On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 The onerous requirements for change were brought in with the 1982 changes. Sorry but I think the problems stem mostly from the BNA act. The fathers of confederation unfortunately were more politicians than philosophers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Sorry but I think the problems stem mostly from the BNA act. The fathers of confederation unfortunately were more politicians than philosophers.No, the problems come as a result of the changes in 1982 that ended Parliamentary supremacy.The fathers created an imperfect system. Trudeau cemented it in place. Edited July 25, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Anyone who thinks that a prime minister Mulcair would refuse to appoint NDP stalwarts to the senate in the event of him getting into power is living on moondust and fairy tales. He'd be faced with a senate made up of people who continually frustrated everything he wanted to do - which, come to think of it, was what happened to Harper when he took over. You can be damn sure he wouldn't just put up with that for years in hopes of getting some kind of new constitutional agreement. And his political history with the Quebec Liberals was hardly of a man earnestly seeking consensus, but rather, a bulldog who stomped over anyone who got in his way. He's not a man who brooks dissent, any more than Harper is. Edited July 25, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 No, the problems come as a result of the changes in 1982 that ended Parliamentary supremacy. The fathers created an imperfect system. Trudeau cemented it in place. Um, I think I prefer having things as they are rather than all the power in the hands of an oppressive government, and more of it in the hands of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Anyone who thinks that a prime minister Mulcair would refuse to appoint NDP stalwarts to the senate in the event of him getting into power is living on moondust and fairy tales. He'd be faced with a senate made up of people who continually frustrated everything he wanted to do - which, come to think of it, was what happened to Harper when he took over. You can be damn sure he wouldn't just put up with that for years in hopes of getting some kind of new constitutional agreement. And his political history with the Quebec Liberals was hardly of a man earnestly seeking consensus, but rather, a bulldog who stomped over anyone who got in his way. He's not a man who brooks dissent, any more than Harper is. Hopefully Mulcair won't appoint so many criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Hopefully Mulcair won't appoint so many criminals. Nobody knowingly appointed any criminals, however, the institution was obviously very free and easy about what you could charge off as an expense, and had been that way for decades if not forever. Anyone who thinks the type of people the NDP appoint will be more noble and holy and virtuous than all the ones appointed before is dreaming. The NDP have acted pretty much the same as other parties in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Um, I think I prefer having things as they are rather than all the power in the hands of an oppressive government, and more of it in the hands of the people. I especially love how we can't change something as widely reviled as the Canadian Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I especially love how we can't change something as widely reviled as the Canadian Senate. Who says we can't change it? Just have to make the 7/50 amending formula work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Who says we can't change it? Just have to make the 7/50 amending formula work. Which is politically impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Which is politically impossible. It's been done a few times, albeit for fairly minor amendments. Of course the 2 biggest failures were Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 It's been done a few times, albeit for fairly minor amendments. We're talking about the Senate here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 We're talking about the Senate here. That's right, so if you want to abolish it, not just change it, then the 7/50 won't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 That's right, so if you want to abolish it, not just change it, then the 7/50 won't work. Yes, and that will probably be easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Which is politically impossible. It's not impossible. People aren't thinking creative enough. What the federal government needs to do is threaten economic sanctions or economic retaliation against any province that does not agree with senate abolition. So If PEI thinks its people deserve 50 x more senate representation as British Columbians, perhaps PEI should pay 50 times as many taxes per capita as BC. Another option is for the provinces that are pro-abolition to separate from Canada and declare a republic of Canada with a completely new legal foundation. Then they will no longer be restricted by our current flawed legal foundation. So a second option is to essentially destroy the current Canadian state and replace it with a new and better one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) We keep going around and around this Senate circle, and in the course of making the trip, we keep forgetting two key things: 1. The first order of business of any fascist government, (such as Mussolini, for example), was to abolish the senate. Governments who do not want any oversight want to abolish Senates. (Which makes me confused about Mulcair and the NDP. Abolishing the senate is so contrary to what I would expect their general principles to be..) 2. The Senate is not "widely reviled". Only some of the people in it are widely reviled. Harper and his cronies are also "widely reviled" by a large portion of the population, but we are not talking about abolishing the House of Commons, are we? Right now, the best solution is Trudeau's idea to disassociate the Senate from the political partisanship. Abolishing it is a non-starter, starving it and/or sanctions against un-cooperative provinces is extortion, not "thinking outside the box", Extortion deserves jail time. Oh yeah.... as to the senate "not doing anything".... here is their report on bitcoin and digital currencies, completed last month in spite of their "troubles":.... over 70 witnesses from CSIS to Banks, to Businessnes to Bitcoin, itself. