.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Boges]

The Senate serves no useful purpose in this country.

They actually did stall/kill a rather useful bill that would allow for single games sports betting in Canada. It was supported by each party but the senate killed it. Likely because of interest groups.

That's not what Canadians want.

The Senate also doesn't represent Canadians as it is supposed to. If the House of Commons represents populations then the Senate should represent territories. But they have this region system that only serves Ontario and Quebec.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Senate serves no useful purpose in this country.

They actually did stall/kill a rather useful bill that would allow for single games sports betting in Canada. It was supported by each party but the senate killed it. Likely because of interest groups.

That's not what Canadians want.

The Senate also doesn't represent Canadians as it is supposed to. If the House of Commons represents populations then the Senate should represent territories. But they have this region system that only serves Ontario and Quebec.

Not quite. 4 regions each have 24 seats.

[Remiel]

Canada does not have enough official territorial subdivisions for a Senate with equal territorial representation. And I am not interested in a chamber that allows Atlantic Canada to hold the rest of the country hostage with only minimal addition support. You could only even think of moving to that sort of system if the Senate were changed to a suspensory veto instead of a lethal veto, like the House of Lords these days I believe.

Personally I would prefer to see as many Senate appointments as possible come from the ranks of the Order of Canada. The Order is sometimes accused of not being representative enough of Canadians, so it would not serve well as an absolute limiter. But it would be something. And what happened to the Liberal Senate caucus should be enforced upon all Senators: separation from like-minded House members. Collusion between members of the two houses should be thereafter grounds for dismissal.

[cybercoma]

The Senate serves no useful purpose in this country.

They actually did stall/kill a rather useful bill that would allow for single games sports betting in Canada. It was supported by each party but the senate killed it. Likely because of interest groups.

That's not what Canadians want.

The Senate also doesn't represent Canadians as it is supposed to. If the House of Commons represents populations then the Senate should represent territories. But they have this region system that only serves Ontario and Quebec.

The region system is balanced. Quebec and Ontario are larger in size and population than the other regions, yet they each have an equal number of seats. If anything, what's out of balance is the introduction of Newfoundland into the Atlantic region.

My position for awhile has been that the prime minister shouldn't appoint Senators. Instead the premiers should, as this would be more representative of local politics. It would create more political diversity in the Senate, as well. But then there's the problem of division of powers. The federal government and provincial government do different things. So who people vote for at the provincial level is not who they vote for federally. So why should the premier, who has different responsibilities and goals be the one to appoint someone to look after federal legislation? I just don't think it works, even if it serves to create more varied views in the upper house.

[cybercoma]

I am not interested in a chamber that allows Atlantic Canada to hold the rest of the country hostage

But it can't. Atlantic Canada only has 30 out of 105 seats. I agree that Newfoundland is problematic for the distributions, but Atlantic Canada is not able to hold anyone hostage. They don't have a majority of the seats. The Senators from Ontario and one other province would outweigh them.

[jacee]

Reform, yes, but can't abolish the Senate without a full review of the checks and balances on the power of the political machine.

We have Harper, a sociopath, with the absolute power of a majority ... a dictatorship that he once described as a "benign dictatorship".

He's not benign.

And now he has his secret police.

When we have proportionate representation in the Hoc, then we can look aat the Senate.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[Boges]

Reform, yes, but can't abolish the Senate without a full review of the checks and balances on the power of the political machine.

We have Harper, a sociopath, with the absolute power of a majority ... a dictatorship that he once described as a "benign dictatorship".

He's not benign.

And now he has his secret police.

When we have proportionate representation in the Hoc, then we can look aat the Senate.

.

Calling the PM a sociopath and essentially calling the RMCP the Gestapo. That's some good fear-mongering right there.

[overthere]

Abolishment by Commons action, provincial agreement, constitutional amendment or anything the PM does directly is pretty much impossible.

But what happens if the PM, Harper or another, takes a different route?

There are already 20 vacancies out of 105 seats. What if the PM just refuses to fill any of them and the vacancies grew and grew until the place was empty?

in another scenario, the Liberals and Independents(the Criminal Wing of the Senate) total 35 seats and the Cons have 50 seats. What if Harper instructed 14 of his Senators to resign, leaving a thin majority of 36 Cons.... and they met once per year for 15 minutes to stamp legislation, then went home?

