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

[PIK]

He takes a sentence and turns it into a paragragh.

[jbg]

You can tell justin has spent his carreer speaking to children by the way he speaks in the commons.

Or the way he spoke in the Mansbridge interview.

[August1991]

Trudeau Jnr has sent a signal/dog whistle to voters (immigrants) in urban English Canada that, while he's a member of Canada's minority, he prefers a united Canada. (Most immigrants to Canada are minorities in their home country. They want peace, and identify naturally with someone like Trudeau.) Trudeau has also sent a signal to (LIV) French Quebec voters that he's on their side.

With the Maritimes, he's got a winning majority - despite Harper's gerrymandering of our federal parliament.

----

And all this without having to go through the messy process of identifying voters in specific ridings.

Edited June 1, 2013 by August1991

[VanRob]

In repsonse to g_bambino. Since you seem so intent on picking apart everyone's posts based on nuances or semantics instead of actually debating the issues and since you seem intent on "correcting" everyone else I thought I should point out that much of your arguments are ludicrous. And in at least one case you were embarrassingly wrong in your statement.

You said:

No federation on Earth has a unicameral parliament, you know.

I laughed out loud when I read that. You then went on to half-correct yourself by listing a couple tiny countries that do have unicameral parliaments, seeming to gloss over the fact that close to half the world's population lives in countries with unicameral parliaments. I don't know where your getting your info from but if you properly research, or simply look at wikipedia "unicaneralism" their's a handy little graphic for you. Nearly half the nations of the U.N. are unicameral. Our Westminster friends in New Zealand, all of the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland --perhaps this is why the NDP is so fond of the idea--), South Korea and, of course, for those of us who are students of government systems, Communist nations like China, Cuba, North Korea and formerly all of the Soviet bloc nations.

In your defense of the Senate as it currently stands, assuming that is what your trying to do in picking apart all the pro-abolition or reform arguments, you seem woefully ignorant of how the senate currently works. Either that or strongly attached to it either emotionally or by some sense of identity. It seems odd to me.

Senators have a mandate to propose and pass laws: they're parliamentarians. And there is nothing demanding patronage for appointment to the Senate

Are you joking? Just because a position has a mandate does that mean the mandate is being filled? Do you honestly believe senators are fulfilling a democratic need in their current positions and that this mandate to "propose" laws is really being fulfilled? They pass laws, by rubber-stamping whatever comes across their desks. And, are you kidding me about patronage? I don't think 'patronage' gets written into any rule-book or regulation but, somehow, by gosh, it still happens. Go figure. The senate is the most note-worthy patronage appointment available in Canada.

[VanRob]

Also. you picked on one poster to an extreme extent regarding his comments on the regions. I have to assume you are from somewhere out east by your lack of understanding on the issue of regions. What doesn't make sense to anyone out West is how the four provinces representing the entire geographical western half of the country constitute one regional grouping to be represented. If it is supposed to be a truly regional representation along those lines than sure, have half the senators from the east and half from the west. Oh but now that's getting silly! Well it is silly. And it doesn't make sense.

Out West senate reform has been hugely popular for years. Many of us out West still consider it very important. And yes, to your apparent bemusement, some of us are fine with reform or abolition, anything, any real concrete changes that show politicians see a problem and are willing to fix it. Maybe you don't get that. Out West we elect problem solvers and as long as we see something getting done that makes us happy, even if it's not exactly the way we want it, because it's an honest hard-fought effort. I think a lot of Canadians share that mentality too! Just apparently not Liberals.

[cybercoma]

Pretty embarrassing mistake on your part VanRob. You skipped right over the most important part of bambino's statement. He said there is no **federation** with a unicameral parliament.

[Argus]

With the Maritimes, he's got a winning majority - despite Harper's gerrymandering of our federal parliament.

Would you care to clarify and support the above? Gerrymandering?

[Sandy MacNab]

Pretty embarrassing mistake on your part VanRob. You skipped right over the most important part of bambino's statement. He said there is no **federation** with a unicameral parliament.

Excellent point.

[August1991]

Would you care to clarify and support the above? Gerrymandering?

Adding seats in rural Alberta, BC -making ridings more likely to vote Tory.

Argus, I have no objection to such political games.

[August1991]

... that close to half the world's population lives in countries with unicameral parliaments.

If true, that statistic would have amazed and encouraged anyone educated in 1750.

----

I prefer federal States, and bicameral governments. The power of the State is like fire: useful, but dangerous. It requires checks. I'm not sure that a federal state, bicameral governments, independent judiciary or even a Constitutional independent monetary authority (my favourite) can protect against tyranny.

A civilised society creates bulwarks against the potential onslaught of collective stupidity.

IOW, I'm a conservative.

Edited June 3, 2013 by August1991

[Smallc]

Adding seats in rural Alberta, BC -making ridings more likely to vote Tory.

Argus, I have no objection to such political games.

They aren't games...BC, Alberta, and Ontario are under represented...and most of the seats will not be rural, but suburban...the boundaries aren't defined by Harper or anyone Conservative.

[g_bambino]

Just because a position has a mandate does that mean the mandate is being filled? Do you honestly believe senators are fulfilling a democratic need in their current positions and that this mandate to "propose" laws is really being fulfilled? They pass laws, by rubber-stamping whatever comes across their desks. And, are you kidding me about patronage? I don't think 'patronage' gets written into any rule-book or regulation but, somehow, by gosh, it still happens. Go figure. The senate is the most note-worthy patronage appointment available in Canada.

Others have already pointed out your fevered oversight of the federal detail; so no need for me to say anything on that.

Per the above, however: Given that some bills do originate in the Senate, obviously senators are fulfilling their "mandate" (perhaps you mean role) of proposing laws. Given, also, that bills are frequently sent back to the House of Commons with amendments after scrutiny by the Senate--both in debate in the chamber and in committee--obviously senators do not simply "rubber stamp" whatever comes across their desks. And I said there's nothing demanding patronage for appointment to the Senate; certainly prime ministers pick people they believe will be aligned with either the party's or the govenrment's platform or possibly even be yes-men and women to him; but, in reality, once a senator is appointed, the prime minister has no way to force that person one way or another; the prime minister cannot threaten to remove a senator from his or her place in parliament, nor to dock the senator's pay, or push him or her to the backbenches. At worst, a senator who speaks against a government's bill can be put out of caucus. But, so what?

[jbg]

Adding seats in rural Alberta, BC -making ridings more likely to vote Tory.

But are the new ridings in Alberta and BC less populous than other ridings in the same province? I actually do not know the answer.

[Argus]

They aren't games...BC, Alberta, and Ontario are under represented...and most of the seats will not be rural, but suburban...the boundaries aren't defined by Harper or anyone Conservative.

Yes, that is my understanding on both counts. And additional seats were given to Quebec without cause other than to placate their whining at the growing provinces getting additional seats (Quebec women don't have the time or inclination to have babies, and Quebecers don't like immigrants so the province is not growing)