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwil9cvB1_fGAhXSBZIKHS2WDUE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parl.gc.ca%2FContent%2FSEN%2FCommittee%2F412%2Fbanc%2Frep%2Frep12jun15-e.pdf&ei=Bj20VaXaONKLyAStrLaIBA&usg=AFQjCNEi0tmNu6l_Oth-8Nju7TbjlcBzAg&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw Edited July 26, 2015 by Icebound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The first order of business of any fascist government, (such as Mussolini, for example), was to abolish the senate. Is the second order to implement proportional representation? Abolishing it is a non-starter Anything other than abolition is unacceptable and immoral or inefficient. Having a situation where people in PEI have over 50 times as much representation per capita as people in BC violates the concept of democratic equality. Having an unelected body where people just appoint their political friends results in corruption. Even if you rectified both of these problems, at best you would have a duplicate of the house of commons, which would make the senate a pointless waste of money. starving it and/or sanctions against un-cooperative provinces is extortion, not "thinking outside the box" Prior to the USA civil war, the slavery abolitionists tried to isolate and punish the non-compliant states in order to get rid of slavery. Were the abolitionists unjust extortionists that deserved to go to jail? as to the senate "not doing anything".... here is their report Congratulations, they produced a report. You know there are cheaper ways to produce reports, right? Hire civil servants or fund universities or think tanks. You would get far more and better quality reports per dollar spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 It's not impossible. People aren't thinking creative enough. What the federal government needs to do is threaten economic sanctions or economic retaliation against any province that does not agree with senate abolition. That's idiotic. The federal government does not impose economic sanctions on its own people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Abolishing the senate requires the permission of all ten provinces, which will NOT happen. Even getting agreement on how it should be reformed, how it is to be elected, and what powers it would have vs the HoC would take years. We do not want to create a system like they have down south where two opposing bodies bring legislation to a standstill. That means the HoC has to remain supreme. So I think Harper was wrong to simply say he won't appoint any senators. That isn't sustainable anyway. Eventually, someone will sue him saying he's not fulfilling his constitutional requirement and he'll have to appoint new senators. If I was him, facing this election where many hunger for change, I would have instead appointed 22 new senators. None would have been a former politician. I'd appoint distinguished Canadians from all ranks of life, a former army general, a professor, a distinguished lawyer, a doctor, a police chief, a scientist, hell, appoint Wayne Gretzky. Appoint people with the Order of Canada. Make it a home for distinguished Canadians rather than a reward for party hacks. It might pose problems, after that, of course, since they wouldn't be obedient to the government, but any reasonable reformation of the senate would do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Harper is far too partisan for that. You and I both know that. It's his biggest failing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Harper is far too partisan for that. You and I both know that. It's his biggest failing. Granted. But as I said, any realistic reformation of the Senate is going to make it more than a rubber stamp. He's asked the premiers to arrange as system whereby senators are elected. That will give them a legitimacy appointees simply don't have, and give the government even more issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Granted. But as I said, any realistic reformation of the Senate is going to make it more than a rubber stamp. He's asked the premiers to arrange as system whereby senators are elected. That will give them a legitimacy appointees simply don't have, and give the government even more issues. The worst part about the Senate is the disparity in provincial numbers. Until that issue is fixed, nothing else can really go anywhere. Making a change that ends up handing more power to Ontario and Quebec is going to be a no go anywhere else. Edited July 26, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The worst part about the Senate is the disparity in provincial numbers. Until that issue is fixed, nothing else can really go anywhere. Making a change that ends up handing more power to Ontario and Quebec is going to be a no go anywhere else. The problem of senate reformation is the same as the problem of health care reform. Both will take a considerable investment of time and political capital, with the payout only happening years later. That is why neither is being attempted, nor will be. We have a deep lack of far-sighted politicians in this country. Maybe we trained them that way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The strength of a democracy is representation of the people. I believe that includes representation of the views of all regions within the nation. Representation by population is satisfied by elections to the House where each elected person represents about the same number of people. When this country was first created, each region was promised a say in the running of the government - this is called representation by region. In the United States, this is satisfied by giving each state the right to 2 Senators. So Wyoming with a population of about half a million gets 2 Senators and California with 39 million also gets 2 Senators. California has about 80 times the population of Wyoming but is entitled to the same representation as Wyoming 2. This situation guarantees that each State gets a say in governing. If the Canadian Senate were abolished, Ontario and Quebec represent over 50% of the population and could basically ignore the needs of most of the rest of Canada. The 4 Atlantic provinces may as well whistle in the wind with about 7% of the population. I doubt if they would have joined Canada originally if they had not been guaranteed representation through the senate. The problem is not the structure, the problem is that those "honourable gentlemen" who are recent Prime Ministers cannot be trusted to appoint other "honourable gentlemen" whose top priority is the betterment of our nation. Change the process of appointment and the Senate will again be one of the checks and balances that keep our democracy strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 In the United States, this is satisfied by giving each state the right to 2 Senators. So Wyoming with a population of about half a million gets 2 Senators and California with 39 million also gets 2 Senators. California has about 80 times the population of Wyoming but is entitled to the same representation as Wyoming 2. And that's nothing like our system, and that's a big problem for us. We have some kind of BS regions that we made up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) I don't think PEI should have the same representation as Ontario. It has a population of less than Sudbury alone. Perhaps if the maritimes were one province, it might make more sense. There would still be a huge disparity in population, but it would make more sense looking at it as a region. Edited July 26, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.