[cybercoma]

Reform, yes, but can't abolish the Senate without a full review of the checks and balances on the power of the political machine.

The Supreme Court has been more of a check on political power than the Senate in recent years. Where the Senate has repeatedly failed to vote down unconstitutional legislation, the courts have had to step in to protect people's rights.

We have Harper, a sociopath, with the absolute power of a majority ... a dictatorship that he once described as a "benign dictatorship".

This is pure hyperbole that takes responsibility away from voters for electing a Conservative majority. Harper is the Prime Minister because the majority of seats went to Conservatives. Harper has completely control of the House because people chose to elect MPs who are lapdogs instead of independent representatives of their constituencies. People chose to elect MPs that don't hold the Ministerial Bench accountable to the party ideals that Harper has turned back on, namely accountability and transparency. Even so, it's not absolute power. Harper is held to the legislative standards of the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. His legislation has been opposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. His time will end when the Governor General calls an election. Harper's power is not absolute. Harper's power was given to him by the electorate and we should always remember that because it's the electorate's responsibility to hold their MPs accountable for failing them.

[cybercoma]

There are already 20 vacancies out of 105 seats. What if the PM just refuses to fill any of them and the vacancies grew and grew until the place was empty?

It's not really clear. The Governor General is supposed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister refuses to fulfill his constitutional obligations the Governor General could possibly appoint Senators without the Prime Minister's advice or perhaps call a new election (after seeing if someone else would have the confidence of the House) on the grounds that the Prime Minister is not fit to hold office since he refuses to fulfill his constitutional obligations. Edited June 11, 2015 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Calling the PM a sociopath and essentially calling the RMCP the Gestapo. That's some good fear-mongering right there.

CSIS is the Gestapo.

The RCMP are just the PM's puppets that give it all the appearance of legality.

There is very good reason for questioning the independence of the RCMP from the political wing: They have none!

Their 'oath' is to follow orders, and they get their orders from the PM.

It was the RCMP rounding up Indigenous children to take them to the death schools, chasing them down and returning them when they escaped ...

And the RCMP have been remarkably silent on that ... under orders from the PM?

CSIS has no public accountability.

The RCMP has no independence.

And we have only a thin veneer of something that looks like remnants of a democracy.

Without proportionate representation in the HoC, public accountability for CSIS and complete independence of the RCMP ... abolishing the Senate is just another power grab.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee

[Boges]

I predict if JT gets a majority this whole dictatorship stuff will quickly stop being an issue.

[Boges]

CSIS is the Gestapo.

The RCMP are just the PM's puppets that give it all the appearance of legality.

There is very good reason for questioning the independence of the RCMP from the political wing: They have none!

Their 'oath' is to follow orders.

.

And JT voted for Bill C-51. So what does that do to your dictatorship take?

[eyeball]

The senate may not serve the purpose it was intended anymore but that doesn't mean the purpose has gone away. I'd like to see the importance of vetting the legislation politicians propose restored to it's former prominence and I'd like to see that function performed by a citizen's assembly.

[Remiel]

But it can't. Atlantic Canada only has 30 out of 105 seats. I agree that Newfoundland is problematic for the distributions, but Atlantic Canada is not able to hold anyone hostage. They don't have a majority of the seats. The Senators from Ontario and one other province would outweigh them.

In a system with equal representation by province it would have more like 40 out of 105 seats. With one other province and the Territories they would be able to exercise ironclad control. The same could be said for Western Canada. Suddenly domination by a bloc is a lot easier than the current system. And as bad as tyranny of the majority can be sometimes, it beats tyranny of the minority.

[cybercoma]

I predict if JT gets a majority this whole dictatorship stuff will quickly stop being an issue.

It's not just the majority, but it was also a problem when Chretien was getting sub-40% majorities. The House does not represent the voting behaviour of the electorate. That's a problem when majorities hold so much power.

