g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Oh I got the point. Senate good because it can do what is unpopular. That doesn't actually mean the Senate is good at all. Actually, it would seem that you still miss the point, despite thinking you haven't. The point of the article wasn't that the Senate doesn't need reform; I don't believe the author even hints that he holds such a position. What he says is that the mindlessly repeated call for elected senators is one that is ill-thought out and rests on a shallow assumption that more voting equals more democracy, which is itself based on the simplitic view that democracy means nothing more than voting. He explains quite well why an elected Senate will not be more democratic and, thus, more accountable. Also how an elected Senate will affect our parliamentary system and the working of responsible government. All things the triple-E drones never seem to care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 The Senate is useless as a governmental body and branch of the government. You and the rest of the abolitionists seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Canada is a federation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 You and the rest of the abolitionists seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Canada is a federation. No I get it is a federation which is why I think when we abolish the Senate we should have a referendum and see how many provinces approve. I have always agreed abolishing it would be hard but so would any constitutional change I honestly believe Abolishing the Senate would have one of the best shots of having all provinces approve in a referendum. Right now we have three provincial governments NS, Ont, and BC calling for its Abolishment, that is just as many as those calling for an elected Senate and those who say leave it along. Although those governments actually represent more then 50% of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 By getting rid of the senate, you then put all the power to the PMO. By reforming it to elected senators, will we have rejected or losing members of Parliament running for the senate? If each province is suppose to elected their senators, then won't the large cities of the provinces always elect the senators?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 By getting rid of the senate, you then put all the power to the PMO. By reforming it to elected senators, will we have rejected or losing members of Parliament running for the senate? If each province is suppose to elected their senators, then won't the large cities of the provinces always elect the senators?? The PMO already has all the power. Granted a new PMO has to wait a few years to appoint enough Senators but acting like this has been some sort of problem or would be if we got rid of the Senate is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 The PMO already has all the power. Granted a new PMO has to wait a few years to appoint enough Senators but acting like this has been some sort of problem or would be if we got rid of the Senate is silly. The PMO is one of those things we need to look it within the confines of the Canadian Constitution. Go ahead and tell me where in that damned constitution such power is either defined or even suggested. The words Prime Minister are not exactly common at all within either the original 1867 version or the modern 1982 version of our constitution. Given that little fact, the discussion regarding the Senate pales in comparison. In truth, the Senate role within our legislative process is to say the least minuscule at best. Instead of merely Senate reform why not simply pursue realist constitutional amendments functionally relevant to the political process. Our constitution needs to first define and limit the powers and authority of government. Within the definitions of our governmental process all branches and or levels of government must be clearly specified. Once that has been resolved then legal limits to defined authorities can be determined and mechanisms put into place to attain accountability and entrench responsibility into every single department. Without power and authority being already defined by the constitution, how in the hell do we go forward? I will suggest that the Supreme Court is where this battle needs to be fought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I get it is a federation which is why I think when we abolish the Senate... So, you want an unequal federation wherein the most populated provinces run the lesser populated ones without contest. No wonder it's the premiers of Ontario and BC who wish to see the Senate gone; it would only increase the benefits for their provinces. NB is a no-brainer, since the premier belongs to the NDP. However, I doubt you'll get much support from NL, PEI, or Manitoba for your proposal. There's a reason no federation has a unicameral parliament. It doesn't, however, seem to matter to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 The PMO already has all the power. It has vacuumed up a lot of power, but it doesn't yet hold all the power. The prime minister can, for instance, do absolutely nothing to a senator who votes against the premier's wishes. This principle of the Senate being beyond executive control should be strengthened, not eliminated. Doing the latter gives the prime minister more power since he would be leader of the majority in the only chamber of parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Our constitution needs to first define and limit the powers and authority of government. Within the definitions of our governmental process all branches and or levels of government must be clearly specified. Once that has been resolved then legal limits to defined authorities can be determined and mechanisms put into place to attain accountability and entrench responsibility into every single department. Most of what you say is needed is already done; much of it well over 140 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 So, you want an unequal federation wherein the most populated provinces run the lesser populated ones without contest. No wonder it's the premiers of Ontario and BC who wish to see the Senate gone; it would only increase the benefits for their provinces. NB is a no-brainer, since the premier belongs to the NDP. However, I doubt you'll get much support from NL, PEI, or Manitoba for your proposal. There's a reason no federation has a unicameral parliament. It doesn't, however, seem to matter to you. We already have an unequal federation. The East has more Senates then the West and Upper Canada beats them both out. Provinces entered into the Federation as an unequal Federation. No one said Boo before we started talking Senate reform. I bet Manitoba would jump on the Get rid of the Senate train in a minute if the PM asked them. NL and PEI I don't know, buts lets have a referendum on it and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 We already have an unequal federation. The East has more Senates then the West and Upper Canada beats them both out. Provinces entered into the Federation as an unequal Federation. No one said Boo before we started talking Senate reform. Actually, Senate reform has been on the table since 1867. Pointing out the Senate's imperfections isn't a valid argument for abolition since we're still better off having the Senate we do than none at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Actually, Senate reform has been on the table since 1867. Pointing out the Senate's imperfections isn't a valid argument for abolition since we're still better off having the Senate we do than none at all. Maybe pointing out the Senates faults doesn't mean we should get rid of it but pointing out that we are already in an unequal federation does