The senate

[ReeferMadness]

The Cons will just use this as another wedge issue for raising funds. It's like like the long gun registry.

[g_bambino]

[i[f the Harper government wins on this...

Wins what? It's a list of questions about different options.

[FutureCanadian]

I don't think the Senate is necessary

[g_bambino]

I don't think the Senate is necessary

So you think regional domination is a bonus.

[FutureCanadian]

So you think regional domination is a bonus.

Populations shift.

[g_bambino]

Populations shift.

Is that a confirmation of what I said?

[FutureCanadian]

Is that a confirmation of what I said?

If you like

[cybercoma]

Still not sure if you're Oleg Bach or Mr. Canada.

[FutureCanadian]

Still not sure if you're Oleg Bach or Mr. Canada.

If those are other posters, I can assure you I am very new and authentic.

[cybercoma]

Well, Welcome to MLW then, new authentic guy/gal.

[FutureCanadian]

Appreciate it

[PIK]

How about smaller? My understanding is the senate does good work, but do we need as many as we have?

[g_bambino]

If you like

Well, I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing the less populated regions of the country that giving total domination to Quebec and Ontario in federal legislative matters is a good thing.

[g_bambino]

How about smaller? My understanding is the senate does good work, but do we need as many as we have?

Not necessarily. I think even is something that should be strived for at the same time, if not first.

[FutureCanadian]

Well, I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing the less populated regions of the country that giving total domination to Quebec and Ontario in federal legislative matters is a good thing.

I don't see why the less populated regions of the country deserve a greater representation proportional to their population. JMO.

[Social Justice]

The Senate could be used as it is in the United States. There it is used to protect the rights of each State in the union. It is a means of off setting representation by population with representation by region, it works well for them in the manner they designed it to. To do that here would be difficult, yet not impossible.

[g_bambino]

I don't see why the less populated regions of the country deserve a greater representation proportional to their population.

It's called tyranny of the majority.

[FutureCanadian]

It's called tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of what? Urbanity?

Edited August 13, 2013 by FutureCanadian

[dre]

I think our system of government needs reform, but the Senate is the least of our worries. Its parliament that needs reform.

[Social Justice]

The whole mess needs urgent attention. Harper is likely not the guy who can pull it off.

[Topaz]

For the sake of debate, let say we keep the senate and have the parties in Parliament and the senate, themselves, come up with a list of reforming it and then take it to the PEOPLE to vote on it. Now, the voting could be done different ways, by phone,by e-mail, online to Election Canada, who could use computers to count the votes as they came in and people would have a month or two to vote. Each voter would use their fo SS# for ID and vote by # 1,-Tory, 2-NDP, 3-Lib, 4-senate and 5-Green. This is just an example and I'm sure other Canadians could come up with other examples.

[g_bambino]

Tyranny of what? Urbanity?

Oh, dear.

[g_bambino]

I think our system of government needs reform, but the Senate is the least of our worries. Its parliament that needs reform.

The Senate is part of parliament.

[Social Justice]

For the sake of debate, let say we keep the senate and have the parties in Parliament and the senate, themselves, come up with a list of reforming it and then take it to the PEOPLE to vote on it. Now, the voting could be done different ways, by phone,by e-mail, online to Election Canada, who could use computers to count the votes as they came in and people would have a month or two to vote. Each voter would use their fo SS# for ID and vote by # 1,-Tory, 2-NDP, 3-Lib, 4-senate and 5-Green. This is just an example and I'm sure other Canadians could come up with other examples.

As I understand the current constitution 7 provinces with 50% are required to agree with Parliament before any changes could be made. There are another ten governments who each have to approve the process at the provincial level.

Given that the process is long and fraught with political impact, I would suggest the best course of action to be that of public mandate and referendum. Both Federal and Provincial governments should be compelled to use the next available First Ministers conference to formulate an aggressive mandate for constitutional reform. Since this process opens the constitution, all provinces can bring any matter regarding that constitution to the table at that time to be examined and abridged as required. In other words it opens the entire constitution. This would rapidly degenerate into constitutional debates further slowing the process. To that end I suggest a proposal to be put forward that would open the document for the specific purpose of Senate Reform. The proposal should merely indicate the desire of the House of Commons to approach the Provinces with a request for cooperation to reform the Senate. A single simple vote at a first Ministers conference will determine the outcome. With the consent of any seven Provinces with fifty percent of the population, work can go forward to create the desired changes, without that consent the attempt at reform will change. Legislation can then be written in the House of Commons to be ratified by each Provincial Legislature. Each provincial body could utilize a referendum to determine the question and then use Provincial Legislatures to adopt the majority will of their citizens as their vote.

If there is will to change, then it can be done.

[g_bambino]

For the sake of debate, let say we keep the senate and have the parties in Parliament and the senate, themselves, come up with a list of reforming it and then take it to the PEOPLE to vote on it. Now, the voting could be done different ways, by phone,by e-mail, online to Election Canada, who could use computers to count the votes as they came in and people would have a month or two to vote. Each voter would use their fo SS# for ID and vote by # 1,-Tory, 2-NDP, 3-Lib, 4-senate and 5-Green. This is just an example and I'm sure other Canadians could come up with other examples.

Why would it be beneficial to have the process of reform complicated by partisan divisions?

Regardless, the Senate isn't changed by referendum. Which is a good thing, since many or most people would be voting on a matter they know very little to nothing about (with misunderstanding only being fostered by public figures making loud and populist, often classist, but still ill-considered statements), thus increasing the likelyhood the majority would vote for a detrimental change.