Justin Trudeau Won't Abolish the Senate Because it Favours Quebec

[g_bambino]

Guess he doesn't go for... Elected...

Good.

[g_bambino]

There's no mistaking or taking out of context what he said...

That would be easier to determine if his full comments were available in context, rather than relying on the ideological Sun's edited snippets.

[Boges]

I think the whole reason the Sentate should be abolished or reformed is exactly the reason JT wants to keep it. It's a relic of the past.

There's no reason Quebec should have that many Senators, with it's stagnating population.

If the Senate is to do what it does in the US, you'd have equal members for every region and/or province in confederation.

On this issue, I actually agree with the NDP. Get rid of the whole freakin' thing.

[Smallc]

Why would we want the Senate to do what it does in the US?

[Boges]

Why would we want the Senate to do what it does in the US?

I wouldn't, but at least be consistent about it. What exactly is the Senate, in it's current form, supposed to achieve?

[g_bambino]

I think the whole reason the Sentate should be abolished or reformed is exactly the reason JT wants to keep it. It's a relic of the past.

There's no reason Quebec should have that many Senators, with it's stagnating population.

If the Senate is to do what it does in the US, you'd have equal members for every region and/or province in confederation.

On this issue, I actually agree with the NDP. Get rid of the whole freakin' thing.

Well, what is it? Abolish it or reform it? You don't seem to have properly determined which you prefer. And what makes it a relic of the past? Is it really the seat arrangement that's the relic; or is it the entire institution? Again: not clear.

[carepov]

Interesting - but supports his belief that Canada is better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans. "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us." http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22/trudeau-would-rather-have-quebecers-than-albertans-in-charge

In your opinion, do you think he will ever become PM?

I saw the interview in French and it was poorly translated. He said: "Le Canada c'est notre pays". This is more like: "Canada is our country." a subltle but important difference.

IMO he has a good chance at becoming the next PM but if the economy remains solid I think that the CPC will win another majority. Voters will forget all the recent scandals and will prefer the status quo as they did in recent elections in Manitoba, Alberta and BC. Also, LIV (low-information voters) will be duped by CPC adds claiming that Trudeau is a "separatist in over his head".

[g_bambino]

I wouldn't, but at least be consistent about it. What exactly is the Senate, in it's current form, supposed to achieve?

Regional representation in the legislative process to counterbalance the popular representation of the Commons.

[Smallc]

Regional representation in the legislative process to counterbalance the popular representation of the Commons.

I used to be in favour of some kind of non partisanly appointed body with non renewable terms and the same number of senators for each province. I'm not fine with the numbers (though I still think that the territories should have none, and that Atlantic should have 24 instead of 24 + 6) generally, but not fine with the appointment process (or elections).

[Boges]

Well, what is it? Abolish it or reform it? You don't seem to have properly determined which you prefer. And what makes it a relic of the past? Is it really the seat arrangement that's the relic; or is it the entire institution? Again: not clear.

I just said, I'd prefer abolishment.

I've heard that abolishment is very difficult to achieve. Some genius made a set of specific things that have to happen before it can be done away with. If that proves too difficult there should be something changed about the senate in it's current form.

Two things come to mind first:

The Seat arrangement, as you note is the first, Equal seats for each region or province. And the fact that once a Senator is appointed it seems it's very difficult to have them removed. That should be changed.

Electing a senator might be difficult because our system is a lot different than in the US. A senator elected in Ontario would have the largest mandate of anyone in the nation, including the PM. It actually gives them more power, not less.

[Boges]

Regional representation in the legislative process to counterbalance the popular representation of the Commons.

The Senate in it's current form certainly doesn't achieve that.

[Smallc]

The Senate in it's current form certainly doesn't achieve that.

It actually does as the regions were set out - Western, Ontario, Quebec, Maritime. Newfoundland and Labrador was added later, so it got its own 6 seats, separate from the regions.

