On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Another good point -- while revising the constitution, make sure to make clear restrictions on what the SCC is and is not allowed to rule on. Again you have the cart before the horse. The function of the SCC is to uphold the constitution, not amend it. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 That's a good idea. Rather than people fearing reopening the constitution, it should be mandatory that we at least re-examine it after a certain passage of time.Right.....just like we enjoy reviewing Quebec sovereignty every couple years. I think what you fail to see on this would be the contract would be void.....nothing......no country until a new one is formed......where everyone agrees. Or did you think it one could just keep the terms you like and throw out the rest? Quote
Bryan Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 The function of the SCC is to uphold the constitution, not amend it. Another great suggestion, were should definitely force the SCC to do that too. Quote
Bryan Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Or did you think it one could just keep the terms you like and throw out the rest? Absolutely. It's not scripture, people need to stop treating it like it is. It's just a piece of paper written by fallible human beings. Quote
eyeball Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 The Queen is the personification of the eternal Crown, actually. The governor General is her representative in Canada. The eternal crown? Sounds like a Ring of Power or some similarly silly supernatural thing. You consent through the Social Contract. Otherwise, legislation would expire every generation. The SC theory allows for that. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 No I don't. I have never consented via Social Contract to recognize the moral authority of 'the crown'.Honest question, do you understand the Social Contract? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 In terms of it's existence as a partner in Confederation, yes. That's the point of the Senate - to balance the concerns of the provinces. Ontario is bigger in area and in population compared to PEI. Therefore Ontario should have more say than PEI. Quote
Big Guy Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I agree with GostHacked - but "how much more" say should they have? The challenge is to create a system of representation by population but at the same time giving regions the right of veto. I believe that was the reason for creation of the Senate and was also the selling point for provinces to join the Canadian confederation. Promises were made and then ensconced in our Constitution. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I agree with GostHacked - but "how much more" say should they have? The challenge is to create a system of representation by population but at the same time giving regions the right of veto. I believe that was the reason for creation of the Senate and was also the selling point for provinces to join the Canadian confederation. Promises were made and then ensconced in our Constitution. PEI does deserve something, but let's keep it proportional to their population and how they live. Smarter decisions need to be made. Like it would not make sense to build an arena for a major franchised sports team in Charlottetown. It would be a waste of money and resources. The population could not support it. It's not the best example, but only one I can think of at the moment. Quote
overthere Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 both ON and PEI already have representation proportionate to their population- more or less- in the Commons via elected MPs. PEI already has disproportionate representation in the Senate via four appointed Senators. How exactly do people suggest that be changed? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Ontario is bigger in area and in population compared to PEI. Therefore Ontario should have more say than PEI.In one house. The second house is supposed to balance the interests of the political geography. Edited June 16, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 both ON and PEI already have representation proportionate to their population- more or less- in the Commons via elected MPs. PEI already has disproportionate representation in the Senate via four appointed Senators. How exactly do people suggest that be changed? PEI has 2 - 3 too many seats in 1 house and 2 seats too few in the other. Quote
overthere Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 PEI has 2 - 3 too many seats in 1 house and 2 seats too few in the other. PEI should have at most 2 seats in the House, instead of 4. One would be more accurate If they were represented in the Senate proportionally, they'd have about 1/3 of one Senator instead of 4. Rebalancing the Senate is basically impossible. The original acts of confederation, BNA Act, and subsequent legislation have essentially made it impossible beyond what Harper did a few years ago in ON, BC and AB. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it cannot be fixed. Quebec and the Maritimes would never give up their numeric advantage in the Senate without massive compensation elsewhere. The 'representing the regions' concept of the Senate has become 'what's in it for me?' in modern Canada. It's dead. Bury it, one way or another. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 PEI should have at most 2 seats in the House, instead of 4. One would be more accurate If they were represented in the Senate proportionally, they'd have about 1/3 of one Senator instead of 4. Generally, upper houses have nothing to do with population. For true rep by pop, PEI should have 1 MP. For true fairness in relation to Confederation, PEI should have the exact same number of Senators as every other province (the territories should either have 1 or none as they aren't sovereign entities). Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Honest question, do you understand the Social Contract? Always with these 'do you understand?' questions; it's getting tiresome. You really want to believe that I don't agree with you because I don't 'understand' your position. I understand your position just fine, I just strongly disagree with it. Edited June 16, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 The challenge is to create a system of representation by population but at the same time giving regions the right of veto. Here is a veto: Give every province the option to leave Canada if they don't like it. I believe that was the reason for creation of the Senate and was also the selling point for provinces to join the Canadian confederation. Or maybe it was just because everyone else at the time had a senate and the upperclass wanted extra representation via the senate. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 both ON and PEI already have representation proportionate to their population- more or less- in the Commons via elected MPs. Nonsense. PEI has 1 MP per 34000 people. Ontario has 1 MP per 115000 people. Quote
overthere Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Ontario is also getting 15 new seats, which will drop your average. Ontario also has some seats with very low population/electorate. My point though, was that there is an attempt in the Commons, however weak, to apportion seats in relation to population- in spite of constitutional guarantees to small places like PEI. The imbalance in the Senate is much more profound, and unfixable. I made that clear, yet you chose to quote out of context. Don't do that again. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Big Guy Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 So Harper has declared that he would no longer appoint senators with the end result that it will just go away. First he poisons the Senate with his appointments then decides to try to kill it. There is room for and a need for a Senate (proportional regional representation) in our form of democracy. It is a viable check and balance on the legislature. It is the individuals who have been appointed to those positions and those PM's who appointed them who are to blame. I believe that our Constitution was based on the assumption that our Prime Ministers would be honourable gentlemen who make appointments and decision based on what is best for the country - not what is best for them and/or their party. We have seen that we cannot trust them. Reform the process of selection. Do not punish Canada and weaken our democracy because of the selfish decisions of our Prime Ministers. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 I wonder if now, after Harper's latest announcement, the GG might step up and appoint senators to those vacant seats. Not likely before the election in any case. Quote
Argus Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 I wonder if now, after Harper's latest announcement, the GG might step up and appoint senators to those vacant seats. Not likely before the election in any case. You don't really approve of democracy, do you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) So Harper has declared that he would no longer appoint senators with the end result that it will just go away. I suspect most Canadians would strongly approve. First he poisons the Senate with his appointments then decides to try to kill it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that his appointments were any worse than the ones which were made by previous PMs? There is room for and a need for a Senate (proportional regional representation) in our form of democracy. It is a viable check and balance on the legislature. It is the individuals who have been appointed to those positions and those PM's who appointed them who are to blame. No, it is basic human nature and political reality which is to blame. No PM is going to stuff the senate with people who might get in the way of his government's agenda. And why should he, given his party was elected and the senate was not? I believe that our Constitution was based on the assumption that our Prime Ministers would be honourable gentlemen who make appointments and decision based on what is best for the country - not what is best for them and/or their party. Well then it was a pretty stupid supposition on the part of the idiots who created it. Except that the idiots who created it were the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau, and he had no issue with stuffing the Senate with loyal party members. None whatsoever. We have seen that we cannot trust them. Reform the process of selection. Do not punish Canada and weaken our democracy because of the selfish decisions of our Prime Ministers. It is a unique perspective that not putting unelected people into a Senate which can frustrate the will of the elected legislature is somehow weakening democracy. And you cannot reform the process of selection without a constitutional amendment which, even if it were possible, would take years to negotiate with the various provinces. Edited July 25, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 Actually the original constitution act was from 1867 so a little before Trudeau's time don't you think? Trudeau patriated the act in 1982, with the endorsement of all provinces except Quebec, so it's interesting how quickly you wish to blame Trudeau and the Liberals. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 You don't really approve of democracy, do you? Huh? Quote
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Posted July 25, 2015 Actually the original constitution act was from 1867 so a little before Trudeau's time don't you think? Trudeau patriated the act in 1982, with the endorsement of all provinces except Quebec, so it's interesting how quickly you wish to blame Trudeau and the Liberals. The onerous requirements for change were brought in with the 1982 changes. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.