make that argument a wrong one for keeping the Senate. Again no one has told me one thing the Senate does that we would not still have with out the Senate for cheaper. Yes the idea is more equal representation for all provinces, but that doesn't happen because Senators are just party yes men. There is no reason why we even need to have this argument the country would run the same with out them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Maybe pointing out the Senates faults doesn't mean we should get rid of it but pointing out that we are already in an unequal federation does make that argument a wrong one for keeping the Senate. I said you favour an unequal federation because you want to get rid of the Senate, not that we need to keep the Senate as is because it makes for an imbalanced federation. Regardless, I could further refine my statement and say you favour an unequal federation because you want to take what is already slightly skewed and tip it right over. Again no one has told me one thing the Senate does that we would not still have with out the Senate... Regional, as opposed to popular, representation in the federal legislative process. That is the case for the upper chamber in any federal parliament. Why do you seem to find that so difficult to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I said you favour an unequal federation because you want to get rid of the Senate, not that we need to keep the Senate as is because it makes for an imbalanced federation. Regardless, I could further refine my statement and say you favour an unequal federation because you want to take what is already slightly skewed and tip it right over. No I said we already have unequal federalism and you seem to be just fine with that. Regional, as opposed to popular, representation in the federal legislative process. That is the case for the upper chamber in any federal parliament. Why do you seem to find that so difficult to understand? As I said many provinces entered into federalism knowing they would have an equal voice. Now I ask only them to be given a chance to voice their opinion on what they think should happen next. Considering the Senate doesn't actually represent the provinces voices I don't see why anyone would want to keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 No I said we already have unequal federalism and you seem to be just fine with that. You must have this confused with another thread. Now I ask only them to be given a chance to voice their opinion on what they think should happen next. Considering the Senate doesn't actually represent the provinces voices I don't see why anyone would want to keep them. You're just assuming everyone thinks as narrowly as you do; it doesn't cross your mind that the provinces might support reform so that the Senate does represent provinces equally, so it won't cross anyone else's, either. A rather arrogant stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 You're just assuming everyone thinks as narrowly as you do; it doesn't cross your mind that the provinces might support reform so that the Senate does represent provinces equally, so it won't cross anyone else's, either. A rather arrogant stance. Because the PM gets to appoint any yes man he wants the provinces get no real representation at all. So no that hasn't crossed my mind because Senators don't represent the province they come from they represent the person who put them there. Might be why Mike Duffy a Senator from the East coast said the other day his party should give a 30 billion dollar ship building contract to Vancouver because the East didn't vote "the right way" in the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Because the PM gets to appoint any yes man he wants the provinces get no real representation at all. So no that hasn't crossed my mind because Senators don't represent the province they come from they represent the person who put them there. There's nothing but a senator's own will to force him to vote one way or another. Regardless, saying that something doesn't now exist isn't affirmation that it can never come to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 There's nothing but a senator's own will to force him to vote one way or another. Regardless, saying that something doesn't now exist isn't affirmation that it can never come to be. It however is an affirmation of the point I am making. If we get rid of the Senate nothing will change about how our country runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 It however is an affirmation of the point I am making. If we get rid of the Senate nothing will change about how our country runs. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Oh I got the point. Senate good because it can do what is unpopular. That doesn't actually mean the Senate is good at all. So you're ok with Ontario and Quebec essentially ruling over Canada? Everyone else be damned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Punked is right about senators starting off beholden to whoever appointed them even though they are out of reach of the whip. The beauty of the system, though, is that senators outlast prime ministers, and every year they are there, fall further out of the reach of mere partisanship. That's what makes short term limits so dopey. They would be getting fired just when they are becoming truly useful! Partisan rubber stamps are not valuable; sober second thought, well informed, politically savvy and outside the reach of the flavour du jour... that is valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That's what makes short term limits so dopey. They would be getting fired just when they are becoming truly useful! Partisan rubber stamps are not valuable; sober second thought, well informed, politically savvy and outside the reach of the flavour du jour... that is valuable. Well said! I honestly don't think we'll see much movement on this. In all honesty Mr. Harper can pass a law on senate terms, and senators, can "agree" to abide by it, whether that comes to pass or not is entirely another matter. The reality is, all these steps have no constitutional clout and when push comes to shove, the senate can simply ignore the current PM and once appointed there's not a damn thing the PM can do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Punked is right about senators starting off beholden to whoever appointed them even though they are out of reach of the whip. The beauty of the system, though, is that senators outlast prime ministers, and every year they are there, fall further out of the reach of mere partisanship. I don't understand why they'd feel any particular need to bow to the prime ministers wishes even before the ink is dry on their commission from the governor general. There's nothing, so far as I know, that a prime minister can do to a senator as punishment for not being obedient. That's what makes short term limits so dopey... Partisan rubber stamps are not valuable; sober second thought, well informed, politically savvy and outside the reach of the flavour du jour... that is valuable. I agree with this. Having eight year limits on senatorial service makes it quite possible for a prime minister to be in longer than the senators he advised for appointment; I'd think those senators would be more cautious in their voting and other expressions knowing that, once their term is up, the prime minister may well still be there in power and able to recommend their appointment to other high offices as a reward for their dedicated acquiescence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 So you're ok with Ontario and Quebec essentially ruling over Canada? Everyone else be damned? They already do. That is the system that governs us now. THAT IS MY POINT! 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.