Senate Reform

[Newfoundlander]

In a perfect world we kick Quebec the hell out and move to EEE

You said you didn't agree with EEE.

[Newfoundlander]

Why not? It would more evenly balance the regions.

I don't want the regions balanced I want the provinces balanced.

[madmax]

Hey I could be wrong ,but I thought the charlottetown accord had something in it about senate reform, and that was a sore point with the quebec ministers, because it took the power out of there hands. Did that happen or am I dreaming?

Hot dawg... you are RIGHT!!! And 20 years to the date exactly..

The Canadian Senate would have been reformed, although the proposed reform fell short of the "triple-E" (equal, elected and effective) Senate pushed by the Western provinces and Newfoundland. The accord allowed senators to be elected either in a general election, or by the provincial legislatures. Six would be assigned for every province and one for each territory, and provisions would be in place to permit the future creation of special seats for First Nations voters. However, the powers of the Senate were reduced, and on matters relating to francophone culture and language (determined by the Speaker of the Senate), passage of a bill would require a "double majority" — a majority in the Senate as a whole and a majority of francophone senators.

[Smallc]

I don't want the regions balanced I want the provinces balanced.

I think that's probably the most important fix, to be honest, but, I think balancing the regions would at least be a start. I would like it though, personally, if every province had 10 senators. The HoC would be true rep by pop, with no floor on the seats (other than 1). The territories would keep their 1 MP each, and would have no senators.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Smallc

[Newfoundlander]

I think that's probably the most important fix, to be honest, but, I think balancing the regions would at least be a start. I would like it though, personally, if every province had 10 senators. The HoC would be true rep by pop, with no floor on the seats (other than 1). The territories would keep their 1 MP each, and would have no senators.

What is the sense of balancing by region if the end goal is balance by province?

[Smallc]

What is the sense of balancing by region if the end goal is balance by province?

It would probably be simpler to do the change I'm talking about...but maybe not.

[Tilter]

Taking away Senators is much harder than adding them.

That is a pretty stupid solution because:

BC --- 6 million people for 6 senators or--- I senator per 1 million people

PEI----120 thousand people for 6 senators or --- 1 senator per 2000 people

IDIOTIC

Look at it from another angle---

Alberta, responsible for 40 % of the country's wealth as opposed to

PEI, responsible for 4% of the country's potatoes :lol:

Edited August 29, 2012 by Tilter

[punked]

That is a pretty stupid solution because:

BC --- 6 million people for 6 senators or--- I senator per 1 million people

PEI----120 thousand people for 6 senators or --- 1 senator per 2000 people

IDIOTIC

Look at it from another angle---

Alberta, responsible for 40 % of the country's wealth as opposed to

PEI, responsible for 4% of the country's potatoes :lol:

I guess we should just be thankful that Senate does nothing. Just wait till harper gets his way and in order to pass a vote you need to bribe the PEI Senators with some sweet sweet pork.

[g_bambino]

That is a pretty stupid solution because:

BC --- 6 million people for 6 senators or--- I senator per 1 million people

PEI----120 thousand people for 6 senators or --- 1 senator per 2000 people

IDIOTIC

Look at it from another angle---

Alberta, responsible for 40 % of the country's wealth as opposed to

PEI, responsible for 4% of the country's potatoes :lol:

The Senate's purpose isn't to provide popular representation.

[WWWTT]

But what about all the unemployed union workers?

Clarify,what does this mean?

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

Clarify,what does this mean?

WWWTT

All those unionized workers that are employed because of the senate.

[TheNewTeddy]

That is a pretty stupid solution because:

BC --- 6 million people for 6 senators or--- I senator per 1 million people

PEI----120 thousand people for 6 senators or --- 1 senator per 2000 people

IDIOTIC

Look at it from another angle---

Alberta, responsible for 40 % of the country's wealth as opposed to

PEI, responsible for 4% of the country's potatoes :lol:

Was that in reference to me? Cause the fact that you can not remove senators is in the constitution.

[madmax]

The Senate's purpose isn't to provide popular representation.

Thats's correct, which is why Senate Reform to change it to a Popular Representation formula merely turns it into an Elitist House of Commons.