[Boges]

It actually does as the regions were set out - Western, Ontario, Quebec, Maritime. Newfoundland and Labrador was added later, so it got its own 6 seats, separate from the regions.

See that's insane. The 4 provinces that make up the West aren't a specific region. And why should Newfoundland be considered a region separate from the Maritimes but Alberta is no different than BC?

It should be a seat or equal seats for each province.

[Bryan]

The Senate in it's current form certainly doesn't achieve that.

Not even close!

Alberta & BC's combined populations (and GDP) exceed Quebec, yet there are twice as many Senators from Quebec.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Bryan

[g_bambino]

I just said, I'd prefer abolishment.

You opened by saying it should either be abolished or reformed.

The Seat arrangement, as you note is the first, Equal seats for each region or province.

So, it's the distribution of seats that's a relic, not the Senate itself. Given the above, it seems odd you'd abolish the Senate simply because its seats are distrubuted in a certain way. I don't object, though, to all provinces having an equal number of seats.

[g_bambino]

Not even close!

Alberta & BC's combined populations (and GDP) exceed Quebec, yet there are twice as many Senators from Quebec.

The Senate has zero to do with popular representation. I thought that was already made very clear.

[Boges]

You opened by saying it should either be abolished or reformed.

Because, as I also said, it appears abolishing it might be more trouble than it's worth.

So, it's the distribution of seats that's a relic, not the Senate itself. Given the above, it seems odd you'd abolish the Senate simply because its seats are distrubuted in a certain way. I don't object, though, to all provinces having an equal number of seats.

That's a potential for reform that I would approve if abolishment cannot be achieved.

[Keepitsimple]

If Justin was a Conservative - his comments would immediately be called "contraversial" and CBC would make a big deal out of it on the Power Panel. But he's not. That said, look for another "clarification" from Justin.

[Bryan]

The Senate has zero to do with popular representation. I thought that was already made very clear.

Which is one of the things that needs to be changed if we're going to keep it.

[g_bambino]

Which is one of the things that needs to be changed if we're going to keep it.

Since the House of Commons already provides popular representation, having the Senate do the same would make it redundant, which would make an easy argument to get rid of it.

[Boges]

The Senate has zero to do with popular representation. I thought that was already made very clear.

It works better in the US because there are 50 states, so assigning each state 2 senators is a nice round number and easy to explain. But they're also elected so there's constant turn-over.

Would you oppose 2 seats given to each province and/or territory? The Yukon and PEI get the same say in the Senate as Quebec and Ontario.

I think one of the reasons (not excuse) for the Duffy thing is that they had to name a Senator for PEI. Duffy is from PEI, he deserves patronage so lets go there. Ignoring that no one really wants to live in PEI.

The has turned into a place where people that have been loyal to the party to get some plumb job into retirement.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

I also said, it appears abolishing it might be more trouble than it's worth.

I know. You also said you agreed "with the NDP. Get rid of the whole freakin' thing."

That's a potential for reform that I would approve if abolishment cannot be achieved.

So, still, abolishment is your primary choice. Why abolish it because you think the seats are inappropriately arranged and only rearrange the seat distribution if abolishment isn't possible?

[The_Squid]

If you are waiting for Harper to change seats in the senate, you will be sadly disappointed. He has done nothing to progress the Triple E senate promise. The senate is hardly any different than when he took office. A bit of window dressing perhaps, but nothing whatsoever of any significance.

So on this topic, Harper has proven to be no different than the Liberals.

[g_bambino]

Would you oppose 2 seats given to each province and/or territory?

The has turned into a place where people that have been loyal to the party to get some plumb job into retirement.

See here. I don't know if two seats for each province is enough; I'm also not sure how to determine what the appropriate number of seats shoul be. But, I do think territories should not have the same number; the territories are not semi-sovereign bodies like the provinces.

[g_bambino]

The senate is hardly any different than when he took office.

Of course it is; anything more than the most minor changes requires constitutional amendments. I'd say Harper was always aware of this; but, then, it wasn't just once he's displayed constitutional ignorance.