only strengthen the PMO and cause detriment to the less populated provinces of this country. If this country is already ruled from the centre (though, I'm not convinced it really is), it would become more so without a bicameral parliament making its laws.

I said they got rid of their bicameral government because it didn't do anything...

Then, you're incorrect. New Zealand dissolved its Legislative Council not because it didn't do anything, but because it was unnecessary in a unitary state.

[+]

Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[Remiel]

For what it is worth, Canada has the only fully appointed upper chamber. And while all federations have them, they each also tend to have their own unique variations.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Most of what you say is needed is already done; much of it well over 140 years ago.

Really? Talk to me about the PMO........defined how and where? The Senate is not supposed to be merely a chamber of sober second thoughts, it was designed to represent a form of regional representation.....lets talk about how well that worked out. The Constitution is largely unwritten, much to the detriment of the people and much to the benefit of the government. The list goes on and on. Think about it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will suggest the best reform the Senate should experience would be a conversion to a regional model with equal representation from each province. Once that is done then we can bring the rest of the nation into the fold and divest federal control to the former territories as new provinces.

[g_bambino]

I will suggest the best reform the Senate should experience would be a conversion to a regional model with equal representation from each province.

I, so far, believe that to be a good idea. The senates of Australia and the US are both arranged that way.

[Smallc]

I will suggest the best reform the Senate should experience would be a conversion to a regional model with equal representation from each province.

That will probably never happen. Ever. The best you can probably hope for is a better balance of the regional model, where Atlantic Canada loses 6 seats.

Once that is done then we can bring the rest of the nation into the fold and divest federal control to the former territories as new provinces.

Why?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That will probably never happen. Ever. The best you can probably hope for is a better balance of the regional model, where Atlantic Canada loses 6 seats.

Why?

It certainly will not happen if the citizens don't demand it. Look the only right way to get this done is to build public support for the concept first. That means at least some form of consultation with the public. In my view the government should take the time and make the effort to formulate a functional concept of reforms and then gain public support by means of referendum. The First Ministers need to WANT to make some changes before anything happens at all. Without the provinces on board any effort is a waste of time.

Armed with a referendum, the government can approach the high court and pick a path of loopholes to use to get the job done. Without the courts involvement in the process we are most likely doomed to fail. I say this because the Canadian Constitution is very nearly airtight in spite of what folks think. As it stands the courts answer the questions, go figure precedents are and have been set in the absence of law contained within the Constitution and that is the real problem.

[Smallc]

go figure precedents are and have been set in the absence of law contained within the Constitution and that is the real problem.

That isn't a problem, that's part of our system of government.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That isn't a problem, that's part of our system of government.

You don't see it as a problem, others do.

[Smallc]

You don't see it as a problem, others do.

Not many others, once they understand why things are done as they are.

[Molly]

Again I have never studied the results of Senate votes, but the implication of every news story I have read related to Senate positions has implied that they do in fact vote the party line.

Would you honestly expect otherwise? Senators may not be whipped, but they are certainly political beasts who have done enough thinking about it to have firm opinions and well-established worldviews. They don't just suddenly have all their experience/opinions/associations erased.

Fact is that voting is not much more than the last-gasp formality portion of a done deal. The real work and the real influence occurs days/weeks/months/years before legislation is offered for a vote. If you want to measure a senator's value, check up on lobbying, research, committee work. Find out what that senator says to newby MP's who think they are in charge and can remake the world in a week.

[Molly]

Punked, New Zealand is a bad example. They've got a little less population than BC, and less than a third of that land mass... and their land mass is pretty much the same all over: same topography; same population; same climate; same history; same resources and crops; same.... etc.

They start out not having the problems that the senate helps to address.

[g_bambino]

Look the only right way to get this done is to build public support for the concept first... Armed with a referendum, the government can approach the high court and pick a path of loopholes to use to get the job done.

If the public support is there, why the need to try and reform the constitution unconstitutionally? The Supreme Court would never give blessing to such a venture precisely because it would be unconstitutional; the court has always been quite firm about the federal nature of this country and the equality of the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

[g_bambino]

You don't see it as a problem, others do.

If it's a problem, then it's an unsolvable one. There's no way to craft laws that will deal with every possible scenario in the unforseen future.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Best model:

Atlantic Canada gets 8 senators (2 from each province)

Quebec gets 8 senators

Ontario gets 8 senators

Man/Sask gets 8 senators (4 from each province)

Alberta gets 8 senators

British Columbia gets 8 senators

Territories get 3 senators (1 from each territory)

Total: 51 senators

[Molly]

Newfoundland with half as many senators as Manitoba? Now there's a lead balloon!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If the public support is there, why the need to try and reform the constitution unconstitutionally ? The Supreme Court would never give blessing to such a venture precisely because it would be unconstitutional; the court has always been quite firm about the federal nature of this country and the equality of the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I am not saying that there is or is not public support. That would be stretching the truth outside of the envelope just a little. We are talking about the Harper government desire to implement Senate Reforms. It is a Steve agenda thingy not mine. He is the one suggesting to the public by means of partisan political policy that the nations people desire changes to the Senate. Strangely enough Harper is deciding what is best for us, and you folks are taking the bait! This is what majority governments are all about, implementing agendas. They cannot be prevented from seeking an opinion from the representatives of the people and legislating according to that partisan consensus. To return to your point then, I state clearly that the amending formula is part of the problem, yet not all of it. How is it possible to "reform the constitution unconstitutionally" ? The key to our little problem here is that the high court supports the federal model defined such as it is within the terms and conditions of the constitution act of 1982. In that document you will find that it is possible to step outside of the box, and use a First Ministers meeting to place proposals from the provinces to the Federal Government. A proposal introduced there could be taken by the federal government and they could draft legislation around it then pass it in the Commons. At that point it would be up to the Senate, and that being controlled in partisan manner by the government at this time means enactment into law. The formal support of the provinces having already been obtained then it becomes a publicity stunt where all the smart politicians can hold hands and sing songs.

Bringing change is not that hard for a majority government.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Newfoundland with half as many senators as Manitoba? Now there's a lead balloon!

Here is the requirement based on that:

To qualify for full representation of 8 senators, a province must have at least 10% of the population of the country.

Between 3 and under 10%, a province receives 4 senators.

Under 3% with provincial status, 2 senators.

Territory status, 1 senator.