[madmax]

I guess we should just be thankful that Senate does nothing. Just wait till harper gets his way and in order to pass a vote you need to bribe the PEI Senators with some sweet sweet pork.

Just getting to teh Senate is Pretty Sweet Pork...

And here is what it costs us.....

Funny comparison to a Cash for LIfe Scratch "winner" vs Scratching a Politician.

http://taxpayer.com/blog/29-01-2010/%E2%80%9Ccash-life%E2%80%9D-vs-retirement-senate

If we stand back and look at the big picture, the numbers are mind numbing. If George and a Senate appointee both “won” their windfalls on their 30th birthdays, and lived as long as the average Canadian (80 years), the senator would win by a country mile. According to CTF calculations, while George would bring in a not so insignificant sum of just over $2 million during his lifetime, the senate appointee would end up with a grand total of over $16 million.

[punked]

Just getting to teh Senate is Pretty Sweet Pork...

And here is what it costs us.....

Funny comparison to a Cash for LIfe Scratch "winner" vs Scratching a Politician.

http://taxpayer.com/blog/29-01-2010/%E2%80%9Ccash-life%E2%80%9D-vs-retirement-senate

If we stand back and look at the big picture, the numbers are mind numbing. If George and a Senate appointee both “won” their windfalls on their 30th birthdays, and lived as long as the average Canadian (80 years), the senator would win by a country mile. According to CTF calculations, while George would bring in a not so insignificant sum of just over $2 million during his lifetime, the senate appointee would end up with a grand total of over $16 million.

The Canadian tax payers federation is a hack organization which is a place were political hacks go to die.

[Tilter]

The Senate's purpose isn't to provide popular representation.

Which is a very good thing as the senate is as popular as Pepe La_phew at a picnic.

Given that they are members (however distant to) the government Of Canada, they do represent the area of the country in which they lived.

[Tilter]

The Canadian tax payers federation is a hack organization which is a place were political hacks go to die.

BUT---- are the figures true??

[Tilter]

a solution to the cost of the senate would be to make the job volunteer, that is to say, the position would pay $1 per year plus an expense account of 100,000/ year to be paid by the province from which they were appointed.

Their power would be the same as it is now (in other words--- no power at all) so then each province could appoint as many senator as they wanted to pay, and there could be as much (or more) snoring in the senate as there is now.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tilter

[punked]

BUT---- are the figures true??

I would say they are true but the organization has a history of cooking the books and inflating numbers so.

[-TSS-]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Turkey must be the largest country on earth which has a unicameral parliament. However, Turkey is a unitary country, therefore they have no real need for a second chamber in Parliament.

In federal countries the lower chamber represents the people and the so-called upper chamber traditionally represents the regions of that federation. I'm not sure how would a system of having a unicameral legislature work in a federal country.

[TheNewTeddy]

Senate abolition stems from a failure to understand Canada.

[punked]

Senate abolition stems from a failure to understand Canada.

No it really doesn't.

[eyeball]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Turkey must be the largest country on earth which has a unicameral parliament. However, Turkey is a unitary country, therefore they have no real need for a second chamber in Parliament.

In federal countries the lower chamber represents the people and the so-called upper chamber traditionally represents the regions of that federation. I'm not sure how would a system of having a unicameral legislature work in a federal country.

I think it would work just fine in a federation of of many smaller regions that were based on natural bio-geophysical borders like watersheds, islands, forests, prairies, etc. These would most likely also correspond to 1st Nations territories.

Scrap the provinces as well as the senate and divide their responsibilities between federal and regional authorities.

It goes without saying of course that under no circumstances should DFO be left in the hands of Ottawa.

Edited September 9, 2012 by eyeball

[Smallc]

No it really doesn't.

Really, yeah, considering that federations always have upper houses.

[Tilter]

Really, yeah, considering that federations always have upper houses.

And we should have a useless, costly upper house which represents no one, has no real power and is only a reward system for people who have been in some way useful to the party in power simply because, traditionally in federations it has existed? OK, if it must be,let it be but for only a limited time (say, 5 years) for the political leeches who need the extra income and are used to living off the public tit.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Tilter