What's more problematic with Harper is cutting debate short 100 times, creating massive omnibus bills bundled into the budgets so the appropriate committees don't have time or the ability to oversee the legislation, hiding from the media and insisting on special privileged debates, refusing to allow his MPs to speak on their own or in some cases attend debates themselves, making his MPs read notes drafted by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the PMO, and the list goes on. It's an accumulation of many different things that has people calling him a dictator.

But that all has little to do with abolishing the senate.

[cybercoma]

The senate may not serve the purpose it was intended anymore but that doesn't mean the purpose has gone away. I'd like to see the importance of vetting the legislation politicians propose restored to it's former prominence and I'd like to see that function performed by a citizen's assembly.

A citizens assembly might be a good idea, but which citizens end up appointed would ultimately be a game of political patronage in the end sadly.

[cybercoma]

In a system with equal representation by province it would have more like 40 out of 105 seats. With one other province and the Territories they would be able to exercise ironclad control. The same could be said for Western Canada. Suddenly domination by a bloc is a lot easier than the current system. And as bad as tyranny of the majority can be sometimes, it beats tyranny of the minority.

There's not equal representation by the provinces because the constitution outlines the regions. Ontario and Quebec are their own regions due to their history as Upper and Lower Canada. Ontario and Quebec individually are not equal to Saskatchewan or Prince Edward Island. I'm not sure how equal provincial representation makes sense here.

[cybercoma]

More importantly, you mentioned hostage taking. Imagine NB, NS, PEI, and NF each being equal to QC and ON. They would then be 2/5 of the Senate instead of their current share which is less than 1/3.

[Boges]

More importantly, you mentioned hostage taking. Imagine NB, NS, PEI, and NF each being equal to QC and ON. They would then be 2/5 of the Senate instead of their current share which is less than 1/3.

That's how the US Senate works. It represents a different element of the population, territories.

So if you are trying to equal things out based on population then the Senate becomes redundant.

[cybercoma]

That's how the US Senate works. It represents a different element of the population, territories.

So if you are trying to equal things out based on population then the Senate becomes redundant.

But it's not based on population. It's based on regions, as laid out in the Constitution: Western, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Maritime. There's a historical foundation for these divisions. We could do equal provinces, but then you would have NB, NS, PEI, and NF only needing one other province to join them to pass just about anything. I take your point that it seems arbitrary, so why not divide it up differently, but I think the current arrangement makes sense in terms of history, culture, economies, population, etc. I just don't see each province being equal as an improvement. Edited June 11, 2015 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

I've maintained for some time that the senate should be like jury duty. People from the general public just get randomly selected when there is a spot open.

[On Guard for Thee]

I've maintained for some time that the senate should be like jury duty. People from the general public just get randomly selected when there is a spot open.

And who will screen them...

[jacee]

The Supreme Court has been more of a check on political power than the Senate in recent years. Where the Senate has repeatedly failed to vote down unconstitutional legislation, the courts have had to step in to protect people's rights.

Well at least that's still working.

But why the hell do we have legislation getting through that is so constitutionally bad that we have to use the very expensive courts to fix it?

Majority government. An ill-intentioned majority government that spits on the constitution.

Fix the HoC.

This is pure hyperbole that takes responsibility away from voters for electing a Conservative majority. Harper is the Prime Minister because the majority of seats went to Conservatives. Harper has completely control of the House because people chose to elect MPs who are lapdogs instead of independent representatives of their constituencies. People chose to elect MPs that don't hold the Ministerial Bench accountable to the party ideals that Harper has turned back on, namely accountability and transparency. Even so, it's not absolute power. Harper is held to the legislative standards of the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. His legislation has been opposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. His time will end when the Governor General calls an election. Harper's power is not absolute. Harper's power was given to him by the electorate and we should always remember that because it's the electorate's responsibility to hold their MPs accountable for failing them.

Harper has a majority because our first-past-the-post system was not designed for a modern era when politicians can predict and target votes with such a high degree of accuracy as is possible today.

People have a right to vote however they wish for whatever reason ... but the system isn't robust enough to preserve real representative democracy against 21st century statistical modelling and vote targeting.

That's why other countries have reformed FPTP.

It doesn't represent our votes well anymore.

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by jacee